> If the aim of mathematics is to promote greater human understanding...
Is this the aim of mathematics?
Is this the aim of mathematics?
There's no such consensus. Read Hardy's "A Mathematician's Apology" to get a better understanding.
Here's a quote which gives some idea of where Hardy was coming from: "I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world."
Hardy valued math for its beauty, elegance, and permanence, and he's far from the only mathematician who would push back on the idea that mathematics should be "useful to humanity", except perhaps in the sense that art is useful to humanity.
Ironically of course the answer is yes.
It's also very risky to frame it that way, because that immediately leads to the idea that mathematical endeavors should be judged and funded according to their expected utility. That's product development, not research.
Think of it like this: when your extremely efficient 2-3 SD brain that could pattern match more aggressively than mere mortals seems to be losing ground to aggressively scalable stochastic parrots that can pattern match faster than you, you replace your contempt for teaching and pedagogy with sudden epiphany and awakening that nurturing curious Math lovers and developing the human spirit is what it's all about. It's a good gambit.
> are you projecting some past trauma
That you seem to have difficulty parsing the comment you're replying to, to the point of assuming it's about an individual rather than the community, is in itself a diagnosis that may benefit from professional help. The amateurish psychoanalysis hobby can probably wait while you get that sorted out.
Possibly you're just a jerk? That would explain why you're insulting both Terry Tao and me.
I'm willing to let you find comfort in your attempt to prove a negative. There's safety in numbers, as it were.