Also note how the quote by Tao is in all likelyhood not meant as an absolute; rather than a statement of a trend - a handfull of counterexamples do I no way change anything about the truth value of Tao's quote.
On the other heand; consider how absurd it would be if "... in the direction of no longer sharing any promising research directions with the broader community, which would reverse centuries of traditions of open science ..." would indeed be a misstatement; which would imply that far more promising research directions were not shared with the broader community (i.e.: published). I wonder what different reading of that counterfactual there could be other than secret societies that kept their discoveries and research directions to themselves - which we just learned about (since we would otherwise not be refering to the secret societies and their supposed promising research directions).
All pretty straightforward, I would say - both that "misstatement" is hopefully based an overly strict reading of Tao's quote, and that mentioning Tao's background as one of the fields leading practitioners is relevant as well. Again; to make sure: A few counterexamples achieves nothing here. It would need to reach a certain threshold of such counterexamples before we will have to write the history of mathematics; and before Tao actually made a misstatement here.
Terrence Tao can do his job perfectly well without being aware of any mathematical history, though I consider it unlikely that he is. I'm not seeing the direct link you're talking about, in fact history is frequently left out of mathematical teaching even when the history would in fact help in the understanding of some concepts.
That is well-known I assumed and continue to assume.
> I'm not seeing the direct link you're talking about
You are stating that link yourself; indirectly: "though I consider it unlikely that he is [being unaware of any mathematical history]". Why is it unlikely, precisely?
- Maybe because it is unlikely that he recieved the mathematical teaching that frequently does not contain history of mathematics (wild! I wonder which university you have in mind in particular) that you seem to be refering to?
- Maybe because his writing is evidence that he is interested about, incorporates and refers to history of mathematics, refer for example to https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/pcm-article-genera... or https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-...
- Or maybe because he is quite the opposite of a person that never ventures outside of their own area; being blind for other fields, or ones own history; as evidence by being famously collaborative across different fields, having a popular blog where he writes about non-mathematical topics too and last; him being one of the main proponents of foundational topics such as formalization of mathematics; or the use of LLMs for mathematical research.
Does all that really make it more likely to you that Tao is not aware of the existence of counterexamples like those the commenter above mentioned - more likely than the commenter simply having missed a nuance or taking something out of context?
If so; I would be genuinely curious why - people work differently, and I am always happy to learn, or close gaps in my own understanding.
And you say his "expertise is directly linked to his ability to not misstate the history of mathematics". And frankly, I disagree. If he happened to be misguided or even outright wrong about some parts of mathematical history I wouldn't think any less of him, nor do I think it matters much for the work he's actually paid to do. At worst it would result in an online discussion, which is arguably a good outcome not a bad outcome.
And if any mathematician's AI usage on a problem leads to scooping, the volume of agents involved gives them a huge advantage which could prompt mathematicians to not use LLMs.
Though you can say Terry's claim is a slippery slope.
Get outta here.
I mean, besides the empty platitude that we have no reason to assume applies here, we can easily search and find Tao commenting on the history and philosophy of mathematics.
This is a really weird subthread.
Clearly Tao knows the former, but apriori that does not imply he knows the latter.
Not saying he doesn't, just saying one does not imply the other.
Even if you go back and read the original papers, you'll miss all that which happened beyond the page.
If Tao has a knowledge of the topic (which he does), then it isn't by virtue of being a mathematician per se, but by virtue of an interest in the history of mathematics (which he has). Knowledge of math is enormously helpful here, but it does not imply historical knowledge.