Terence Tao proposes giving credit to understanding as much as we give credit to the proof.
I want to propose that we more firmly define a notion of a “motivated explanation” and that we give novel and compelling motivated explanations academic credit similar to what generating new proofs of open problems has had historically.
Further, I believe this is an important step to help those outside of math better understand what it is that mathematicians contribute. If outsiders believe that proof-generating machines render mathematicians obsolete, while insiders see that as a misconception of what researchers add, it’s incumbent on this community to better project its true values through the kind of work that it rewards. Outsiders can be forgiven for this misunderstanding if the work most celebrated skews heavily toward generating proofs, while clarification and exposition are treated as second-class.
You must be logged in to post a comment.