/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11302461
o thanks remu. ive heard about the fruitfulness explanation before, but im guessing at this point we reach a roadblock as i dont think there is a consistent way of predicting how fruitful a field or framework will be. i point to grothendieck as an ironic example of this being the case. he claimed that topological vector spaces were 'dead'. the best grip you can have for this is by observing proofs using particular line of reasoning your framework supports. this can be seen by serre's usage of generic points and the advent of category theory making it more clear that the scheme concept could prove fruitful. at the same time, even then i doubt grothendieck would've foresaw how far the applications of some of his foundational work could yield. a foucauldian quote should suffice to express this: 'people know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they do not know is what they do does'. i did post here in case there would be a few other ideas because i still feel as though i haven't exhausted all considerations. maybe im just procrastinating or something

>>11303668
there's like 2