another point to consider. Atiyah used to say one direct really understand a proof unless one can prove it five different ways.
Based on this, Navier Stokes or the Hopf problem solution is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if a result is proved, it’s very worthwhile to find a totally different way to prove the result. One that’s conceptually clean and requires the development of new tools. This is something that the mathematical community should value bunch more than it currently does.
So for example a grad student finding a totally new path to a known result is a good thesis.
We may be swamped by ai proved results (although I don’t think this is necessarily guaranteed since the ai proofs seem to gravitate toward proving results in the negative via counter example). However, it’ll be the job of mathematicians to look for conceptually clean proofs that also open up new avenues of research. This may actually increase the need for research mathematicians (basically what Daniel Lott is arguing I think)
Diffgeometer1
npub1hd…k9se4
2026-09-11 16:12:54 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…pj4x
Author Public Key
npub1hdkuf2expv4gele847pq24raux2mp20dkrtvrvkvcrvpmfq3mqmq8k9se4Seen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2026-09-11 16:12:54 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "ccc2cdcad2995b4545be752a3d5555812727a7c31314d5891dcd3faf2892b32d",
"pubkey": "bb6dc4ab260b2a8cff27af8205547de195b0a9edb0d6c1b2ccc0d81da411d836",
"created_at": 1789143174,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/@Diffgeometer1/117253287090306567",
"web"
],
[
"p",
"a99ab49828156ff9b0ee71fdd0d947182a16626d9e04c9c3ed90e4daf148d4ca"
],
[
"e",
"3fa9b384477d481825886e7a1689210a3721758518e57bb4c722fc39422cd8e1",
"",
"reply",
"9a6a1a8eefd0b53d7e0c966ab35bd904151246f03b1be98fa0d2d0eeb4940320"
],
[
"p",
"9a6a1a8eefd0b53d7e0c966ab35bd904151246f03b1be98fa0d2d0eeb4940320"
],
[
"e",
"cc7ce64f3a76b9d128ef38be83748028ec8feffb4cc0a6d6ec1bbe7890256a29",
"",
"root",
"9a6a1a8eefd0b53d7e0c966ab35bd904151246f03b1be98fa0d2d0eeb4940320"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/Diffgeometer1/statuses/117253287090306567",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://mathstodon.xyz/users/Diffgeometer1/statuses/117253287090306567",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "another point to consider. Atiyah used to say one direct really understand a proof unless one can prove it five different ways. \n\nBased on this, Navier Stokes or the Hopf problem solution is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if a result is proved, it’s very worthwhile to find a totally different way to prove the result. One that’s conceptually clean and requires the development of new tools. This is something that the mathematical community should value bunch more than it currently does.\n\nSo for example a grad student finding a totally new path to a known result is a good thesis. \n\nWe may be swamped by ai proved results (although I don’t think this is necessarily guaranteed since the ai proofs seem to gravitate toward proving results in the negative via counter example). However, it’ll be the job of mathematicians to look for conceptually clean proofs that also open up new avenues of research. This may actually increase the need for research mathematicians (basically what Daniel Lott is arguing I think)",
"sig": "432d5bcaefe85fab71bf6db9c0e714a32dcb9cda83a3ae6f6d8c84c7f9a0899ad762fc70ef9f097274f009d6f4323c0316a7f08a6f4a19ca5ef2cc6087a18328"
}