Back

In _A Mathematician’s Apology_, G. H. Hardy argues for the virtue of mathematics as a beautiful aesthetic pursuit with intrinsic value that is not dependent on any kind of applied utility. He talks about various fields that in his view will •never• have any sort of practical application, and the two examples he gives are…number theory and relativity.

Oops!

Ah, I see some Wikipedia editor noticed the same thing — and I’m slightly misremembering what Hardy said (though the “oops” still applies!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Apology#Critiques

Number theory and relativity are great examples not just of how theories find surprising applications, but how ethically decoupled the applications are from the theory.

Number theory gave us encryption, but also blockchain.

Relativity gave us accurate GPS, but also nuclear weapons.

You just can’t know. Simultaneously hopeful and grim news for the theoretician who wonders whether their abstruse work might have tangible, practical value! Hardy’s “focus on the beauty” stance may be the wise one.

(To be clear: “the wise one” for the theoretician for whom application is beyond the horizon of predictability. Those of us who engineer practical applications can and should be on the hook for what we build!)

@inthehands Never say never - and now physicists and coming with new math

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theorists-accidentally-find-a-new-formula-for-pi/

@brianrepko
That’s the link that started the thread!

@inthehands I saw you posted that after I replied - apologies!