So I find it totally strange to write such a hagiographic article around Tao, with the irony being that it is about collaborative maths.
Sure, Tao does lots and I mostly think that's great, but this article is weird, and it makes me a little concerned about the book.
It acknowledges @wtgowers.bsky.social started the first polymath project, but makes it seem like Tao quickly took over. But the polymath projects were collaborative by design, with lots of contributors.
Jeremy Avigad, for one, has been writing about proof, formalisation, and mathematical understanding for decades by now.
Against Identity is out in paperback tomorrow! www.penguin.co.uk/books/456203...
Sorry for the advertising, but it’s my first public-facing book, so I’m excitable.
Here are the reviews in the Guardian and the Telegraph:
www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fi...
www.theguardian.com/books/2025/j...
Wenn an deutschen Universitäten mangels funktionierender Gebäude bald nur „unter freiem Himmel“ unterrichtet werden kann (wie an der TU Berlin zeitweise erwogen wurde).. (1/2)
This article is an excerpt from Hartnett's new book about Lean. I'm excited to read the book, but not very impressed by this article.
Specifically, the story is fundamentally about collaboration, and to frame that as a story entirely about Tao is bizarre.
www.quantamagazine.org/how-terry-ta...
Some discussion points to get my students talking about proofs and rigour tomorrow.
Yes, Tao has been central to lots of projects, and a public figure discussing the technological turn, but not all of the ideas about collaboration are unique insights by Tao.
Some discussion points to get my students talking about proofs and rigour tomorrow.
He only learned Lean in 2023. Lots of formalisation has been going on for decades before. The first Big Proof meeting at the INI was in 2017, and Ursula Martin's Social Machine of Maths project was earlier still, and at both there was wide discussion of formalisation and collaboration.