For physicists:<\/p>\n
For specific numbers, see for instance page 20 of this presentation<\/a>, which shows numbers for the DOE HEP budget in recent years. The pattern for FY2020 looks the same: a huge proposed decrease, and a huge likely increase (see the number for the House Mark).<\/p>\n The result of all this is that far greater funds are available than expected during the last P5 planning exercise, so instead of having to make the difficult decisions P5 expected, a wider list of projects can be funded.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n For mathematicians;<\/p>\n Wiles and the number theorists who refined and extended his ideas undoubtedly didn\u2019t anticipate the recent suggestions from the two logicians. But \u2014 unlike many who follow number theory at a distance \u2014 they were certainly aware that a proof like the one Wiles published is not meant to be treated as a self-contained artifact. On the contrary, Wiles\u2019 proof is the point of departure for an open-ended dialogue that is too elusive and alive to be limited by foundational constraints that are alien to the subject matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t know who the “two logicians” Harris is referring to are, or what the nature of their concerns about the Wiles proof might be. I had thought this might have something to do with number theorist Kevin Buzzard’s Xena Project<\/a>, but in a comment<\/a> Buzzard describes such a formalization as currently impractical, with no clear motivation.<\/p>\n Taking a look at the page describing the motivation for the Xena Project<\/a>, I confess to finding it unconvincing. The idea of revamping the undergraduate math curriculum to make it based on computer checkable proofs seems misguided, since I don’t see at all why this is a good way to teach mathematical concepts or motivate undergraduate students. The complaints about holes in the math literature (e.g. details of the classification of finite simple groups) don’t seem to me to be something that can be remedied by a computer.\n<\/li>\n For a wonderful recent interview with Talagrand, see here<\/a>. I’ve recently received significant help from someone else, Lasse Schmieding, who has sent me a very helpful list of mistakes and typos in the published version of the book. I’ve now fixed just about all of them. Note that the version of the book available on my website<\/a> has all typos\/mistakes fixed. For the published version, there’s a list of errata<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Update<\/strong>: For more about the Michael Harris vs. Kevin Buzzard argument, see here<\/a>, or plan on attending their face-off in Paris next week<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For physicists: For the latest news on US HEP funding, see presentations at this recent HEPAP meeting. It is rarely publicly acknowledged by scientists, but during the Trump years funding for a lot of scientific research research has increased, often … Continue reading \n
\n
\nI first got to know Michel when he started sending me very helpful comments and corrections on my QM book when it was a work in progress. He’s single-handedly responsible for a lot of significant improvements in the quality of the book.<\/p>\n