Is Math a Young Man's Game?

Very interesting. :D
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082960/

I think mathematical development has slowed down as a result of the depth to which the "first" science has been developed. Like the essay said, there's simply more math to learn nowadays. But that kind of sucks since by the time you enough to be able to push the field forward, you're already on the decline.

(In short, logic is a young man's game. Both chess and math, and probably physics.)

I find the snippet below very interesting in that what we learn now was the state of the art and that an additional few years of studying can propel ones knowledge ahead by a large amount of years. I still don't buy into the theory that younger people are better at math then older people. Its been proven that as we age reflexes and motor skills degrade but out ability to work with numbers increases.

"The undergraduate curriculum at Princeton brings students to the state of the art in research—as it was around the time of Poincaré's death in 1912. A year of backbreaking work in graduate school suffices to turn the clock forward to 1950 or so."

Its not just numbers, its logic. How do you explain that the best chess players are always young (relatively)?

How do you explain most college professors are old? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dilenger4
How do you explain most college professors are old? :D

---

Theres more to learn (like the essay said), it takes time to get a professorship, and the young guys are the ones doing research :D

I suspect that partly, the young don't know better. As we build experience, we stop exploring avenues because we see them as dead ends. Sometimes those dead ends aren't as dead as we believe. However, if we believe them to lead nowhere, we don't explore them.

Yes, we young people are the best ever. :D

I hate it when our teacher gives us a big problem, with some concept we haven't learned, then gives us the answer at the end of the class. :(

I also hate it when I find a quicker way through things and I'm forced to use the "accepted" way. (Used trig to find distance between point and 'line' on graph instead of the slope etc...)

The genius who wins Nobel prizes and makes creative advances in most fields is almost always young, usually less than 30, and seldom over 40.

The much better than average (but not genius) in many fields is often older rather than younger. Experience and maturity are very important for excellent, but not genius level, work. Many young people with the potential for genius lack mental discipline. In addition to intelligence, some amount of obsessive compulsive dedication is required for genius level performance.

While the genius is often a non conformist, good judgement is also required. There are a lot of very bright non conformists who lack any critical judgment capabilities. If you are too conformist, you become a teacher, not one who makes discoveries. If you are too open minded, your brains fall out.

I consider myself to be more competent intellectually than many who post at this forum due to experience, a good education, and good intellectual resources. I believe that many who are teenagers will be my superior in a few years.

High level intellectual effort requires the use of a lot of physical resources. As we age, our physical resources decline and can no longer support high level creative work. At the bridge table, I often find myself making errors due to not being able to concentrate for 50-60 deals over an 8-hour period. It is analogous to Jack Nicklaus at golf. For one round, he has a good chance of beating anybody. For 4 rounds over 4 days, he can no longer beat the average professional. After 35-45, the ability to concentrate and focus intently is no longer there.

Did you know that Bobby Fisher in his prime did a lot of physical exercise because he knew that he needed body resources to support his mind?

I forget the exact numbers, but the brain, which is a small percentage of the body, consumes 20% or more of the glucose and oxygen when working at a high level.

At my age, I wish it were otherwise. I often outperform intelligent young people due to a lot of experience, but cannot compete with the young who are bright as I was when I was younger. The genius is way beyond me, although there was a time when I thought I was one of them (teenagers think they are indestructible and know everything). When I was a teenager, I expected to win a Nobel prize and represent the USA in at least one Olympic sport.

When they said young they ment under 50 which i did not know until i went back and reread that article. Being that i am 30 years old i often ask myself if i should change my major from mathematics to somthing a little less intellectually exhaustive.

Dilenger4: You are not too old at 30 to pursue a career in mathematics. You are merely past the age when you are likely to do genius level work in any field.

Anybody who has not shown outstanding creative ability by 30 is never going to do it. Many people over 30 are still capable of outperforming 98% of the population. It is not a serious defect to be second best to the .01% who are creative geniuses in mathematics, music, physics, sports, whatever.

I think there is also the fact that "older" people generally don't have the time to devote to pure science research.
I mean, a PHD thesis is the perfect vehicle to yeild some amazing "pure science" research.
As we get older, it occurs to us to go get a job and we generally steer research (if we are so lucky to even get a job where we would produce such) to the betterment of our company which may or may not be ready for large advances in technology or whatever.

also, who but kids have time to sit around a play chess all day and night?