>>11210548Yeah, he's done interesting work in combinatorics, number theory, and analysis.
Sci will naturally shit on him for some vague and nebulous reasons along the lines of "hes mechanically gifted but not a revolutionary", or "he's smart but he's never created a new field of math or anything like that". Ultimately this is just cope by a mix of popsci-fags, "logicians"/cat theorists/CS theory types/philosophy students, and the Dawkins fanboy, reddit-user shitposter types who have taken over this board and constantly debate topics like anti-vax and DMT.
Tbh people like Erdos, Frank Ramsey, Herbert Wilf, and Terrence Tao have done really intersting BEAUTIFUL work, and if I might draw an analogy that might be comprehensible to a larger educated audience, the methods of this group of mathematicians are very much akin to the later Wittgenstein: the principle concern is not to construct all-embracing theories or provide a very high-level, abstract account of some domain of problems, but to rather collect many disparate but related observations, from which an entirely different picture of mathematics and its connections begins to emerge.
