>>13851594Ofc there's research and blue skies research (latter is what this thread is about), but there definitely are papers that are completely and absolutely pointless that try to act like they're also blue skies research, piggybacking it (for the lack of a better word, it's basically the "you can't prove me wrong since it just needs to be used once to be useful, no matter how long it takes"). I could write a paper on RT logic circuits and their delays, but RT circuits are completely obsolete, meaning that the only time it would come to use would be if someone was trying to fix an old circuit and get the right timings (which is incredibly incredibly rare, if not never done). One person might see it but it's essentially pointless.
The one thing about mathematics in particular though, there tends to be a lot of symmetry with stuff and interlinking, so abundance can be useful in that regard (forgot the proof name, but there was one where a guy had to solve another topic nearly completely unrelated to the proof just so he could get the tools to prove the proof) but that's more because discovering maths allows for more maths to be discovered
