No label defined (Q4501772)

It is noted from the beginning that there is a distinction between mathematicians who regard their central aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with developing and understanding. According to this there are ``two cultures'' that are familiar to all professional mathematicians. If a mathematician is not sure to which class he (or she) belongs, then he (or she) should consider the following two statements: 1) The point of solving problems is to understand mathematics better. 2) The point of understanding mathematics is to become better able to solve problems. Most mathematicians would say that there is truth in both 1) and 2). The author underlines that when he says that mathematicians can be classified into theory-builders and problem-solvers. He is talking about their priorities, rather than making the ridiculous claim that they are exclusively devoted to only one sort of mathematical activity. It is obvious that mathematics needs both sorts of mathematicians and it is equally obvious that different branches of mathematics require different aptitude. Then the author mentions ``an asymmetry'' which is an objectivity of the present time. It is that the subjects that appeal to theory-builders are, at the moment, much more fashionable than the ones that appeal to problem-solvers. Moreover, mathematicians in the theory-building areas often regard what they are doing as the central core of mathematics, with subjects such as combinatorics thought of as peripherial and not practically relevant to the main aims of mathematics. The main purpose of the article is to defend some of the less fashionable subjects against criticism commonly made of them. The author devotes most of his attention to combinatorics, since that is the area which he knows best. For the entire collection see [Zbl 1047.00015].