Abstract
The Polymath Project is an online collaborative enterprise that was initiated in 2009, when Timothy Gowers asked whether and how groups could work together to solve mathematical problems that “do not naturally split up into a vast number of subtasks.” Gowers proposed to answer this question himself by actually trying to set up such a collaboration, based on interactions taking place in the comment-threads of a series of posts on a WordPress blog. Hence, the first project officially started in early 2009, to be proclaimed successful only 6 weeks later (Gowers and Nielsen 2009). From its inception until April 2018, 15 more Polymath problems (and a handful of smaller or related ones) have been launched. These projects have attracted attention from different scholarly communities, including the philosophy of mathematical practices, from the perspective of which the Polymath Project can be seen as a vast repository of mathematics in action. This chapter continues previous work by its authors on the topic in question and topics related. More specifically, for the purposes of this volume, it is our aim to both summarize and expand upon these earlier contributions. The starting point is the above observation that in the past decade, the issue of “massively collaborative mathematics” (to be qualified below) has drawn quite some attention. However, does it also warrant intensive philosophical attention in particular? For, as exciting as these developments might be from mathematical and other points of view, the enhanced possibilities that have come with it do not per se give rise to any philosophical import. In Van Bendegem (2011), one of us has indeed tentatively argued for the philosophical relevance of these new dynamics of proof construction flowing from the wide availability and efficiency of Internet technology. We shall below briefly rehearse and update the argument given there.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allo P, Van Bendegem JP, Van Kerkhove B (2013) Mathematical arguments and distributed knowledge. In: Abderdein A, Dove I (eds) The argument of mathematics. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 339–360
Alstott J, Bullmore E, Plenz D (2014) Powerlaw: a Python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions. PLoS One 9(1):e85777
Aron J (2011) How to build the global math brain. New Scientist 210(2811):10–11
Ball P (2014) Strength in numbers. Nature 506(7489):422–423
Barabási A-L (2016) Network science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
Barany MJ (2010) But this is blog maths and we’re free to make up conventions as we go along. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on wikis and open collaboration. Association for Computing Machinery, New York
Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) Analyzing affiliation networks. In: The sage handbook of social network analysis, vol 1. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 417–433
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2018) Analyzing social networks. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Castelvecchi D (2010) Problem solved, LOL. Sci Am 302(4):16–18
Comaniciu D, Meer P (2002) Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(5):603–619
Cranshaw J, Kittur A (2011) The polymath project: lessons from a successful online collaboration in mathematics. In: Conf Hum Fact Comput Syst Proc Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 1865–1874
Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R (2010) Teamwork in multi-agent systems. A formal approach. Wiley series in agent technology. Wiley, Chichester
Ester M, Kriegel H-P, Sander J, Xu X (1996) A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp 226–231
Franzoni C, Sauermann H (2014) Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res Policy 43(1):1–20
Geist C, Löwe B, Van Kerkhove B (2010) Peer review and knowledge by testimony in mathematics. In: PhiMSAMP: philosophy of mathematics: sociological aspects and mathematical practice. College Publications, London, pp 155–178
Gowers WT (2000) The two cultures of mathematics. In: Arnold VI, Atiyah M, Lax PD, Mazur B (eds) Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 65–78
Gowers WT (2010) Polymath and the density hales-Jewett theorem. Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies 21:659–687
Gowers T, Nielsen M (2009) Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature 461(7266):879–881
Grossman JW (2002) Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. SIAM News 35(9):8–9
Klarreich E (2013) Together and alone, closing the prime gap. Quanta Mag, Nov 19
Klarreich E (2015) A magical answer to an 80-year-old puzzle. Quanta Mag, Oct 1
Kloumann IM, Tan C, Kleinberg J, Lee L (2016) Internet collaboration on extremely difficult problems: research versus olympiad questions on the polymath site. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. WWW ‘16. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Geneva, pp 1283–1292
Lane, Lorenzo, Martin, Ursula, Murray-Rust, Dave, Pease, Alison, & Tanswell, Fenner. 2019. Journeys in mathematical landscapes: genius or craft?: Hanna, Gila, Reid, David A., & de Villiers, Michael (eds), Proof technology in mathematics research and teaching. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 197–212
Martin U, Pease A (2013) Mathematical practice, crowdsourcing, and social machines. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on intelligent computer mathematics. CICM’13. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–119
Meyer ET, Schroeder R (2015) Knowledge machines: digital transformations of the sciences and humanities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Nathanson MB (2010) One, two, many: individuality and collectivity in mathematics. Math Intell 33(1):5–8
Nielsen MA (2010) Introduction to the polymath project and “density hales-Jewett and Moser numbers”. In: Bárány I, Solymosi J (eds) An irregular mind. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg, pp 651–657
Nielsen MA (2012) Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Parsley J, Rusinko J (2017) CRP: collaborative research project (a mathematical research experience for undergraduates). Primus 27(4–5):442–450
Pease A, Martin U (2012) Seventy four minutes of mathematics: an analysis of the third Mini-Polymath project. In: Proceedings of AISB symposium on mathematical practice and cognition II. Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, Bath, pp 19–29
Pease A, Martin U, Tanswell FS, Aberdein A (2020) Using crowdsourced mathematics to understand mathematical practice. ZDM 52(6):1087–1098
Polymath DHJ (2014) The “bounded gaps between primes” Polymath project - a retrospective. Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society 94:13–23
Sarvate D, Wetzel S, Patterson W (2011) Analyzing massively collaborative mathematics projects. Math Intell 33(1):9–18
Sauermann H, Franzoni C (2015) Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(3):679–684
Van Bendegem JP (2011) Mathematics and the new technologies, part III: the cloud and the web of proofs. In: Schroeder-Heister P, Heinzmann G, Hodges W, Bour PE (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. Proceedings of the 14th international congress (Nancy). Logic and science facing the new technologies. College Publications, London, pp 427–439
Van Bendegem JP, Van Kerkhove B (2009) Mathematical arguments in context. Found Sci 14(1):45–57
Varshney LR (2012) Toward a comparative cognitive history: Archimedes and D. H. J. Polymath. Collective Intelligence 2012: Proceedings (arXiv:1204.3534). MIT, Cambridge, MA
Wagenknecht S (2014) Opaque and translucent epistemic dependence in collaborative scientific practice. Episteme 11(4):475–492
Watson D, Floridi L (2018) Crowdsourced science: sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese 195(2):741–764
Whitley R (2000) The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zadrozny W, de Paiva V, Moss, LS (2015) Explaining Watson: polymath style. AAAI 2015, Palo Alto, CA, pp 4078–4082
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Allo, P., Van Bendegem, J.P., Van Kerkhove, B. (2021). Polymath as an Epistemic Community. In: Sriraman, B. (eds) Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19071-2_86-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19071-2_86-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19071-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19071-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MathematicsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering