Skip to main content

Polymath as an Epistemic Community

Analyzing the Digital Traces of the Polymath Project

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alstott J, Bullmore E, Plenz D (2014) Powerlaw: a Python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions. PLoS One 9(1):e85777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron J (2011) How to build the global math brain. New Scientist 210(2811):10–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball P (2014) Strength in numbers. Nature 506(7489):422–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A-L (2016) Network science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) Analyzing affiliation networks. In: The sage handbook of social network analysis, vol 1. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 417–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2018) Analyzing social networks. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelvecchi D (2010) Problem solved, LOL. Sci Am 302(4):16–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comaniciu D, Meer P (2002) Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(5):603–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R (2010) Teamwork in multi-agent systems. A formal approach. Wiley series in agent technology. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni C, Sauermann H (2014) Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res Policy 43(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gowers WT (2010) Polymath and the density hales-Jewett theorem. Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies 21:659–687

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gowers T, Nielsen M (2009) Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature 461(7266):879–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman JW (2002) Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. SIAM News 35(9):8–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Klarreich E (2013) Together and alone, closing the prime gap. Quanta Mag, Nov 19

    Google Scholar 

  • Klarreich E (2015) A magical answer to an 80-year-old puzzle. Quanta Mag, Oct 1

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer ET, Schroeder R (2015) Knowledge machines: digital transformations of the sciences and humanities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson MB (2010) One, two, many: individuality and collectivity in mathematics. Math Intell 33(1):5–8

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen MA (2012) Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsley J, Rusinko J (2017) CRP: collaborative research project (a mathematical research experience for undergraduates). Primus 27(4–5):442–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease A, Martin U, Tanswell FS, Aberdein A (2020) Using crowdsourced mathematics to understand mathematical practice. ZDM 52(6):1087–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polymath DHJ (2014) The “bounded gaps between primes” Polymath project - a retrospective. Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society 94:13–23

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sarvate D, Wetzel S, Patterson W (2011) Analyzing massively collaborative mathematics projects. Math Intell 33(1):9–18

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann H, Franzoni C (2015) Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(3):679–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bendegem JP, Van Kerkhove B (2009) Mathematical arguments in context. Found Sci 14(1):45–57

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Varshney LR (2012) Toward a comparative cognitive history: Archimedes and D. H. J. Polymath. Collective Intelligence 2012: Proceedings (arXiv:1204.3534). MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenknecht S (2014) Opaque and translucent epistemic dependence in collaborative scientific practice. Episteme 11(4):475–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson D, Floridi L (2018) Crowdsourced science: sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese 195(2):741–764

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (2000) The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadrozny W, de Paiva V, Moss, LS (2015) Explaining Watson: polymath style. AAAI 2015, Palo Alto, CA, pp 4078–4082

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Van Kerkhove .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics