Our Evolving (Un)knowing in Science & Math: Edward Frenkel 

Would you demand that all art must address your list of worthy problems? If not then why must mathematics do this? Curious people chasing highly abstract mathematical expression without any thought of practicality have nevertheless come out with with highly original and unexpectedly useful tools. The Radon Transformation is an example of obsure mathematics studied in 1917 finding application in medical computer imaging. Demanding that creative expression conform to what you presuppose is worthy is a great way to kill creativity.

​@@LinguisticLifeform First of all, I didn't mean to offend anybody; I was just stating a fact, similar to a mathematician pointing out an error. Just like noticing an open fly, some people choose to shamelessly stay silent and giggle, letting it go on for the whole day, while others do their best to point it out. Please don't be upset if you feel the 'fly' of math is open. Art holds significance because, as the current dominant species, we have the luxury of spare time to engage in artistic pursuits. However, claiming that art is essential is questionable. Consider this: a cellphone can capture more accurate pictures than the Mona Lisa. We often value rarity over true utility. Bringing art into a discussion about science indicates a considerable deviation. If everyone prioritized art over science, we might not have the technological advancements we enjoy today. Our ancestors, caring only about art and neglecting math, would have kept us as mere monkeys on trees. While it seems unfair that a songwriter can earn more than most mathematicians, it's crucial for everyone to contribute to solving problems collectively. Wasting time due to opportunities created by others shouldn't be an excuse. Think about our ancestors who focused solely on art - we wouldn't have the technology we have today. You mentioned 1917, over 100 years ago, emphasizing the need for progress and that is relay good one you have found if ture. As an end user of mathematics, I fail to see how any paper generated these today holds more value than a piece of art. However, we must work together to address this issue and not become part of the problem. If a child decides not to go to school and spends the day playing creative games for fun, it's not an excuse for us to suggest that everyone should have fun and skip school. Again, creativity should not be an excuse for engaging in activities that we know won't lead to success. Below lacks creativity. Whatever it is, it doesn't exhibit creativity. www.pinterest.com/heth243/hilariously-stupid-fashion/ On the other hand these are creative Art ( Do you see the difference? ) www.imdb.com/title/tt1530994/ www.edwardfrenkel.com/lovemath/ Lastly, creativity is not always acceptable. For example, a leech (not related to any example I have provided, just an individual argument) is very creative in its own way. but that doesn't make it okay or appreciated. I'm not implying that a leech is useless; I'm emphasizing that if everyone became like leeches, there would be no chance for us to reach our full potential. My last example was harsh, and I didn't mean to suggest it's related to any specific individual or group. My goal was to provide an irrefutable counterexample to your argument. I apologize to leeches; again, I do believe they are useful, but I don't see everyone doing the same thing as then can be good for everybody. I just want to emphasize one more time that I'm attempting to provide an irrefutable counterexample to your argument, and I don't have any specific individual, person, or group in mind at the moment. Especially, God forbid, I'm not targeting any mathematician who has ever lived or will live- not a single one of them.