I wonder if there are some fields in mathematics where a naive approach by somebody less acquainted with the subject might have some chances of success tackling small or peripherical questions, eventually under somebody's guidance.

I know that math knowledge is cumulative. You can't learn advanced mathematics without knowing the basics, and the “average guy” (after Lou Reed's song) knows very little about this, but is it absurd to consider the hypothesis that there might be areas or problems where ignoring much of the basics might lead to an original approach that somebody more acquainted would reasonably have discarded?

I am thinking of areas whith problems easier to understand (which does not necessarily mean easier to solve) like discrete mathematics, or areas and problems which tipically deserv less attention for not being so popular, important, or difficult. Maybe in this territory chances of progress would not be so small.

I know many discoveries occur by accident. Probably the average person can't proof anything hard, but maybe he or she can find a new integer sequence or a new idea for an algorithm that slightly improves upon another. I am not thinking of discoveries resulting from direct observation of data (like finding patterns in moon soil images). Though surely modest, I am thinking of research envolving some kind of creativity.

I must confess that ever since I saw the enjoyable movie “Ratatouille”, where one finds the idea that “anyone can cook”, I have developed this childish belief that the same applies to science: “Anyone can research”. Well, in practice maybe I am thinking of “almost anyone”, converging to “anyone” as time goes by. My belief is somehow confirmed by my own (though very modest) experience so far.

Is this just wishful thinking?

Similar questions and discussions