I think that we need a way of doing math where things don’t need to proven completely before moving on. Like if a hypothesis about prime numbers is so far true for the first 10,000 of them we could say it's “finitely true” or something. Then anything we prove using that fact would also be only true in a limited sense. I’m guessing that for many practical purposes this only partially true result would be enough. Are there logics which think about this idea of partial truth? @JadeMasterMath But Hardy and Littlewood did something really cool: they proved something assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is true, and proved it a completely different way assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is false! Both ways really *use* the assumption they made. https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1199427147284115457

@JadeMasterMath: There are lots of mathematical concepts which don’t have well written resources to learn about them. I think that explaining something in a clear way with a story arc can sometimes be enough. @jeremyjkun: Write about the topics that you learned, where there was a succinct phrase, picture, or idea that suddenly made it clear. Then arrange the whole blog post around getting the reader to that same understanding.