# New Year's Predictions in Mathematics [closed]

It is the time of year for predictions: predictions for 2011, predictions for the next decade, predictions for the unspecified future. I searched a bit for predictions in mathematics, but it seems mathematicians are too wise to engage in this dubious activity. I found only two predictions:

(1) Two New Scientist writers, Samuel Arbesman and Rachel Courtland, predict that 2011 will not see the $P=NP$ problem resolved.

(2) Sir Michael Atiyah

suggested that the conjectured self-adjoint operator that could explain the Riemann hypothesis might be the Hamiltonian of quantum gravity

in a November talk at the Simons Center, as reported by Peter Woit.

Of course it is a stretch to call Atiyah's suggestion a "prediction." And every conjecture in mathematics is a prediction! Nevertheless, in the spirit of New Year's, I would be interested to hear any predictions on future developments in mathematics.

-

## closed as no longer relevant by Andres Caicedo, Joseph O'Rourke, Harry Gindi, Charles Siegel, Felipe VolochJan 1 '11 at 0:20

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

@Roy: I think that most of the opinions on that page are abhorrent where they pertain to pure mathematics and are irrelevant otherwise. –  Harry Gindi Dec 31 '10 at 21:12
The Procrastinator's Club will soon release its predictions for 2010. They have a history of complete accuracy. –  Michael Hardy Dec 31 '10 at 21:16
I predict this question is going to be closed. –  KConrad Dec 31 '10 at 22:06
No longer relevant? It's only 8pm here in NY. :-) –  sigoldberg1 Jan 1 '11 at 1:07

@darij: This year; My use of obvious here is more of a technical nature. The argument was that we've accepted the axiom of replacement because it is strongly used in proofs. The proper forcing axiom, which implies $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_2$, is being advanced as an axiom to assume because of its many interesting and useful set-theoretical consequences including the existence of a Woodin cardinal in an inner model. The argument is that eventually we'll just wind up accepting such an axiom as natural. –  Jason Dec 31 '10 at 22:02