AI’s disruption of maths exposes colonial academia’s crisis: who defines knowledge in the algorithmic age?
Original framing: “Can maths survive AI? Fields medallist Terence Tao calls for a ‘Maths 2.0’ world” — Nature
Indigenous mathematical traditions—such as the *Navajo* use of *yee* (a geometric concept in sandpainting) or the *Inuit* *pukak* (a system for tracking celestial movements)—demonstrate that quantification need not be detached from narrative or ecology. These systems often encode relational knowledge (e.g., kinship structures as graph theory) and resist the colonial separation of ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ math. The erasure of such practices in discussions of ‘Maths 2.0’ reflects a broader epistemic violence: the assumption that only formal, axiomatic systems deserve the label ‘mathematics.’
The ‘Maths 2.
0’ narrative is not just about AI’s rise but about the collapse of a colonial knowledge order that has long treated mathematics as a universal, neutral discipline—when in reality, it has always been a tool of power. The erasure of Indigenous mathematical traditions, the marginalization of non-Western epistemologies, and the neoliberal metrics that drive academic output are all symptoms of a deeper crisis: the assumption that only formal, algorithmically verifiable knowledge deserves legitimacy. Historical precedents—from the suppression of non-Euclidean geometries to the Math Wars—show that these crises are cyclical, resurfacing whenever technology disrupts the status quo. The solution lies not in adapting to AI but in dismantling the structures that have always privileged certain ways of knowing over others. This requires centering marginalized voices, reclaiming data sovereignty, and redefining what ‘mathematics’ can be—whether that means sacred geometry, relational algebra, or community-controlled algorithms. The trickster here is the myth of neutrality itself; once exposed, it reveals that the real innovation isn’t in what AI can do, but in whose knowledge it amplifies—or silences.