There are discoveries to be made everywhere. There is newness everywhere. The question is if it is a discovery worth being made. Well, ‘discoveries’ are fun so as a simply leisure activity then quite possibly. But there is also the question of general importance.
One quality of the great mathematician, or even the merely competent, is an understanding of what facts or discoveries are interesting. Now, the johansendociollagram is not interesting, and what might be interesting certainly isn’t original. So I could never be a competent mathematician, but then again since I realise the johansendociollagram is not interesting then perhaps it is simply my incompetence at everything past multiplication* that gets in the way.
It is unknown, for it is perhaps most of interest to those in mathematical cycles but it is hardly conductive to mathematical interest, the true interaction between interesting mathematics an physcs and the whys of that, although there are numerous figures. One has to observe, however, that if it turned out that johansendociollagrams were the answer to dark matter (let’s say) then they would have to be interesting in some sense.
But if we think about that example for even a second then it is obvious that the johansendociollagram cannot be the answer to that mystery. For if it were to be found in the simple manipulations of two-dimensional shapes then it would have been solved, with the johansendociollagram coming as an a technical improvement to better explain and summarise the basic d-shape insight. It is perhaps that fact which is the proof of its uninterestingness, but no mathematicians will grab torches at the suggestion of physics being the proof of interestingness.
*But, cor, I used to be good at multiplication. Apart from 7 * 8, that was my Achilles heel.