/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11153379
i’d say
1)hilbert
2)godel
3)weyl
4)cartan
5)riemann

1. God

>>11153379
>No French

Shit list

>>11153379
1. Emmy Noether
2. Sofia Kovalevskaya
3. Ada Lovelace
4. Maryam Mirzakhani
5. Sophie Germain

>>11153414

>>11153379
top 5 numbers
5
4
tie bewtween
3/pi/e
2
...
1
honorary mention: 0, we wouldn't have nothing, without you

>>11153379
Guass and Euler are the most gifted human beings to ever life. There is no question about that.

>>11153389
You seem to have made a mistake my friend, here, let me help:
1)godel
2)hilbert

>>11153429
I know thats incel bait, but Lovelace over Mirzakhani and Germain really grinds my gears

>>11153379
another roastie post.

>>11153379

>>11153414
Based
>>11153436
Cringe

>>11153379
>Laplace
>Fourier
>Cauchy
>Galois
>Lagrange

>no ramanujan

shit thread

>>11153537
>frogposter complaining about womanposter
>>11153389
>knowing about Cartan and still thinking Hilbert was the best mathematician in the past century

>>11153379
>>11153389
>>11153429
These are all wrong. Modern mathematicians are actually a lot more impressive since breakthroughs are now extremely rare and things are a lot more interconnected now (mathoverflow, conferences, web conferences, blogs etc) which means there is less room for error. Back in Newton's days, he would've been able to make a mistake and go uncorrected for years. Nowadays, you make a mistake and the whole community points it out to you.

>>11153627

>>11153643
Nobody smart goes in to math today. Tech and finance have the best brains.

>>11153796
That's *kind of* true. There are academics and there are industry people. People who become (tenured) professors generally don't like working in a corporate.
But yes, I'd say tech and finance have taken a lot of bright people. Did you know that Terence Tao consulted for Renaissance Technologies? Tier one mathematicians get contacted by these firms all the time.

>>11153817
Tier one mathematicians, in fact, do not, because modern pure mathematics thankfully has nothing to with mundane applications. Tier one mathematicians study crystalline cohomologies, hyperkaler manifolds, that sort of shit. Need to solve a fucking pde or model a process? Anyone from applied will do, doesn't have to be top tier.

Since the thread contains literally zero French mathematicians from XX century, it can be safely dismissed as ironic or uneducated.

>>11153858
Riemann > Grothendieck, Cauchy, Poincare, Lagrange

>>11153379
1. Grigori Perelman
2. Andrew Wiles
3. Evariste Galois
4. Alexander Grothendieck
5. Gorou Shimura

Obviously Gauss and Euler we're good but that shit is overrated.

Notable mentions:
Terence Tao
Robert Langlands
JP Serre
Maxim Kontsevich
NH Abel
Augustin Cauchy
Bernhard Riemann
this list goes on and there in no particular order.

>>11153414
The only redpilled answer

>>11153379
Newton is a meme.

>>11153379
1. edwin abbot abbot
all the others are shit

>>11153453
Can someone explain why Gauss is often considered so remarkable? His wikipedia doesn't seem to do him justice compared with the likes of Euler, von Neumann and Ramanujan, so why is he considered so great? From what I understand he came up with much of differential geometry.

>>11153379
1. Euclid
2. Euler
3. Hilbert
4. Lagrange
5. Riemann
6. Leibniz
7. Laplace
8. Cauchy
9. Archimedes
10. Newton

>>11154588
>came up with much of differential geometry
That's Riemann you're thinking of.

>>11154598
Why are so many things in differential geometry named after Gauss then? Also, what is Theorema Egregium?

>>11153379
>no Ted Kaczynski

>>11153796
>Nobody smart goes in to math today.
Pic related

>>11153414
God-AI, you mean.

>>11154588
>Can someone explain why Gauss is often considered so remarkable?
Just because he is considered remarkable, doesn't actually make him remarkable.
The problem with Gauss and one that he shares with von Neumann is that their perception by other (modern) mathematicians is inflated and exaggerated especially in terms of their ascribed intellectual powers. In case of Gauss, this is mostly due to two things: Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (his number theory book he allegedly written by him when he wasn't even 20 years old) and his proof of the fundamental theorem of Algebra. Now, in the case of the first one, a lot of the content has simply been copied from other (unpublished) number theory books. One case being the book above number theory made by Legendre in which case there was an actual dispute over the authenticity of Gauss's work since most of what Gauss claimed to have discovered himself was already treated two years earlier in Legendre's book.
The second thing, his proof of the fundamental theory of Algebra may deserve more merit. Then again, there already existed tons of different attempts and proposed solutions to this problem which despite being correct only lacked in actual rigour.

>>11153448
based

>>11154609
>Why are so many things in differential geometry named after Gauss then?
They're surely named after him because he all discovered it (which he didn't) and not because he at one point started to politically dominate the mathematical academics of Germany in the early 19th century.

>>11154617
Okay, thanks.
I don't see how you can say that von Neumann's capabilities are exaggerated though. It seems to be unanimous among everyone who knew him how quickly he could think and the raw computational power of his brain appears unparalleled. Also, he's probably the last mathematician to make significant contributions to not only both pure and applied math, but even in other fields such as physics and economics.

>>11154623
Give me a break schizo.

>>11154626
>I don't see how you can say that von Neumann's capabilities are exaggerated though.
I can't disprove fairy tales because a unicorn could still exist somewhere in the universe. It doesn't make it reasonable though. There are tons of such stories about prodigies being able to do this and that and they ultimately still amount to nothing because it all was a farce.
>Also, he's probably the last mathematician to make significant contributions to not only both pure and applied math
Von Neumann is often credited for things he either didn't invent or (only) co-participated in. Von Neumann architecture despite being named after him was not invented by him. I would link the papers if I still had them. Someone else on this board probably does so. The papers however state quite clearly that von Neumann architecture which he presented in 1945 is nothing more than a computer architecture model which had already been presented in papers beginning from 1941.
His participation when it comes to economics boils down to a book about game theory. Definitely not irrelevant but it was not solely written by him.

>>11154657
>Statement backed up by everyone who met him is wrong because there are other claims of prodigies which turned out to be wrong.
>It doesn't count because he sometimes collaborated.
>His participation in economics boils down to an almost entirely new construction of the subject, with much higher mathematical sophistication which is still used today.
You are right about von Neumann architecture, but you've got a task ahead of you to support your claim.
Also, be aware that the reason he has so many collaborations is because people would ask him to help them on what they were working on, e.g. that economics book. That was how remarkable he was; he could jump right into a subject in which he had relatively little understanding and make important contributions to it.

>>11154674
Isn't that the wonderful thing when some people claim something and then it becomes some sort of social convention. The burden of proof magically transfers hosts and the one disbelieving in logically unsound stories now has to prove his position.

More specifically, it would be quite helpful to know what persons talked of von Neumann in such high esteem. More importantly, what they wrote about him from first hand. If it all revolves around citing second-source books who cite other books as sources which themselves can't cite any source because it's hearsay, then I don't think it's me who is in the position to support my claim.

>>11153598
EE?

>>11154736
Teller, Ulam, Wigner, Halmos, Bethe, Morganstern.
There is plenty of evidence supporting this claim, and that is why it is convention. You on the other hand, have provided absolutely no evidence, and are going directly against claims which are backed up by evidence. Any non-schizo could tell you that the burden of proof is obviously on you, you absolute mong.

>>11153379
5. N. Bourbaki
4. Count Count
3. That guy from Good Will Hunting
2. Jesus
1. all of the above

>>11154626

he was not smart enough to realize radiation can give you cancer

1. Billie Eilish
2. NJ Wildberger
3. Ramanujan
4. NJ Wildberger
5. Leonhard Euler

>>11154749
>There is plenty of evidence supporting this claim, and that is why it is convention.
No, there's not.
>Any non-schizo could tell you that the burden of proof is obviously on you, you absolute mong
Name-calling won't change that you're obviously trying to buttkiss Jewish mathematicians.

I'm amazed at how far some people go to defend their petty illusions.

>>11154987
>Get proved wrong
>nuh uh, I'm right.
>Don't refute any of the evidence
>Don't provide any evidence.
Just give up, dum dum.

>>11154993
>Don't refute any of the evidence
You didn't provide any evidence in the first place.
How does that make you feel?
Pretty stupid, I guess.

>>11154998
>it would be quite helpful to know what persons talked of von Neumann in such high esteem
>Teller, Ulam, Wigner, Halmos, Bethe, Morganstern.

>>11155002
And... Schizo has not response, because he can only ignore evidence, not refute it.

>>11155002

>>11155164
So weak. Let the men talk.
I think you might be lost. Here you go >>>/pol/

>>11155002

yes, von neumann is smart, all these other hungarian jews say so

>>11153379
1. me
2. my great uncle
3. my other great uncle
4. my other great uncle
5. Terry Tao (he mentioned my great uncle in a paper of his)

>>11155570
they are smarter than you too.

>>11153379
Pythagoras
Euklid
Galileo...

Dudes...

Basics of system...

One you named are basically:
Missinterpret distribution: Blour is named after him.
Euler: His circuits as any modern use of graph theory is lethal for society and awareness.
Archimedes: Fuck, I bathed in full tube and it overflew
Newton: You live in a vacuum flask thanks to him
Rieman: Complex manifolds are nice, but zetta is quite bad meme.

>>11153389
Godel vs programmer:
Yes, function have to have it's pointer.

>>11156279
Funny fact:

Sine function can be written in a pythagorean's notation... and what is best about it, then you don't need to integrate. You can use 2000 year old methematics to know area under the curve then.

>>11156279
>Pythagoras
Most well known for a theorem he didn't even come up with or prove.

>>11153796
>t. coping appliedcuck

Me in 11 years
Your mom
Jesus Christ
Macho man randy savage
Gauss

>>11154998
Bud, you’re an utter retard. Not the original person that was ridiculing you, but when you backed down and resorted to shit person you were utterly BTFO.
Period.
Sorry, kid.

>>11156455
Dude, how old are you? He isnt even proven to be outside of larp character mathematican.

>>11156455
He came up with axiom. That's it.

>>11153379
1. Grothendieck
2. Who the fuck cares, he isn't Grothendieck

>>11156552
>when anon idolizes a man named growthedick

1. Reid Barton
2. Sean Eberhard
3. Benjamin Qi
4. Neel Nanda
5. MC Siegel

5. Teller from Penn and Teller
4. >>11156256
3. Shaq
2. (You)
1. Me

1. Alexandre Grothendieck
2. Jean-Pierre Serre
3. Jean Dieudonné
4. Laurent Schwartz
5. Alain Connes
t. Not Bourbaki

Someone needs to update pic related.

>No love for Grug the caveman who discovered counting
Literally the giant all others stand on the shoulders of

>>11157747
Honestly, just remove Atiyah, and raise Deligne, Smale and Witten one up.
Also either get Codá Marques out or get a good picture of him.