/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14564045
Here is the list if you can't recognize some.

>>14564045
>Noether above Godel
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to confiscate your right to have opinions. You are from now only allowed to repeat the opinions of others, preferably those more cultured than you.

>>14564060
The only reason I did is because Noether contributed to both math and physics significantly if it was only math or only physics then she'd be lower. She wasn't only known for her famous theorem.

>>14564045
Still no Imhotep I see,

Let me tell you why Imhotep is the the only sole occupier of the S+ class.

https://youtu.be/KMAtkjy_YK4?t=11815

I look at your entire graph, imitators, every last one of them, all born amongst the tanned parchment of their forefathers, comprehend by means of keen copying of a level higher than he, often explained from a master in the academie!

But yet, Imhotep, Bringer of peace,

Designed the Steppe Pyramid of Saqqara, out of his own mind.

The very greeks to which all this list attest all were all mystery schooled by the imitators of Imhotep.

the arches are crafted in the harmonic proportions of musical tuning scales

No ye, philosophers, make no mistake, Imhotep deserves your S+ class alone

>>14564045
>Galileo
>S
None of his discoveries were crucial, nor did he find any evidence during his life that the earth rotated or went around the sun. Given that the Coriolis effect was only observed a decade after he died and that he had no proof that parallax was too small to measure.

>>14564122
Where do you propose he ranks then?

>>14564130
Lower than Kepler, considering that Galileo was married to the idea of the planets orbit's being perfect circles and considered the Keplerian model to be rooted in occultism.

>>14564135
>Lower than Kepler
Be serious now he wasn't just known for his thoughts on planets.

>>14564135
>>14564122
After further analysis I can say that Galileo isn't S-tier level but I can say that he can be no lower than A-tier due to the fact that his ideas are what lead to Newtons equation. His contributions to Math or Physics just aren't on the same level as those guys above him. The list has been updated.

>>14564367
switch Grothendieck and von Neumann:
While von Neumann was quite a prolific mathematician, Grothendieck revolutionized mathematics and in more than one way, but specially Grothendieck made the right emphasis on categories and functors; also he is the father of modern Algebraic Geometry.
I would also move Galois one step above, because Galois theory was indeed quite revolutionary, and move down Pierre Fermat, since despite proposing important problems, he wasn't that big as a mathematician alone.
Also there are many important figures missing: Erdös should go A-B tier, Poincaré also on A-B tier, Weierstrass should go B-C tier, Hausdorff should be B-C tier and Lebesgue should be B-C tier

>>14564045
Don't think Newton and Einstein should be lobbed together in the same tier.

>>14565095
>switch Grothendieck and von Neumann:
While von Neumann was quite a prolific mathematician, Grothendieck revolutionized mathematics and in more than one way, but specially Grothendieck made the right emphasis on categories and functors; also he is the father of modern Algebraic Geometry.
You have to understand that Von Neumann didn't only make contributions to mathmatics. Grothendieck is great but but not in the same tier as those above him and certainly not John Von Neumann.
>I would also move Galois one step above, because Galois theory was indeed quite revolutionary, and move down Pierre Fermat, since despite proposing important problems, he wasn't that big as a mathematician alone.
This will be considered Galois is moving up a tier, but I don't believe that Pierre should be moved down as he isn't D-tier. You would have to make a better case for that.
>Also there are many important figures missing: Erdös should go A-B tier, Poincaré also on A-B tier, Weierstrass should go B-C tier, Hausdorff should be B-C tier and Lebesgue should be B-C tier
I will look into these, I can't believe I forgot Lebesgue.

>>14565095
>switch Grothendieck and von Neumann While von Neumann was quite a prolific mathematician, Grothendieck revolutionized mathematics and in more than one way, but specially Grothendieck made the right emphasis on categories and functors; also he is the father of modern Algebraic Geometry.
You have to understand that Von Neumann didn't only make contributions to mathmatics. Grothendieck is great but not in the same tier as those above him and certainly not John Von Neumann.
>I would also move Galois one step above, because Galois theory was indeed quite revolutionary, and move down Pierre Fermat, since despite proposing important problems, he wasn't that big as a mathematician alone.
This will be considered Galois is moving up a tier, but I don't believe that Pierre should be moved down as he isn't D-tier. You would have to make a better case for that.
>Also there are many important figures missing: Erdös should go A-B tier, Poincaré also on A-B tier, Weierstrass should go B-C tier, Hausdorff should be B-C tier and Lebesgue should be B-C tier
I will look into these, I can't believe I forgot Lebesgue

>math and physics is about worshipping old white men
>what do you mean, learning the theory instead? that's sussin and bussin autistic af fr fr no cap
Low IQ pop sci zoomers turning science and math into a celebrity worship cult like philosophy. What's next? A tiktok fan account (of course without any math content)?

>>14565095
>>14565105
The list has been updated.

Additions to A-tier:
>Erdos
>Poincare

Additions to B-tier:
>Lebesgue

Additions to C-tier:
>Weirstrauss

Changes made:
>Galois is moved to C-tier
>Hausdorff doesn't have enough name recognition to be included on the list

>>14564045
Bohr needs to be S or S+ next to Einstein.

>>14564045
That list is awful.

Galois should be in A-tier given his work was revolutionary.
Newton should not be above Archimedes.
Euclid and Hilbert are both above anyone you have in S+ tier.
Galileo should be in C or D tier.
Boltzmann should be S tier (easily better than any other physicist).
Einstein should not be above Hilbert nor Poincare.
Ramanujan should be D tier.
Kepler should be within one tier of Newton.
Grothendieck should be in S or S+ tier.
De Broglie in C tier.
Feynman in B tier or maybe A tier.
Hooke should be in D tier.
Curie should be in S tier.
Maxwell in B tier.
Cauchy in A or S tier.
Tesla in D tier.
Turing within one tier of von Neumann.
Gibbs in C tier.
Hamilton in B tier.

Aryabhata should be S+ tier for enabling all these white cucklets to celebrate their inceldom with mathematics.

I already said it last time, but Boltzman>Feynman
Just put Feynman lower

>>14567007
You can't just say a bunch of shit you have to make a case for why a certain person deserves to be in a certain tier. Whether it be importance of discovery, breadth of work, and genius. Some of you're opinions will be taken into consideration though.
>>14565459
Make you're case for why.
>>14567060
Okay I have seen enough with regard to Feynman he will be getting moved to A-tier.

>>14567014
would any of them performed a single mathematical equation if they were never shown math?

Vote Imhotep S+ class,
Aryabhata can be S

>>14567088
I already pointed out about Galois. It isn't right for there to be so many above him whose work rests on his shoulders.
Archimedes invented calculus thousands of years before Newton made it precise.
Euclid and Hilbert both came up with axiomatizations of geometry (though Euclid missed some assumptions), and had such a broad work of mathematics, putting them easily above Euler or Gauss. See other points for why they're above Newton/Einstein.
Galileo's most famous discovery was contradicted by his own findings - looking through the telescope, it suggested celestial bodies were at a scale much larger than the sun.
Boltzmann's contributions to statistical mechanics are the greatest in all of physics. Most of physics is just a mess of toy models, but statistical mechanics actually allowed real science to be done in theoretical physics.
Einstein's greatest work rests on that of Hilbert and Poincare.
Ramanujan didn't really produce anything revolutionary.
Kepler's theory of orbits changed the game, and much of Newton's work on astronomy relies on what Kepler did.
Grothendieck completely revolutionized a way of thinking about modern math. It wasn't just the particular field of algebraic geometry, but the entire way of thinking in terms of sheaves and schemes, etc., which allowed for simpler formulations of many problems.
De Broglie, Hooke and Gibbs just didn't do enough to warrant higher tiers in my opinion, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Similar with Feynman, I just don't think he is on the same level as those I'd put in S tier, but again I can be convinced otherwise.
Curie basically discovered one of the first theories on radioactivity, putting her easily in A. With everything else she did, she deserves S.
Maxwell put together a theory on electromagnetism, but much of the legwork had already been done, and there are better formulations of the theory.
Cauchy for his prolific work in complex analysis.

>>14567151
Tesla's basically an engineer, so in a list of mathematicians and physicists, he doesn't rank well.
Turing's work in terms of computers and cryptography is at least on the level of von Neumann. von Neumann's other work could put him a tier above Turing, but I don't think more than that.
Hamilton, again I just don't see what warrants him being above B tier.

>>14567151
>>14567158
These will be taken into account in the next update of the list. You make some good points for some of them.

>>14564045
Einstein was a fraud and a plagiarist.
Henri Poincaré is the one who actually discovered relativity.
https://voxday.net/2020/07/12/the-einstein-fraud/

>>14567174
Thanks.

>>14567178
>"Einstein was Jewish and had the support of the Jewish-controlled media who conspired to create yet another historical myth."

Not taking into consideration psycho babble. He synthesized a centuries worth of work. If somebody else did it they would have made the discovery themselves and published the equations.

>>14567151
>Maxwell put together a theory on electromagnetism, but much of the legwork had already been done, and there are better formulations of the theory.
I'm interested in what Maxwell stood on, care to point me in the correct direction on this?

>>14564045
>no Weil
>no Cartan (both of them)
>no Poincare
>no Lie
>no Chern
>no Yang (of Yang-Mills)
>no Grassmann
>no Milnor
>no Serre
>no Donaldson
>no Witten
>no Deligne

Ultimately I think such a "tier list" is fruitless.

>>14567241
They don't have any sort of name recognition so they aren't included except for poincare so he was included.

>>14567243
You an undergrad?
>Weil
Mordll-Weil theorem, RH in finite fields, Weil conjectures, BOURBAKI???
>Elie Cartan
He is the reason differential geometry is what it is today. Huge contributions in both geometry and physics.
>Henri Cartan
Bourbaki, several complex variables, a major part of treating algebraic topology using homological algebra.
>Lie
I shouldnt even have to explain this one.
>Chern
Chern-Gauss-Bonnet, Chern-Simons, etc.
>Yang
You cant be serious.
>Grassmann
Hes like what Archimides was to calculus for Cartan's exterior calculus.
>Milnor
Too many contributions to even list.
>Serre
There is no Grothendieck without Serre.
>Donaldson
Such a genius its hard to even describe. Proven a lot of very technical stuff in 4-manifolds especially.
>Witten
He is the embodiment of modern mathematical physics.
>Deligne
Weil conjectures, cohomology in algebraic geometry, Hodge theory.

Speaking of Hodge, even I forgot to mention some other great mathematicians.
>Hodge
>Kahler
>Shimura
>Kodaira
>Baker
>Teichmuller

I could go on but you get the point: there are too many mathematicians who have done too many great things in too diverse areas to honestly even attempt to "rank".

>>14567007
>>14567151
>>14567158
The list has been updated

Changes to A-tier:
>Marie Curie - can't in good faith say she is a worse experimentalist than Faraday.
>Richard Feynmann - Apparently he isn't on the level of S-tier given the fact of overwhelming disapproval for him being there.
>Cauchy - His work done in mathematics is just as important as some of the physicists work above in their fields.
>Turing - He essentially discovered an entire field.

Changes to B-tier
>Kepler - You are correct Kepler was a great discoverer for orbital mechanics but he did nothing much other than that, which would put edge him at the same level as Galileo.
>Galois - He is a pillar stone similar to Kepler perhaps if lived a bit longer would be S-tier and made many more contributions.
>De Broglie - Pillar stone of quantum mechanics similar to both Kepler and Galois being Pillars of their respective fields. But isn't the guy who discovered or synthesized an entire field like the guys above him.

Changes to D-tier
>Ramanujin - I really only put him in C because so many Indians praise this man like he is the second coming of Jesus.

Thinking about moving Plank and Heisenberg down a tier according to these standards and Nikola Tesla has been taken off of the list. I will tell you why I disagree with some if you want me to explain but I can't do all at once.

>>14567274
Those guys are all great but they don't have enough name recognition to be included. Yes I am an undergrad.

>>14564101
based Imhotep enjoyer

>>14565150
you sound fun

this is why women should have no rights

>>14567007
>>14567151
>>14567158
The list has been updated

Changes to A-tier:
Marie Curie - can't in good faith say she is a worse experimentalist than Faraday.
Richard Feynmann - Apparently he isn't on the level of S-tier given the fact of overwhelming disapproval for him being there.
Cauchy - His work done in mathematics is just as important as some of the physicists work above in their fields.
Turing - He essentially discovered an entire field.

Changes to B-tier
Kepler - You are correct Kepler was a great discoverer for orbital mechanics but he did nothing much other than that, which would put edge him at the same level as Galileo.
Galois - He is a pillar stone similar to Kepler perhaps if lived a bit longer would be S-tier and made many more contributions.
De Broglie - Pillar stone of quantum mechanics similar to both Kepler and Galois being Pillars of their respective fields. But isn't the guy who discovered or synthesized an entire field like the guys above him.

Changes to D-tier
Ramanujin - I really only put him in C because so many Indians praise this man like he is the second coming of Jesus.

Thinking about moving Plank and Heisenberg down a tier according to these standards and Nikola Tesla has been taken off of the list. If you want me explain some of the one's I disagree with you on I can but I can't do all at once there is too many.
>>14567274
These people are all great but they have no name recognition and yes I am a proud undergrad. I won't be including any obscure physicists either.

>>14565228
>>14567243
>>14567400
"name recognition"
kek
>proud undergrad
you are in no position to judge the importance of anyone's work lul.

You forgot to add Apollonius and Cardano and Eisenstein and Abel and Nash and Hurwitz and Hurewicz and Klein and Mobius and Thompson and Connes and Banach and Riesz and many more by the way.

>>14567431
>you are in no position to judge the importance of anyone's work lul.
Which is why I take into consideration others opinions.

>Apollonius
>Hodge

These are the only two from your list permitted to be added. Again yes name recognition is factor if they aren't above a certain threshold they aren't added. Where do you propose they go.

>>14564045
B is all outta wack. Noether and Descartes should be way higher and turing and tesla should be lower

>>14567476
>Noether and Descartes should be way higher
Noether is in A-tier, why do you think Descartes deserves to be higher?
>>14567476
>turing and tesla should be lower
Tesla was removed from the list.

>>14565150
You do realize that to be able to discuss the ideas and people you have to have spent some time with the theory?

>>14567241
based
For the nubs in this thread, see: https://mathoverflow.net/q/10103
>>14565150
brainlet take
Great minds discuss ideas that is right, but most people aren't great minds, and given that we need people to take interest in math&physics so people go into the field and become great minds, we need to get people interested in math&physics, and that is far easier talking about people and events rather than ideas

>>14567274
>>Kahler
>>Teichmuller
Uh, sweaty, no, just no, ok?
We are NOT adding nazis, their gross ideas were debunked and you're perpetuating the myth of white supremacy by forcing their names into modern math.

>>14567885
Weil, of Jewish ancestry, coined the term Kahler manifold and later defended it from early wokesters. Also these days like 60% of researchers in Teichmuller theory are Jewish.