/sci/ - Science & Math

OUTTA MY WAY INDIAN FUCKING SHIT

that demneted curry nigger doesn't have shit on grothendieck

>>6549788
aww shiet, FRIEDRICH FUCKING GAUSS

>>6549788
>Implying race has anything to do with mathematics.

>>6549794
>>6549789
>>6549788
Samfagg this hard

>>6549789
>>6549788
>people who are only actually mad that Ramanujin is Indian.

>>>/pol/

>>6549789
>he doesn't know about hindu-arabic numerals

>Ramanujan
>Gauss

Why do the best mathematicians come from poverty?

>>6549785

>>6549785
Remind me, what are new important notions were introduced by him?

>>6549837

Not forgetting Riemann.

>>6549837
Because this...

>>6549849
>Implying that re-deriving from scratch most mathematical theorem discovered throughout the ages by numerous individuals without prior knowledge of them isn't accomplishment.

What makes you think one needs to come up with a "new theory" to be considered prestigious? If you were able to rediscover hundreds of theorems and proofs that took the lifetimes of many men to discover then you are worthy of being titled a great mathematician. The poverty background only add to the prestige.

Yes. He intuitively derived the following. INTUITIVELY:
<span class="math"> x+n+a = \sqrt{ax+(n+a)^2 +x\sqrt{a(x+n)+(n+a)^2+(x+n) \sqrt{\cdots}}} [/spoiler]

>>6549888
It is accomplishment. But so are many other things that only very few persons can do.
On the other hand I don't see any serious impact on mathematics by Ramanujan. And even if we consider his work out of historical context then still most of what he discovered (may be I am wrong my knowledge here are limited) is specific statements about series and similar stuff he have rediscovered nothing truly fundamental like notion of abstract field, notion of cardinal number, or analycity of holomorphic functions (again as far as I know).

>>6549967
> I don't see any serious impact on mathematics by Ramanujan
do some more research then

>>6549849
Ramanujan–Sato series.
The Circle Method.
Mock Theta Functions.

His notebooks are also important, in guiding and stimulating research after his death.

>>6549849
Ramanujan Summation

1+2+3+4....-1/12

>>6550002
So, he was the master troll of math?

Or would that be whoever came up with geometric series, for showing 0.999... = 1?

>>6549967
>On the other hand I don't see any serious impact on mathematics by Ramanujan.

Then you know nothing about his works then. His works are used all the time in higher level mathematics and in post-doctorate level theoretical physics.

>>6550009

To a calc I pleb, the greatest mathematician ever is probably deemed to be L'Hopital, based on the "have I heard of his theorems" metric.

>it wasn't even his theorem.

>>6550009
>>6549981
Clearly, I lack of knowledge about his work. But really, when I look at what >>6549986 pointing to I see some probably related to analytic number theory and looking quite specific things. I believe that most important in mathematics is achieving the better understanding of per-existed mathematics.
And I see nothing like this here. Possible my field of interest is just to far from Ramanujan work (I'm PhD in mathematical logic).

>>6550082
Most pure maths from maybe 20th century onward is highly specialised. No one is expected to use much of it outside their own field.

Ramanujan did however develop methods used to efficiently calculate pi still used today.

According to Stephen Hawking, in his "God Created the Integers", Gauss is undoubtedly the best mathematician of all time.

>>6550017
A first year mathematician will encounter "Cauchy" a lot more than he does L'Hopital.
Cauchy had his name on half the stuff we encountered in first year undergrad maths.

>>6549903
Yeah I could derive it intuitively too with a calculator.

>>6550006
It's not troll, you baka, it's an actually defined sum.

>>6550122
Shut up Britfag. I said Calc 1, which implies the American system of education.

Are you fucking rertarded?

>>6550157
You think you cannot troll with facts?

have you not noticed 0.999... = 1 troll threads?

The only ones that could possibly stand up to Gauss:

>Archimedes
>Newton
>Euler
>Eisenstein (only because Gauss himself admired him)
>Riemann
>Grothendieck
>Serre

>>6550241
>No Cauchy

dat's racist

>>6550082
Most of his work was in number theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

Keynes is probably the best mathematician in recent history. Ramanujan was just an autistic man who made one discovery and now everyone thinks he was the greatest guy ever.

>>6549838
this guy has it. just look at the wikipedia article on him under the notable achievements section. Scratch that, i had to double check and it seems they made the things named for him having discovered has been made into its own fucking page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_named_after_Leonhard_Euler

still not even a complete list

>>6550002
1+2+3+4....-1/12

This is so wrong in so many levels.

>>6550241
>no Euclid
>no Weierstrass
>no Godel

>>6550968
>Euclid

Name one important mathematical discovery which is confirmed to be credited to Euclid.

>>6550989
confirmation of much from antiquity is notoriously difficult

pythagoras' theorem isn't really pythagoras', for example

>>6550241
Also needs:

>Weil
>Langlands

Really? Mixing covergent series with divergent and vice versa?

>>6550006
There are articles written about the absurdity of people not accepting 0.999... = 1, welcome to the club.

>>6550989
Euclid's formalism is what makes him famous; he put the geometry of his day into a logically deductive system.

If that's not worthy of praise, then go fuck yourself.

>>6551060
Can I see one of these?

>>6551140
Absolutely not

>>6550000
i have frequently heard the list
newton
gauss
archimedes

no mention of euler, or euclid

>>6551150
Euclid created the first axiomatic system and no one's denying that that's a huge deal, but that's really all he did. Even then modern axiomatic systems are still very different from his. It's actually a bit worse than that though, there were arguments that Euclid used implicitly in his own axiomatic system that weren't justified. An example of this is Pasch's Axiom.

Euler gets mentioned a lot in these threads.

I rarely see Newton mentioned, but that's pretty justified as most of his work was in physics.

Why still no one here have mentioned Hilbert?

>>6551225
>Formalism

>>6551225
because hilbert a shit

>>6551232
Hilbert program as it was originally suggested have failed. But it formed a solid basis for modern logic and by the way the notion of abstract algorithm was given in research heavily influenced by the program. And formalism was not the only achievement of Hilbert.

>>6549785

I think he has extra appeal because he had rather poor prospects in early life; essentially having grown up in lower class even by the standards of his own local society and time, yet he independently derived the results of other great mathematicians as well as some unique, groundbreaking contributions.
It's rather disheartening to imagine what would have happened had he not been discovered by those University of Cambridge mathematicians.

>>6551392
>It's rather disheartening to imagine what would have happened had he not been discovered by those University of Cambridge mathematicians.
Even then he wasn't treated very well. They wrote each other a lot about mathematics but that was it. He was pretty much just there for work. He also had health and sleep problems because as a vegetarian he had trouble finding food to eat there so he spent a good portion of his time cooking specialized meals for himself in his office. He missed his wife a lot and when he eventually got sick and went back home he said he should've never left or at the least never left without her. His shitty experience in London was what drove him from Mathematics. This isn't really out of the ordinary or particular to Ramanujin, he just happened to be a subject of a British colony and inherently held lower social status than a British person.

He did do a fuckload of crazy stuff in Number Theory though. He was shit at proofs but allegedly his intuition was so good that he didn't need them.

>>6550701
> Keynes
I'm sorry, but that's not a mathematician.

Econfag, pls go:
>>>/pol/

>>6551419
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32625/32625-pdf.pdf

A treatise on probability.

>>>/b/
>>>/elitism/

Pls. Go

>>6551454
I'm not that guy but is this babby tier probability or is it just so antiquated that it predates modern probability (with sigma algebras and probability spaces)?

>>6551463
It's probability theory, useful to everyone from financiers to biologists to mathematicians as a whole.

That's why he's the greatest mathematician of recent history.

>>6551521
But Keynes is awful to read.
Most economics professors recommend reading Keynes with a guide to Keynes.
There's plenty of books on probability. I have a great one with robots.

>>6551521
Thing is that there's two types of probability theory. Classical probability theory and modern probability theory. There are several different approaches to classical probability theory and there's lots of problems with each of them. In particular they produce paradoxes. Here is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_%28probability%29

Modern probability theory does away with all of this by introducing set theory, defining the notion of a sigma-algebra, borrowing some concepts from measure theory to define the probability measure, and combining all of those into a probability space. This is how modern probability/stochastics is studied. You can't justify talking about the probability of something without first defining the probability space because the way you define it can alter the way you compute probabilities.

>>6549785
no because indians are gay and stink

>>6551386
Holy fuck thank you
Noether all up in this bitch

>>6550899
But right on Ramanujan level.

The list of things von Neumann worked on is quite fucking large too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

Not that I'm dreaming of comparing him with Euler, but still pretty impressive.

> Emmy noether

>>6551178
Why are Euclid's axioms still presented as they are if they're missing an axiom?
(IIRC there were a bunch of other flaws... eg something about assuming that two circumferences which share a radius had to intersect?)

>>6549903
Any simple proof or explanation or how he thought it through? (except for I'm Ramanujan and I'm a human computer hybrid)

>>6556319
I would appreciate this too. Intuition is something you can learn so why don't we also teach it?

A approximation of pi which he derived. Accurate to the 8th decimal.
Jesus...

>>6556782
>>6549903
What the actual fuck? How does a human do that?

euler

>>6556790
That is what I'd like to know.

>>6556782
This one is even more impressive. Where did he get 9 and 19 from? And why divide the second by 22 and not the first? And then fourth root?

Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
And small minds discuss people

>>6556830
Unfortunately we may never know. His proofs and explanations are well known for being nearly impossible to read and follow. He made so few notes and left so much figuring up to the reader that his original logic may never be known. He didn't have formal math education so his notes don't even really make sense.

>>6556844
And absolute retard-level minds discus the intellectual quality of people discussing people by using a cliché.

>>6556782
I fail to see how this is impressive, i mean you could might as well just find a way to express number x in a interesting way....
Who is to say that he did't do it the other way around?

>>6556864
Alright. Find a way to represent this:
8.293192465
Use powers, sums, roots, and quotients.

>>6556870
8293192465/1000000000

>>6556872
>Use powers, sums, roots, and quotients
>Uses power of 1 and a quotient
>>>/out/

>>6556875

>>6556872
is not >>6556864
But it's really not that hard i mean i can't deny that what he did was a beautiful way to express a 10 digit number but it's not impossible to do the same with most other numbers nor is it that hard.

>>6556884
It is reasonably difficult. Give it a try. It would likely take you years.

>>6556870
(8293192460 + sqrt(25)) / 10^9

>>6556901
You annoying shit, you knew what I meant.

>>6556901
get some roots of 8293192460 make it into a quadratic or something fun and now we smart

but the whole point was not him expressing a number in a nice way but rather that he (found) ?? 8 or so digits through his way

>>6549785
No, because Terence Tao exists.

I love how 4chan usually denigrates any artist, scientist, politician or any kind of known personality relevant to a board that isn't a Germanic male.

>>6556931
>I love how 4chan usually denigrates any artist, scientist, politician or any kind of known personality relevant to a board that isn't a Germanic male.
the usual argument is that this is an american image board. if you fail to see the analogy with real life, then you are either american or retarded (and I'm not sure those things are not the same thing)

>>6556931
>implying 4chan usually doesn't denigrate Germanic male personalities also

/sci/ how the fuck is this even possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakuntala_Devi

> In 1977, at Southern Methodist University, she was asked to give the 23rd root of a 201-digit number; she answered in 50 seconds.[1][4] Her answer—546,372,891—was confirmed by calculations done at the U.S. Bureau of Standards by the UNIVAC 1101 computer, for which a special program had to be written to perform such a large calculation.[14]

> On June 18, 1980, she demonstrated the multiplication of two 13-digit numbers—7,686,369,774,870 × 2,465,099,745,779—picked at random by the Computer Department of Imperial College, London. She correctly answered 18,947,668,177,995,426,462,773,730 in 28 seconds.[2][3] This event is mentioned in the 1982 Guinness Book of Records.[2][3] Writer Steven Smith states that the result is "so far superior to anything previously reported that it can only be described as unbelievable".[14]

>>6556931

How are we denigrating Ramanujan? We made a thread that's almost 4 days old with 87 posts on /sci/ right now talking about if he's the greatest mathematician.

>>6556925

Tao is also impressive.

However Ramanujan had some very humble beginnings, which magnifies the relative scale of his accomplishments that much more.

>>6556782
>A approximation of pi which he derived. Accurate to the 8th decimal.

355/113 is accurate to the 7th decimal, and it's also much easier to remember.

>>6556931
I love how social justice warriors exaggerate the contribution of anyone who isn't male or who isn't European.

>Europeans create 99% of modern math
>"B-BUT INDIANS INVENTED ZERO!"

>>6557389

true, although Europe is a continent, so I think the comparison is a little unfair there.

>>6557311
she had her own method to calculate big numbers?

>>6557389
> would rather do math in roman numerals

>>6557389
>Europeans create 99% of modern math

To say Europeans 'created' it is a bit misleading.

Its true that most of the body of knowledge in modern mathematics and science is attributed to Europeans.

But many of the more fundamental theorems and axioms were originated independently across multiple civilizations.

Europe's greatest achievement over other civilizations was its culture which valued the preservation, reproduction, and application of knowledge.

Most Asian civilizations were authoritarian in nature and had rigid social structures. Scholarly work was restricted to upper classes / castes, printing press technology did not see such widespread application, and rulers / administrators generally didn't see the value of systematically applying science and mathematics to developing industry and military technology. These factors are what allowed scientific productivity to skyrocket to unprecedented levels.

>>6556864
Yeah, let's just forget that he came up with this approximation before the age of digital calculators. Do you even know how to calculate with non-integer exponents?

I don't really care about most of the things he did, but every time I do come across something he did I think "holy crap this is the smartest guy who ever lived"

>>6556319
Square both sides, left side becomes
(n+a)^2 + 2xn + 2xa + x^2 = ax + (n+a)^2 + x[(x+n)+n + a]
Compare the thing in [] with the thing in the second square root, and observe magical recursion or some shit

>>6550989

Mathematics can be axiomatized.

>>6557311
Is she gay? She wrote a book called "World of Homosexuals"?

>>6558703
If I write a book about horses, do I become a horse?

>>6555443
best mathematician of the last century bar none.

>>6549788

Fascinating fact: Gauss was actually the first person to devise the FFT algorithm (with the possible exception of the Simplex method, easily the most important computational advance in the 20th century), which he used in an attempt to interpolate the orbits of asteroids.
This is, of course, quite impressive as computers wouldn't exist for another 150 years. But it's even more impressive when you realize that Fourier transforms wouldn't be discovered for another 75. What a fucking boss.

>>6556901
>>6556908

>>6558769
We will never know

>>6558703
her husband was gay, apparently
that is what inspired her work.
that, and there were no other modern texts published by indians on the homosexuals in india.

>>6549785
My favourite is Erdos. A little biased maybe because I met him once.

No one will say he's the greatest, because he wasn't, but his ability to solve problems across a wide area is pretty hard to beat, same goes for his output.

>>6556931
The first germanic male mathematician that comes off the top off my head is David Hilbert and I denigrate him all the time.

Picture was supposed to be a picture of L. E. J. Brouwer but it wasn't available so instead have a picture of Yau.

>>6557389
>99% of modern math
This is what people who can't into math actually believe.

>>6556225
Missing an axiom doesn't make it incorrect it just makes it weaker. It also means that it's not a complete characterization of planar Euclidean Geometry. There are lots of other axiomatic systems that try to characterize Planar Euclidean Geometry, even some that just focus on some facets to characterize weaker versions or stronger versions. Since the 1800s we don't really care about reality or the physical world in mathematics. One consistent axiomatic system is no more correct than another one, they just describe potentially different things.

>>6557395
A country with ~1billion people living on it.

>>6559258
Not before the 20th century...

>>6559239
I doubt you could formally disprove it.

>>6551386
How can there only be one Noether post???? DO YOU EVEN CONSERVE

>>6556860
>>>6550000 →
rekt

>>6558769
it might mean you like horses though