Who are the most intelligent mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.8775873]

Who are the most intelligent mathematicians, either living or dead. They don't necessarily have to have accomplished much (but measure by raw potential). What mathematicians are considered first rate?

[Anonymous No.8775879]

Srinivasa Ramanujan, David Hilbert, Leonhard Euler, and Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi are people I would consider to be first rate mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.8775882]

>>8775873

Donald Trump

[Anonymous No.8775884]

The ones who actually accomplished shit

[Anonymous No.8775885]

tao, that russian guy that lives with his mum, tonnes of others. Tbh there's probably someone out there that leaves even someone like tao in the dust.

[Anonymous No.8775887]

>>8775884
what did bongo man achieve again?

[Anonymous No.8775904]

>>8775873
Just a few:

Turing
Church
Godel
Walter Pitts (pure brain power)
Alexander Grothendieck
Grigori Perelman
Gauss
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Euler
Leonardo da Vinci (pure brain power)
Frank P. Ramsey
Paul Cohen
Évariste Galois
Archimedes

All I can think of atm

[Anonymous No.8775942]

>>8775904
Holy shit I'd never heard of Pitts before. What a fucking badass.

[Anonymous No.8775955]

>>8775904
Very happy I could expose you to Pitts. Indeed he is.

[Anonymous No.8775963]

>>8775904
>Walter Pitts
>career ruined by a woman
Let this be a warning to you all.

[Anonymous No.8775966]

>>8775963
It's rather infuriating. Some low tier pleb could unhinge a genius.

[Anonymous No.8775976]

>>8775963

Or Norbert Wiener could just have not been a cuck and ignored his stupid bitch wife. All that IQ and yet no strength of will.

>fuck up cybernetics cuz my wife said so
>JUST

[Anonymous No.8775986]

>>8775963
Or at least have the sense not to make your romantic interest the priority. There is nothing that infuriates a woman more than not being a man's permanent center of attention, but who cares? There are more important things.

[Anonymous No.8775999]

>>8775986
Men are pussies when it comes to women. They lose all respect for themselves and women generally have the final say so.

[Anonymous No.8776036]

>>8775999
It's because men exist to serve women.

[Anonymous No.8776040]

>>8775885
>Tbh there's probably someone out there that leaves even someone like tao in the dust.
Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.8776058]

>>8775879
>>8775904
plus:

Bernhard Riemann
Bernoulli familiy
The famous greeks (Pythagoras, Euclid,...)
John von Neumann
Claude Shannon
Augustin-Lois Cauchy
Bertrand Russel
Emmy Noether

[Anonymous No.8776128]

wow yall be a bunch of rasists n sheit pikin only wite people baka

[Anonymous No.8776779]

>>8776128
Tao has Brennan mentioned

[Anonymous No.8776834]

>>8775884
>nazi
>sexist and probably rapist too
>jew
>maniacal mass murdering jew
k

[Anonymous No.8776847]

>>8776834
Why do you hate Jews?

[Anonymous No.8776853]

Does Fermat warrant a mention?

[Anonymous No.8776864]

>>8775882

Sieg heil!

[Anonymous No.8776892]

>>8776864
Krull
Teichmüller

[Anonymous No.8777131]

>>8775873
None of them are Bob and I'm not going to embarrass Bob but Bob. He is married to the worst anthropologist ever.

[Anonymous No.8777827]

>>8775873
Me.

[Anonymous No.8777832]

>>8775879
Borel also I think. His name is on a lot of shiet as well.

[Anonymous No.8778496]

>>8775884
>feynman
hahaha...

[Anonymous No.8778619]

Not so much brain power as literal sorcery and alchemical powers, but whatever

[Anonymous No.8778687]

>>8776058
>Claude Shanon
Just one coding thesis.What else.
He didn't invent anything from scratch.

[Anonymous No.8778860]

I copy and pasted this from wikipedia's Timeline of Mathematics page. I stopped at von Neumann because I have no clue how to rank 20th century mathematicians- too many tragically misunderstood algebra geniuses to sort through.

I didn't include the contributions per person, but you can look them up easily. Looking at mathematics from the timeline view, it becomes very obvious that mathematical progress depends almost entirely on whether or not what is already known is copied down and then distributed throughout the population, kept there, and then repeated over and over again until someone "gets it."

I mean, you just don't see geniuses where there aren't texts to read and copy from, and more surprisingly, you really don't see "lone geniuses" until the texts have been circulated for a couple hundred years at least... which doesn't make for a very convincing argument that humans are very intelligent. It seems like the bulk of mathematical scholarship throughout history isn't advancing mathematics but preserving what is already known by copying and storing it. Lots and lots of copying.

Rarely do you see a region exposed to an ancient text and within two generations a Leibniz pops up. It just doesn't happen. You only see Lebiniz's after dozens of generations of laborious, rote education. I doubt France, for example, would have had made any progress mathematically if it weren't for the Italians translating, printing, and distributing the works of Archimedes and Euclid during the Renaissance, who themselves would not have experienced any progress if they didn't have the texts or did so much trading (also sprsly impt).

It also surprised me how many "advanced" ideas were known for thousands of years, but only until notation systems were standardized are the mathematicians considered to have "understood" the idea officially, the main ideas of calculus being an obvious example. It's kind of embarrassing, as in, "It took us that long to figure out how to do that? Really?"

[Anonymous No.8779288]

>>8778687
He developed a hole theory by himself! Without it, our world would look very different today. But OK, compared to Gauss for example, less impressive.

I add to the list:
Kolmogorov
Abel

[Anonymous No.8779304]

>>8775873
Dirichlet, Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Hilbert, Poincare, Noether, Abel, Galois, Cauchy, Laplace, Lagrange, Fourier, Poisson, Cantor

>>8776058
>>8775884
Feynman and von Neumann are memes, and hardly even qualify as mathematicians

>>8775904
Godel wasn't really much of a mathematician, and his proofs don't really matter much to mathematicians

Also da Vinci? fuck off

[Anonymous No.8779330]

>>8775873
Cauchy
Ramanujan (just because he was self taught in isolation among a bunch of retarded injins)
Leibniz
Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, and 4-D chess grandmaster of the universe
Gauss (idk, I just hear everybody say Gauss is the best, idk why though)
Descarte (created analytical geometry, and his writing is imo, the pinnacle of rennisance shitposting)
Huygens (look at that face, this guy doesn't give a single fuck)
Knuth (i wish more programmers wanted to be like him, instead of like some blue haired singular freak)

[Anonymous No.8779335]

>>8779330
>Descartes

Also the guy lived large, was confident because he knew he was among the best, and he didn't apologize for being smart

[Anonymous No.8779353]

>>8779304
>Godel wasn't really much of a mathematician, and his proofs don't really matter much to mathematicians

[Anonymous No.8779363]

>>8779304
von Neumann a meme (Feynman probably is, I don't know much about him)? Godel not really a mathematician?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!

[Anonymous No.8780090]

>>8779353
They disprove a certain notion of formalism. It doesn't bear on 99.9% of math that's done.

>>8779363
Almost all of Godel's work is in logic. Mathematicians don't really do that sort of shit.

[Anonymous No.8780296]

>>8780090
how dare you speak on this board

[Anonymous No.8780405]

Eratosthenes by far. Nigga measured the earth's circumference with the sun and some sticks.

[Anonymous No.8780489]

>>8780296
Thanks for le ebin may may.

[Anonymous No.8780625]

>>8775963
His career was fucked up by the world not being digital, but by being beautifully analog.

[Anonymous No.8780868]

>>8780090
Not sure if you are serious. If not, I don't get the joke. If you are, again: you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.8780881]

God Tier:
Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Euler, Grothendieck

Ubermensch Tier:
Pythagoras, Euclid, Diophantus, Descartes, Galois, Abel, Cauchy, Ramanujan, Cantor, Fermat, Hilbert, Riemann

Genius Tier:
Bernoulli Bros, Kolmogorov, Weierstrauss, Turing, Laplace, Poincare, Lagrange, Borel, Godel, Von Neumann, Pascal, Fourier, Cohen, Saunders Mac Lane, Shannon, Tao, Wiles, Perelman, Poisson, Noether, Witten, Pitts, Lebesgue, Hermite, Jacobi, Cayley, Dirichlet, Bertrand Russel

Pleb Tier:
Norman Wildberger, Feynman,

[Anonymous No.8780889]

>>8779304
>John von
von Neumann is not a meme. He is a founding father of Linear Optimization, Mathematical Economics and Game Theory. To say nothing of his work in Set Theory and Real Analysis.

[Anonymous No.8780907]

>>8775873

1600-1699

Pascal, Leibniz, Fermat

1700-1799

Euler, LaGrange, LaPlace

1800-1899

Gauss, Cauchy, Weserstrass, Abel, Galois, Cantor and Hilbert

1900-1999

Godel, von Neumann, Turing, Grothendieck, Ramanujan, Erdos, Noether

2000-2100

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.8780909]

>>8780881
Above god tier: Nikola tesla

[Anonymous No.8780920]

>>8780881
Von Neumann should be God Tier.

[Anonymous No.8780930]

mah TOP3, The order doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.8780950]

>>8780907
>Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.8780966]

>>8780868
*tips fedora* thanks gentlesir, for the valiant opinion?

[Anonymous No.8780967]

>>8775873
I'd say von Neumann, Kolmogorov and Grothendieck were the last truly magical mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.8780998]

>>8780889
He contributed, but he's nothing of the genius he's made out to be. Hence meme status. He simply doesn't belong next to the top mathematicians, at best tier 2.

[Anonymous No.8781010]

>>8780998
Would you at least say his cognitive power fits OP's definition of intelligent. He had scary powers from a young age.

[Anonymous No.8781067]

>>8781010
he was intelligent, sure, i just think people overrate what he did

[Anonymous No.8781075]

>>8780950
They are truly the forerunners of our era.

[Anonymous No.8781184]

>>8781067
Didn't he discover interior point methods?

[Anonymous No.8782025]

all these plebs who don't even mention newton

[Anonymous No.8782029]

>>8780881
This list is pretty good, but why no Erdos? And Grothendieck was great but why god tier?

[Anonymous No.8782031]

outta the way brainlets

[Anonymous No.8782049]

>>8775873
not even gonna read the thread because if it's anything other than 58 posts with the word "Gauss" it's not worth reading anyways

[Anonymous No.8782055]

>>8782049
innovator of the GOAT mathematical theorem

$1+2+3+\cdots +N = \frac{N(N+1)}{2}$

[Anonymous No.8782057]

>>8780881
>god tier
>newton

opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.8782059]

True best mathematician

>Hilbert

Even Tao admits he is the last person to have had master of all fields in Mathematics.

People who are alive: Tao and Perelman tied.

[Anonymous No.8782060]

>>8782029
>And Grothendieck was great but why god tier?
he fell for the memes.

[Anonymous No.8782066]

>>8776847
I can understand someone hating nazis.
I can undderstand someone hating jews.

But who on earth would hate both? Either you are a nazi or you are a jew shill.

[Anonymous No.8782070]

>>8782059
Concerning people who are alive, I've read that:
Asking top-shots like Tao, Smirnov, Villani, Werner, ... "who is the most talented among them" most of them said: Jean-Pierre Serre.

[Anonymous No.8782091]

>>8782060
Grothendieck is definitely an ubermensch though, but a completely different kind of mathematician than most others on the list. I mean, he thought 57 was prime...

[Anonymous No.8782334]

>>8779304
Godel was a first class mathematician. You clearly don't study pure math & its obvious you're a retard that doesn't understand mathematical logic is a field of mathematical research.

[Anonymous No.8782337]

Stop posting. You aren't a mathfag and I see through your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8783166]

>>8782334
I'm a graduate student at a group 1 university. Nobody here studies or cares about math logic. Most departments don't have anyone or care about math logic. If anything it's tertiary and tangential to what mathematicians do.

[Anonymous No.8783448]

>>8783166
Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics regardless of your brainlet opinion or what "group one" university you go to.

It obviously isn't Berkeley, Cornell, or Michigan, so your opinion matters very little to me.

Mathematicians do care about logic,
https://math.berkeley.edu/research/areas/logic

I would trust Theodore Slaman to be a better mathematician than one you will ever develop into.

https://math.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/theodore-slaman

>Most departments don't have anyone or care about math logic. If anything it's tertiary and tangential to what mathematicians do.

You are wrong though

https://math.berkeley.edu/~antonio/slides/RMMonterey.pdf

https://math.berkeley.edu/research/areas/logic
https://www.math.cornell.edu/m/research/logic
https://lsa.umich.edu/math/research/logic-and-foundations.html
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~lempp/logic.html
http://sites.dartmouth.edu/logicseminar/

[Anonymous No.8783476]

Jacob Barnett

[Anonymous No.8783497]

>>8783166
I hope you aren't serious.

[Anonymous No.8783533]

>>8783166
me to, we are really good at solving PDEs

[Anonymous No.8783670]

>>8783476
this

[Anonymous No.8783677]

>>8783166
Maybe your department just doesn't have a logic group. That doesn't mean there aren't excellent active logic groups out there.

[Anonymous No.8783917]

>>8783166
You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.8783927]

>>8775879
You forgot the father of calculus.

[Anonymous No.8783928]

>>8783448
Again, nothing you said is technically "wrong", but your average low-dimensional topologist doesn't give a rat's ass what the logicians are doing.

>>8783497
>>8783677
>>8783917
It's fine that some departments do logic, but again it doesn't affect the working mathematician at all. You really think groundbreaking work in algebra is done by math logic people? No, they investigate questions about the foundations which bear almost no consequences on the stuff working mathematicians do. Call me a retard all you want, but I'm right and you're not.

[Anonymous No.8783933]

>>8783928
I mostly disagree with your characterization of logic as something most departments don't care at all about

[Anonymous No.8783937]

>>8783928
The people in the departments I linked to are "working mathematicians" trained in classic areas of mathematics. Your worldview of logic is narrow. By saying logic is not a field of mathematics over and over again doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.8783945]

>>8783933
>>8783937
Some people like both baseball and hockey, that doesn't mean understanding hockey is important to understanding baseball.

I think you're overreacting senselessly to what I'm saying. 99% of mathematicians can go about their lives without caring a damn about math logic. That doesn't mean it's "wrong" or "bad" or "incorrect" or whatever you think I'm saying, it's just not that important to most mathematicians most of the time.

[Anonymous No.8783965]

>>8783448
Also I like how you act like I'm clueless about math departments yet don't seem to know what "group 1" means. Typical UG behavior.

[Anonymous No.8783970]

>>8783945
expressing disagreement isn't really an "overreaction".

[Anonymous No.8783972]

>>8783970
Maybe not you, but the people calling me "retard" and such.

[Anonymous No.8783973]

>>8783965
Not an undegrad. You're talking to a pure mathematician. I know based on your comments you don't attend the universities I listed earlier. Also, I know in real life you wouldn't tell Stephen Simpson or Gerald Sacks that they aren't mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.8783976]

>>8783973
Sure, but I don't see you justifying too well that math logic matters to most mathematicians. Which is, I suppose, a deviation from what I first said. Sure, call it mathematics and include Godel in whatever list you want, doesn't make math logic some super critical theory everybody's studying.

[Anonymous No.8783981]

>>8783976
>>8783976
I'm refuting your initial argument that logic isn't apart of math. Not that logic isn't mainstream Mathematics. That assertion I agree with. But that isn't to say logic isn't important or that mathematicians who do logic are lesser mathematicians than those that do algebraic topology.

[Anonymous No.8783986]

>>8783981
Sure, then we agree. I was more being sarcastic when I said "math logic isn't math", not trying to give a literal dictionary definition. So I'm sorry to have been misleading about it.

[Anonymous No.8783999]

>>8783986
No problem

[Anonymous No.8784034]

But logic is important, just consider AC and its consequences. We can't do math like "hm, hm, 1+1=2, it's common sense, therefor it's true".
I know what you mean, if your research area is PDE you don't need logic, but that goes for a lot of pairs: Does a game theory researcher has to care about category theory? Someone into measure theory about numerical methods?

Concerning Godel: The time he lived / was active, logic was a hot topic (if not _the_ hot topic) in mathematics (you are right, logic departements nowadays seem to be quite small, as far as I know). Think of the famous "foundational crisis of mathematics". Lots of giants were into this at this time: von Neumann, Hilbert, Russell, Brouwer, ..., and Godel, among them, stands out.

[Anonymous No.8784139]

>>8784034
What does the axiom of choice have to do with logic?

[Anonymous No.8784145]

>>8779335
the nigga dreamed up Cartesian coordinates

[Anonymous No.8784814]

definitely feynman

[Anonymous No.8784824]

>>8779330
fuck you Descartes' meditations is a lifestyle

[Anonymous No.8784842]

The man who destroyed Mathematics

[Anonymous No.8784849]

Obviously the ones we study our technology around

Euler, Jacobi, Gauss, Shannon, Laplace, Maxwell, Lenz, Faraday, Lorentz, Tesla

But mostly Shannon for making up shit before it even existed

[Anonymous No.8784853]

>>8784849
>faraday
You realise we're talking about mathematicians right? He didn't even know trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.8784861]

>>8784853
>physicists aren't also mathematicians

Here is your (you)

[Anonymous No.8784883]

>>8784861
Did he invent any mathematics? Did he even use any mathematics?

[Anonymous No.8784904]

>>8784883
You don't invent maths, you just discover it
It already exists

[Anonymous No.8784912]

>>8784904
I hope you're not the guy that I was replying to

[Anonymous No.8784913]

>>8784904

[Anonymous No.8784915]

>>8784912
I am, what of it

>>8784913
Disprove me

[Anonymous No.8784916]

>>8784904
spoken like a true non mathematician

[Anonymous No.8784921]

>>8784916
I'm not though, and neither are you
Reading some Calculus book /sci/ told you to read doesn't make you any less of a brainlet

[Anonymous No.8784923]

>>8784915
Because you completely changed the subject to something which is completely irrelevant. What mathematics did Faraday discover? He was an extremely intelligent and successful experimental physicist/chemist, but he was not a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.8784926]

>>8784921
i got a degree in it before i ever came on /sci/

im glad you can admit your true nature though

[Anonymous No.8784928]

>>8784923
You cannot possibly be a well minded Physicist, but not also be somewhat of a great mathematician

>>8784926
Unless you actually have a PhD and have discovered new Maths, you're as true natured as I am.

[Anonymous No.8784931]

>>8775873
In terms of raw potential, Ted Kaczynski is the best there was and best there ever will be.

[Anonymous No.8784932]

>>8784928
>discovered new Maths

where was calculus before it was discovered?

[Anonymous No.8784936]

>>8784928
>You cannot possibly be a well minded Physicist, but not also be somewhat of a great mathematician
That is a statement with no justification

[Anonymous No.8784937]

>>8784932
Anon, please
Don't tell me you honestly think Nature just does things as it pleases without rules. Calculations have been done since forever.
Does it use our numbers like 1 2 and 3? Probably not, but we observed them then made expressions using our language.

[Anonymous No.8784950]

>>8784937
Mathematics describes some things, but it doesn't mean it is those things.

[Anonymous No.8784955]

>>8784139
Logic and set theory are highly connected. Logic, among other cool stuff, is concerned about axioms.

[Anonymous No.8784961]

>>8784139
>What does a logical axiom have to do with logic?

[Anonymous No.8784965]

>>8784950
Ofcourse not, you're right
But they try, is what I mean

[Anonymous No.8785007]

>>8782091
>I mean, he thought 57 was prime...
Source?

[Anonymous No.8785009]

>>8785007
http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf

bottom right of the first page

[Anonymous No.8785041]

>>8779304
>Feynman and von Neumann are memes, and hardly even qualify as mathematicians

[Anonymous No.8785053]

>>8775873

Off the top of my head, Pilar Magro is indisputably a modern legend, a trailblazer and an asset to human knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8785220]

>>8784931
He got into Harvard to study pure math at 16 & Berkeley hired him when he was 25, that alone speaks to his raw potential.

[Anonymous No.8785224]

>>8785007
>>8785009
I remember we reading in a journal he wrote that he failed a math exam because he wasn't good at arithmetic. Also, teachers counted off points on his homework because his proof didn't match the textbook. I remember he was obsessed about volume and his professors laughed at him saying volume was a solved problem. Most people would have thought he wasn't that gifted at math. He ran town over all of them.

[Anonymous No.8785250]

>>8775884
physician >>>>> mathematician
dream on dud
kys

[Anonymous No.8785252]

>>8775887
unlocking safebox

[Anonymous No.8785262]

>>8780950
top kek

[Anonymous No.8785269]

>>8781075
joker of our era
>>8782066
pleb

[Anonymous No.8786090]

>>8784961
It is, quite literally, a nonlogical axiom.

[Anonymous No.8787396]

what's the axiom of choice

[Anonymous No.8787464]

>>8783927
of course,
leibniz.

[Anonymous No.8787680]

>>8787396
In every family of non-empty sets you can pick/choose one element from every set.Here:

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

You need it for a lot of things, famous example: You use it to state that every vector space has a basis.

[Anonymous No.8787808]

>>8775963

this

stay away from women and children

[Anonymous No.8787812]

>>8784842

from now on math is just wizardry and larping

[Anonymous No.8788352]

>>8775873
watson

[Anonymous No.8788534]

>>8779330
>Cauchy
>not understanding Galois work
>genius

[Carbon No.8788576]

>>8775873
Why are you trying to establish a pecking order among professionals?
Pecking orders are for insects
Humans are more communal.

How are you defining intelligence?
Success?
Tenure?
Some arbitrary IQ measure?

As far as I see it, what you are asking is purely subjective and arbitrary as fuck; it is meaningless exercise, until you can find a definition for intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8788594]

>>8788576
Op just means top rate mathematicians with no order rankings among them

[Anonymous No.8788648]

I would very much like to know how von Neumann is a meme. I'm not arguing; I'm actually curious.

[Anonymous No.8788759]

do the best mathematicians get a lot of pussy?

[Anonymous No.8788765]

>>8788759
No, not really

[Anonymous No.8788792]

>>8788759
Schrödinger hecking did, but he's not quite mathematics

[Anonymous No.8788824]

>>8788792
laughs indeterminately

[Anonymous No.8788835]

>>8788792
GOAT-physician Einstein also frequently met women and I've heard that he was considered good-looking and charming by the ladies.

[Anonymous No.8788838]

>>8788835
He never leaves his house and has become a lost soul of the world

[Anonymous No.8789017]

>>8788759
Only physicists
they have better verbal skills and are less autistic

[Anonymous No.8789071]

>>8788759
well, Euler did have 13 children with a Russian qt

[Anonymous No.8789606]

Why does nobody ever list current mathematicians who aren't in the news every month?

[Anonymous No.8789617]

>>8782060
Serious question: what do you actually know about Grothendieck's work?

[Anonymous No.8789630]

>>8785252
kek that's pretty good goy
Really made us up our security

[Anonymous No.8789646]

>>8776036
Women are the Power of Society.

[Anonymous No.8789663]

>>8782059
>Hilbert

This is the correct answer

[Anonymous No.8789683]

>>8782059
That's a statement about mathematics, not about Hilbert.

[Anonymous No.8790077]

>>8789606
But I did: Jean-Pierre Serre (>>8782070).
One you have to keep an eye on: Peter Scholze.

[Anonymous No.8790144]

>>8782031
meme le meme

[Anonymous No.8790323]

PatrickJMT

[Anonymous No.8790681]

>>8784849
he didn't do any maths, retard. why do you think maxwell is relevant?

[Anonymous No.8790943]

>>8788765

so they must fap a lot

[Anonymous No.8793170]

>>8787396

Mathematical equivalent of hand-waving. Used to prop up unspecified functions and "convenient" existence theorems using axioms of set theory. You'll often see students parroting the definition without understanding it. See: >>8787680