Talk:Mathematician

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mathematician article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations

Archives

Archive 1

This section seems pretty worthless. Just somebodies opinion on who the "sharpest" minds were in their own time. I will concede that some of it isn't very arguable... But wouldn't this kind of information belong more in article on the history of mathematics? I'm going to remove it for now. Perhaps a good justification for it can be presented here? --Jeremy (wouldn't sharpest minds be a good area for people with the most influence in the math world?)

I removed the phrase about proofs being verified by computers in the future because it's nonsense. This might only apply to very specific areas in mathematics, if at all. Also I changed the phrase about the source of mathematical problems. Most of them come from within mathematics, only a small part comes from economics and the sciences, and those problems would be concerned applied mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterationx10 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article acknowledges that Augustine's famously hostile saying about mathematicians was in fact directed at astrologers, then why is the son of a bitch even in the mathematician article? Wouldn't it create less confusion to simply omit the quotation which has created some measure of confusion over the years?

Agreed, it is irrelevant to the article, especially without context. Woudl anyone object to its removal?--&m@ 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dump it I say!  :-) capitalist 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Konstable 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article rather confused: it does not know whether it is talking about mathematicians or mathematics. Some parts really should be moved or dropped. The Overview section is not about mathematicians! The Problems in mathematics section is not either. As it is now, the Differences section is only halfway about mathematicians.

We must set up a proper outline for what should be and what should not be in the article, and how it should be organized. PhS 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, an interesting point would concern the racial and ethnic composition of mathematicians (I see below that the Jews have nice mathematical heritage). I think that a link to the Race and Intelligence article would be good here. People with low IQs tend not to make good mathematicians. Perhaps also some reference to common moral attributes of mathematicians (mathematics has been held in high esteem in one form or other by almost all historic civilisations - perhaps that statement is true by definition).

I see on wikipedia that most mathematicians in history have been held to be white - some comments on the nationality of these white mathematicians would be interesting. Perhaps it is also fair to comment upon how it is that racial and ethnic differences between mathematicians have often resulted in different 'types' and 'flavours' of mathematics - there would be some interesting issues concerning the foundations of mathematics here. How do mathematicians know whether or not what they are doing is actually *real* mathematics (the answer here is usually ZFC - though it has been a long time since I say the following comment in a journal : "And here we have computationally, apolitically and non-racially verified the authenticity and accuracy of our theorems via the use of a colour-blind ZFC diagnostic routine to make sure that it was not complete b******s....". Well, you get the point. I found the following website interesting (though it probably wasn't programmed in by a black guy : ) : http://metamath.org/ (the last comment was given when observing that all the countries associated with meta-math are white, but I'm not complaining, merely stating colour-blond fact. )

Nukemason2 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always heard this quote was from P.Erdos. Wikiquote agrees here. Where does the information about the author being A.Renyi come from? --Kajetan Wandowicz 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the origin of this quote on Talk:Paul Erdős some years ago. See the response there (though it doesn't say much). It's probably impossible to determine who really said it first. It's always more likely to be attributed to Erdős rather than Rényi, as he is the more famous of the two. --Zundark 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case shouldn't that be clarified in the article? As we cannot determine who said that, there are three possibilities:

1. Sign the quote with Renyi's name.

2. Sign it with Erdos' name.

3. Say (in the article) that there exists a controversy.

Out of which, given that Wikiquote attributes it to Erdos, second option shlould be chosen. Considering what you just said, the third option is the best. Either way, the worst option is 1 - but this one is used. --Kajetan Wandowicz 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here from anyone, so changed. --Kajetan Wandowicz 11:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just remove this section? While mildly interestig from a trivial point of view, it's not particularly encyclopedic or relevant to the notion of mathematician.--Boffob 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally added the statistics section to complement the demographic information in the section above it and also as an attempt to give a rounded picture as mathematicians as a whole. Admittedly it doesn't fit in too smoothly and could be rewritten, but I believe that most of the information is of sufficient value to keep in the article. Perhaps it could be merged with the demographics section. TooMuchMath 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a demographics section that tells us what proportion of mathematicians are male vs. female, a breakdown by age, a breakdown by race/ethnicity (if we must...) and so forth? Why do I have to be told that some group or another is "underrepresented?" Can't I take the basic facts from the encyclopedia article and decide that for myself? Who determines the "proper" representation of each group anyway? I'm proposing that we either radically rewrite or eliminate this section entirely. Other comments? capitalist 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I had forgotten that I had this rant here. I see an IP came in and rewrote the section to eliminate the POV at least. It reads much better now!  :) capitalist 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under-represented comes from the social sciences and is typically taken to mean representation within the subgroup compared with the population as a whole. --lquilter 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful, I think, to address in the demographics section about the popular belief that mathematicians are most productive in their 20s and that by their 30s and certainly 40s their most "brilliant" years are over. Sources on this topic? --lquilter 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states:

"Mathematics differs from natural sciences in that physical theories in the sciences are tested by experiments, while mathematical statements are supported by proofs which may be verified objectively by mathematicians."

While it is true that outside of mathematics, proofs are not applicable, it is a mistake to imply that experiments do not apply to mathematics. A very large number of areas of mathematics are subject to experiment. Not infrequently, experiment will reveal a pattern that can then be proved. In some finite cases, the experimental results will themselves constitute a proof. (There are even a respected journal, "Experimental Mathematics" (A.K. Peters), and several books discussing the role of experiment in mathematics.)Daqu (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article Experimental mathematics, and more on the issue is said in the section Mathematics#Mathematics as a science. There is also Philosophy of mathematics#Empiricism. In my opinion, there is an essential difference though between the role of experimentation in formal sciences like mathematics and in the natural sciences. No amount of experimental "testing" will avail to establish the validity of, e.g., Goldbach's conjecture or the Riemann hypothesis. In mathematical experiments there is no null hypothesis, no tests of significance, because there is no chance factor and no experimental error. Every "experiment" done by computer is in a sense the production of a formally provable theorem, and not a test in the sense of the scientific method. "Exploration" captures the nature of the activity much better than "experimentation".  --Lambiam 17:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with almost everything you write, Lambiam, but none of it affects the truth of what I wrote. The word "exploration" perfectly captures the nature of the activity known as "exploration". But I was speaking about "experimentation", which is best captured by the word "experimentation".

There are differences in the nature of experimentation for any two sciences, but that does not invalidate the fact that experimentation is experimentation.Daqu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example then of a mathematical statement, held by a mathematician of repute, that has been tested by experiment but is not supported by (mathematical) proof?  --Lambiam 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "held by" means here.Daqu (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the mathematician accepts the statement as being true, on an equal footing with (proved) theorems.  --Lambiam 12:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the relevance.Daqu (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is as follows. The contested sentence in the article states: "Mathematics differs from natural sciences in that physical theories in the sciences are tested by experiments, while mathematical statements are supported by proofs which may be verified objectively by mathematicians." For this contrast to make sense, the physical theories referred to have to be theories that are embraced by physicists: they have been tested and withstood the tests (which typically at the same time falsified a rival theory). Likewise, the mathematical statements are not just any statements, but statements embraced by mathematicians: they have attained theoremhood. You say that this distinction is inaccurate (but concede that proofs are not applicable outside of mathematics). To invalidate the contested sentence, we then need examples where a mathematical statement is embraced by mathematicians, not by dint of theoremhood, but because it has withstood the tests.  --Lambiam 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the Riemann hypothesis is an example; but it depends on what you mean by "held by." Experiments have led most (or all?) mathematicians to believe it is true, but they don't "hold" it to be true, because they can't prove it. So they hold it to be an open question. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Goldbach's conjecture. The difference is indeed the status conferred on a statement that does not immediately succumb to experiment. Although the general theory of relativity is a theory, it is taught as part of the canon of physics, as being confirmed by stringent tests – although physicists realize that sooner or later it may fail a test and need to be replaced. Mathematical statements that appear to be true for a few cases that have been examined (few, because they are negligeable compared to the infinity of all cases), but whose truth is not supported by a deductive argument, never attain a similar status in mathematics. Errors in proofs aside, a theorem will not fail a test, so it is pointless to attempt to test a statement that you accept as a theorem.  --Lambiam 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a mathematician speaking! It's not at all pointless to test the validity of a proved theorem on a finite number of test cases. Just because you have accepted it as a theorem doesn't mean it's true! "Errors in proofs aside" is sort of like "no offense, but..." Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Sheepyouare, if you really want to discuss the philosophy of experiment, then it should be noted that no amount of experiment in the "experimental sciences" like physics, chemistry and biology can conclusively show any fact other than what happened in the experiment. (And even then, as you mention, just as with any experiment, there is the possibility of experimental error.)

I will say it one last time, and not again: Just because mathematics is subject to proof (and as you may know, not all propositions are subject to proof, as Gödel showed; the twin prime conjecture, for example, may be impossible to ever prove or disprove, regardless of whether it is true or false) does not mean that it is not subject to experiment as well. I do numerical experiments to test various mathematical propositions All The Time, and so do many other mathematicians. That's all I have to say on the matter.Daqu (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the word processor article, I changed "scientists" to "mathematicians and scientists". Does XKCD support this idea that mathematicians are not "merely" another kind of scientist? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article needs /at least/ extensive work, and perhaps even a complete rewrite. Most of the sections on the article focus on mathematics, as opposed to mathematicians. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it's impossible to discuss one without overlapping into the other... I do have some more specific complaints:

1. The "Problems in Mathematics" section is mostly focussed on recent developments in mathematics. This isn't a bad thing, but the title is misleading and doesn't match the content.

2. I take it the "Motivation" section is intended to discuss the reasons why mathematicians are mathematicians, or at least what kinds of things mathematicians focus on. It seems like a poor place to talk about awards, as I don't really think major breakthroughs are performed just for a medal. Of course, even this perspective isn't NPOV... But even placing information there seems to imply that this is the case. It seems like the best solution would be to give the awards it's own section.

Regardless, the Motivation section seems like a good place to discuss Hardy (regarding the aesthetics of Mathematics), and Wigner (unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics). At the least, these seem like a good starting point as far as motivation is concerned. More recent material could include Lockhart's essay on mathematical pedagogy (a mathematician's lament).

3. I think the "Differences" section should be completely axed. Some of the content on conjectures and generalizations could be merged with the Motivation section. A discussion on the differences between mathematicians and scientists seems far more appropriate, but even the title of "differences" seems biased. I mean, why not call it similarities? Something like "Relationships between mathematicians and scientists" seems better, and more focussed.

4. The entire "Demographics" section is just talking about women in mathematics. This could be heavily expanded to include things like... What regions/countries have traditionally produced a lot of mathematicians? What regions/countries are producing a lot today? Has this changed a lot? Sexes? Races? etc etc...

5. Doctoral degree statistics in the US should at the least be merged with the Demographics section... But if we include this, why not also include the doctoral statistics for other countries? This might be too much.

6. ...Do we really need all those quotes? How do these kinds of tidbits give anybody an idea of what mathematicians do? This seems like the kind of material that people include because they just love the quotes. I mean, I love the quotes too! But they make the article seem unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticktwig (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues listed here are all worthy of consideration (see also sections "Article Is In Sorry Shape", and "Pruning content more about mathematics than mathematicians" below. Paul August ☎ 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section on "Differences with Scientists" is a bit vague. Physicists prove their theories mathemtically, not experimentally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.160 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

leodams was Mathematics differs from natural sciences in that physical theories in the sciences are tested by experiments, while mathematical statements are supported by proofs which may be verified objectively by mathematicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.210.54 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you just described is a difference between mathematics and natural sciences, and has already been addressed in the article on mathematics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article could do a better job of describing a job as a mathematician. What is their average pay? for example. --DocDeel516 ^discuss 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two channel DNA microarrays are used when one wants to compare data from one sample, against some other sample (which will often be a reference sample)". This implies that this is only used with two channel DNA microarrays, when the method is also used with oligonucleotide arrays (in which case the two channels are on separate arrays). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoolium (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whoever wrote this self contradictory definition, will you please present the source of this definition, or elsewise, stop reverberating my editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarsalankhalid (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whoever keeps putting the mathematician as "somebody who celebrates the beauty of mathematics" needs to stop. That is not a mathematician. There are many people who appreciate the beauty of mathematics, but are not mathematicians.

Another example could be: I appreciate music, but I am not a musician. See? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticktwig (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it says: A mathematician is a person whose primary area of study and/or research is the field of mathematics... so you could say that an engineer who taught math and only live lecturing them is one of the mathematicians? I think that some level of abstractness is needed... How much? Let's argue...--kmath (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue - there is also the issue that some major mathematicians would not have considered it their 'primary' area of research too - though the terminology was different then (natural philosophy etc.) Newton would probably not have considered himself PRIMARILY interested in mathematics... he was nuts about biblical numerology, had major legal and political involvement later in life, and by today's standards might be known just slightly for being a physicist (as opposed to a mathematician, though it may have been seen differently then). To ensure that the definition covers everyone it should, regardless of the standards of their time, and not too many - like the engineering-inclined maths teacher, perhaps the article could define a mathematician as

'An individual who has contributed results widely recognised as relevant to the progress of mathematics in itself'

though preferably much better-worded than that. Of course formal qualifications can't be included in the definition, and not everyone will be happy with it - perhaps the only honest approach is to start off with exactly that - a statement that what defines a mathematician is widely disagreed upon - and then follow up with more than one reasonable definition.

There is too much about mathematics and too little about mathematicians here. I suggest we look at the Scientist article for ideas of how to improve this one, since it appears to be a better made article on an analogous subject. The "Problems" section should go and the "Differences" section should be reworded to be about mathematicians vs scientists instead of the current mathematics vs science (and get a slightly more descriptive title). Does anybody else agree? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see new section immediately below. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the following form the article since it is more about mathematics than mathematicians, perhaps some of it could be merged into mathematics:

The publication of new discoveries in mathematics continues at an immense rate in hundreds of scientific journals. In particular, mathematics is not a closed system, in that there is no shortage of open problems; in fact, at any given time, there are infinitely many potential open problems which mathematicians have not stumbled upon. The diversity of mathematics also allows for problems, which, in certain contexts, may not be solved or are undecidable in particular theories!

Recently, an important problem in the field of number theory was resolved by the mathematician Andrew Wiles; this is known as Fermat's Last Theorem. The problem remained open for approximately 350 years making it one of the oldest problems in the history of mathematics.

Another recently resolved important problem, in the field of differential topology, is the Poincaré conjecture. Like Fermat's Last Theorem, this conjecture withstood 100 years of attempts at its solution, but was eventually resolved by Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2003. A peer review was completed in 2006, and the proof was accepted as valid.^[1]

The Poincaré conjecture belonged to a larger class of open problems (prior to its proof) known as the Millennium Prize Problems. These problems concern such diverse fields of mathematics such as algebraic geometry, algebraic number theory, differential geometry, theoretical computer science and so forth. For any one of these problems, there is a US$1,000,000 award for its solution. However, many mathematicians consider the prestige to be of a greater value than the actual sum of money.

There is a a lot more like it that needs removing in my view. Paul August ☎ 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wrote that content at some point. My point of view is that "mathematics" and "mathematician" are connected, and thus one cannot mention one without mentioning the other (as an analogy, consider "axiomatic set theory" and "set-theoretic topology" :)). For instance, should the article cover some famous mathematicians in the past, or should the article also consider what mathematicians, in general, do? I feel that both ideas should be a fundamental part of the article, but the former is certainly the most important. However, when I added the content under the current "motivation section", I kept in mind the section title, and as such described "mathematics" in relation to "mathematician". Do you think that some of this content should be merged into mathematics instead? If so, feel free to do that. With regards to the above content, I actually mentioned "mathematician" in the last three paragraphs, although not to a significant extent. As such, I do not think (correct me otherwise) that there is mention of either Andrew Wiles or Grigori Perelman (who are famous mathematicians). Could you please expand slightly on your point? Cheers, --PST 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PST. Yes obviously "mathematics" and "mathematicians" are interrelated. And yes, the article should (and does to some extent) "cover some famous mathematicians" and "consider what mathematicians, in general, do". Perhaps some of the content above about Wiles and Perelman, as "famous" present day mathematicians could be reworded to be more from a "mathematician" slant than a "mathematics" one, and so retained in the article. This might help dispel the naive notion that all of mathematics is already known. Let me give that a try.

By the way reading some of the discussions above I see that a few other editors have expressed similar concerns to mine. For example immediately above in the section "Article Is In Sorry Shape", Jaimeastorga2000 says: "There is too much about mathematics and too little about mathematicians here" and suggests that we should look at Scientist for ideas on improving the article. That seems like a good idea to me. Also in the section "Rewrite" an editor complains that "most of the sections on the article focus on mathematics, as opposed to mathematicians" and lists a series of specific issues to be addressed. All of which seem worthy of consideration. I might also try to give some attention to these.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have a problem with the definition of applied mathematician given in the intro:

     Conversely, some mathematicians may provide insights into other fields of research—these people are known as applied      
     mathematicians.

Ignoring the fact that it is not a mathematic use of the word conversely, I would say that many mathematicians who are not applied mathematicians have provided insight into other fields of research, many of them posthumously. Isn't an applied mathematician someone who does applied mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.213.146 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems with the introduction. This foolish article lacks any discussion of applied mathematics and applied mathematicians. Until that mistake is fixed, there should be no discussion of applied mathematics in the lede.

It is bizarre that this article has a whole section on category theory and foundations and nothing on applications.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to a 1990s study of research mathematics in the USA, which found that the majority of academic authors of MR-reviewed papers were in departments outside of mathematics. This study was referenced by the outside review of USA mathematics around 2000, by a panel that included Lennart Carleson, which I assume is known to full professors and other sufficiently wizened.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I expected an article about the "hardest" of the hard sciences to have a lot less subjective generalization than this one does (specifically, the "Motivations" section). For one thing, I doubt the section describes the motivations of every mathematician (if so, that definitely deserves a reference), so it would be nice to know where these described motivations are coming from, to get a sense of how well they can be expected to describe any given mathematician. For another thing, leaving aside the point about the section as a whole, there are multiple factual statements made in the section that should be cited, for example, "However, among academic mathematics, the majority of mathematical papers published in the United States are written by academics outside of mathematics departments." --Spameroo (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss. i dont' think a hindu 'god' has any place as a notable mathematician. i know lots of these guys believe these hindu gods are teh founders of math, which i don't agree with.

plus, having someone filed under Wiki's 'chapter on HINDUISM' is pretty off in my opinion. math isn't associated with any religion, and i don't think ANY prominent mathematician on the page is filed under a wiki series on a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in Baudhayana or Aryabhata that refers to them as Hindu gods. The edits by Shakerb did not appear to me to claim them as the founders of math. The articles themselves have sourced information on the mathematical works of these 2 mathematicians. Both are linked significantly throughout mathematics articles. There are even articles on their discoveries, named after them, Āryabhaṭa numeration, Baudhayana sequences. While there are issues with the potential eventual length of a section called "Notable Mathematicians" as the inclusion criteria is poorly defined, I see no reason to exclude them specifically. ― Padenton|✉   16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baudhāyana, (fl. c. 800 BCE)[1] was the author of the Baudhayana sūtras, which cover dharma, daily ritual, mathematics, etc. He belongs to the Yajurveda school, and is older than the other sūtra author Āpastamba.

if you follow the wiki links, you'll see the following:

The Yajurveda (Sanskrit: यजुर्वेदः yajurveda, a tatpurusa compound of yajus "sacrificial formula" and veda "knowledge") is one of the four canonical texts of Hinduism, the Vedas. Estimated to have been mostly composed c. 1200–1000 BCE (see below), the Yajurveda Samhita, or "compilation", contains the liturgy (mantras) needed to perform the sacrifices of the historical Vedic religion, and the added Brahmana and Śrautasutra add information on the interpretation and on the details of their performance.

The Vedas (/ˈveɪdəz, ˈviː-/;[1] Sanskrit: वेद véda, "knowledge") are a large body of texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.[2][3]

would this not be considering someone such as baudhayana to be a deity of sorts? i'm not hindu so i cannot say for sure, but it sure seems to me this individual is revered and is viewed as a prophet. isn't that a reasonable inference, given the text above?

if indeed these texts originated in 1200BC, i would argue babylonian mathematics is more important than this individual. since i'm a bit lazy to alt-tab back to the page and see if they're there (i think they are), i do not see what the addition of baudhayana adds. furthermore, his work on approximating pi wasn't significant enough to earn inclusion of his name (which i think is supposed to be aryabhata, who is on that list of people, and thus i don't even know if that tooltip/toolbox thing belongs on bhaudyana's page).

further, the contributinos of aryabhata are somewhat controversial, evidenced by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80ryabha%E1%B9%AD%C4%ABya):

it has been suggested by some commentators, most notably B. L. van der Waerden, that certain aspects of Aryabhata's geocentric model suggest the influence of an unknown, underlying heliocentric model.[2][3] This view has been contradicted by others and, in particular, strongly criticized by Noel Swerdlow, who characterized it as flatly contradicting Aryabhata's own words.[4][5]

to me, it seems a lot of the things claimed by ancient indian mathematics is highly disputed. if you see my edit on the history of mathematics page, i quote boyer edition 1 verbatim which states it's very hard to find conclusive proof to give basis to much of the claims of indian mathematics.

this situation is further exacerbated when boyer states that some claimed that indian mathematics discovered things 2,000,00 years ago (again if you see my history of mathematics discussion, it's there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_mathematics)

i would be much happier putting Dr Rao (who is still alive) over any of these current additions. he is a great mathematician and he was actually a heavy influence on me. comparatively speaking, given the clear disputes surrounding importance of ancient indian mathematics, i believe it's easier to make a case for dr rao (who, in my opinion, is an equal to ramanujan at the very least) than it is for these.

what do you think? 174.3.213.121 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:115ash, who has been blocked repeatedly, is behaving very oddly. He has taken out noted mathematicians like Hilbert. Someone with more time might reverse this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ones he put in are mostly Italian. Those taken out are mostly or all non-Italian. 115ash has already been banned for patriotic peacockery. Most of his efforts have been reverted by Alessandro57, but not all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He uses dishonest edit summaries like "fixes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I contemplated repairing the damage done to this section by recent edits (see above), it occurred to me that I would only be using my own sense of who the most notable mathematicians were. There are individuals who I think should be listed and others who I don't see any reason to list. I am sure that other editors would have different takes on these lists. I see a need to have some criteria for inclusion in this gallery, perhaps something like having more than x amount of space devoted to them in some general History of Mathematics tome or having to appear in the top twenty of someone's greatest mathematicians list. Having such a criteria would be in the spirit of WP since it would not be a judgement call on the part of editors as to whether or not someone is included. Another concern that I have is whether or not the quality of a person's mathematics should be the sole factor in determining their notability. For instance, I would keep Fibonacci on this list, but not because of his mathematical contributions which are paltry, but because he was so influential in opening up Europe to the influx of Hindu-Arabian mathematical ideas. I would also keep Agnesi, again not due to her mathematics, but as a woman writing a very influential textbook that spread and popularized the concepts of calculus. These are people whose notability is grounded in what they did for mathematics as a field and I believe that they need to be recognized for this as well as those whose mathematical contributions were seminal. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In almost two weeks this has drawn no comments, so I will be bold and implement an idea mentioned above. We currently have about 40 names and pictures in this section (20 of each). I think that this is about the right number, maybe we can let it grow to 50, but not more. As a basic criteria I will use inclusion in James Dow Allen's list of the "Greatest Mathematicians of All Time". He has listed 150 names at Greatest Mathematicians. I will now prune our listing to remove anyone not on that list. I think that anyone in the top 30 of that list should be an automatic inclusion in ours and that would still leave plenty of room for editors to express their own favorite choices. (Note that with this criteria, Fibonacci would be in, but Agnesi would be out.) Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Paul Erdős to the list. As he is not in the top 30 of Allen's list (he's #115) I should justify this inclusion. As the most prolific author of mathematics (nearly double the number of publications of the former holder of this record – Euler) his place should be assured, but I have other reasons for including him. Erdős represents an extreme among mathematicians. He lived, breathed and ate mathematics 24-7. He did not have a job or a permanent address, but rather continuously traveled around the world visiting mathematicians for a few days and then moving on. There are very few living mathematicians that do not have a finite Erdős number (distance from Erdős in the co-author graph). He has had books written about him and his mathematics and even a film made about him. I do not consider him to be a role model, but rather an example of how far one can go in the pursuit of mathematics. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you've mentioned, I am going to add legends like Fibonacci and Agnesi. I am also going to add Cardano and remove Euclid, as he is already included in the infobox. Nevertheless, I'd keep also keep lovelace, Peano and Aryabhata. --115ash^→(☏) 10:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the part entitled "Notable mathematicians" and I am surprised that Stefan Banach has not been mentioned there.

Banach is listed at #58 of Allen's list. Would you care to make an argument for his inclusion? Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A mathematician is someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in his or her work, typically to solve mathematical problems. Mathematics is concerned with numbers, data, quantity, structure, space, models and change. Add, plz url "change" to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus" Thanks! Mgreat (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Altamel (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed a contested paragraph in the history section. The first sentence of which talked about the Rennaissance and the second listed some mathematicians with other occupations. True, the listed examples were all Italian and it is generally agreed that the Rennaissance did start in the italian peninsula, but that superficial commonality is the only thing that links the two statements. The essence of the paragraph is that mathematicians had other professions and the only reason that the Rennaissance is brought up in connection with that statement is due to the fact that prior to the Rennaissance the concept of "having a profession" did not make much sense. I've altered the paragraph to imply this and added some names to show that it was a European phenomenon. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were certain mistakes on those sentences. I've just fixed them. --115ash^→(☏) 09:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just changed this, which seems much better.

@Bill Cherowitzo, there were even some mistakes on the University section, which have been fixed now. I believe that there must something about Italian Universities, (such as Bologna or Rome), as many of them are oldest ones. What do you think? Let me know. --115ash^→(☏) 09:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the list of notable mathematicians but placed it after the picture gallery. The list was certainly not redundant as there was no overlap. I think the list is needed because I would not like to see the picture gallery get much larger than it already is yet I would like the total listing to be large enough so that different disciplines, cultures and ages are represented. I also found your edits to the Rennaissance paragraph to be problematic. The parenthetical statements should indicate the "other profession" that these mathematicians were engaged in, as that is what the sentence is about. Identifying them by their mathematical accomplishments is not to the point. I had left Pacioli untouched in my edit since I wasn't sure that I wanted to say that being a member of the clergy was a profession, but if we don't say that, then he should probably be removed. I have not changed this back for now. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Cherowitzo, what about the university section? Also, can we add Lovelace? --115ash^→(☏) 08:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to say about the universities? I would not support Lovelace; she's a stretch as a mathematician and doesn't make the top 150 list. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Cherowitzo , I'd like to say something about Uni of Bologna and Sapienza of Rome, as they're the world's oldest institutions.

Besides being old, what is their significance with respect to the topic of this page? If there is no significant relationship with mathematicians, there is no reason to mention them. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of that "notable mathematicians" section, why don't we create a new collage and label it on the infobox? I think this would be a better idea and it will certainly stop vandals. --115ash^→(☏) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of infoboxes, and they are certainly not the place to put long lists of things. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe that a collage for this article will be very useful. Shall I create one like this? --115ash^→(☏) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with the montage idea. The most important for me is that the image selections are controlled by only one editor and to make a change you have to create a whole new montage. This runs counter to the basic idea of Wikipedia - that it is a collaborative effort that anyone can contribute to. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's wait. --115ash^→(☏) 14:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of screen space it takes up, I don't think the current picture gallery of historically notable mathematicians is an improvement to the article. The pictures achieve nothing in explaining to the reader what a mathematician is, perhaps apart from illustrating that it is an ancient vocation. Tayste (edits) 01:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very concept of a section on "notable mathematicians" is prone to constant tinkering (at best) and bickering (at worst). Abandon the idea of a "who's-who", and make this article about the history and nature of the profession. "notable" people in the profession will come naturally in the progression, and will be in appropriate context. As it is now, I'm tempted to remove the whole section to discourage this lazy sort of presentation of material. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs culling. I've seen the same kind of thing in various articles about music. Lists get longer and longer, turning into an example farm. If we need to list notable mathematicians then let's do it with an actual List page and/or Category, not in the article itself. Tayste (edits) 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are all Mathematicians a specific type of logician? If so then the parent category of Category:Mathematicians should be Category:Logicians —User 000 name 09:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most mathematicians I know (including myself) would consider that an insult. You are confusing the wielder of a tool with someone who studies that tool. That is not a hierarchical relationship, unless you want to claim that everyone who uses logic is a logician. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the reasons for a supposedly insulting categorisation? I am surprised by this statement!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A truly "mathematical" approach to writing an article about the concept of "mathematician" is to investigate first whether an answer to the question "what is a mathematician?" exists at all. Mathematicians know that attempts to find non-existing answers may occasionally be apparently successfull, although the answer is inevitably nonsensical.

The article demonstrates the problem of defining the "mathematican" by using a circular definition: mathematicans work on mathematics. And mathematics is what mathematicans do, of course. Is mathematics just logical thinking in abstract symbols? The written representation can not be decisive for the nature of mathematics. Take the example of the concept of a "sufficient condition". It can be defined with a formula in boolean variables, and then it "looks like" mathematics But lawyers apply exactly the same reasons if they interpret statutory provisions containing sufficient conditions. But no one calls them "mathematicians" if they do that. This example shows that definting mathematicians is a conventional matter, not a fundamental one. Incidentally, the same problem applies to engineers: prople involved in engineering. Vice versa. Rbakels (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mathematician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206151209/http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm to http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609220806/http://www.careercornerstone.org/math/math.htm to http://www.careercornerstone.org/math/math.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121214194422/http://valure.wiki.ccsd.edu/ to http://valure.wiki.ccsd.edu/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mathmajor.org/careers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003171929/http://mathmajor.org/ to http://mathmajor.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some data from RS re the employability of math graduates are useful for inclusion in article. Examples [1], [2], [3], [4]...--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Noether.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Noether.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I can do Grammer K5gproWiki (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol i dont like math — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.57.85 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematician actually means a machine for turning coffee into theorems(if you know what I’m saying). 112.150.25.221 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vedic mathematicians are ancient in the world , pythagoras theorem, number system, zero , geometry was already mentioned in Vedas much much earlier than these mathematicians mentioned. It is time people respect the ones who gave the world these things, mutilating history is extremely disrespectful Kayera (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "more citations needed" template added in April 2021. The editor who added it is not edited since 2023, so it's impossible to know for sure what prompted the addition of the template. There was one specific sentence which had a citations needed tag. That tag itself was slightly problematic as a sentence had a citation which was a dead link, and rather than follow the usual process of leaving the dead link, and editor simply replace the dead link with a citations needed tag. I tracked down the dead link which could be found in Internet archive, but I chose to use an active link to a better site, rather than "cure" the dead link with the Internet archive link. It's only my speculation that the addition of the article wide "more citations needed" was prompted by the existence of that tag. If so, the problem is cured. It is my opinion that the article wide tag should be reserved for articles with very few citations relative to the length, while using the more specific citations needed tag if there are a few remaining assertions meeting citations.

I won't disagree that a careful reader could find some sentences which could use some citations, but I push back on the notion that the article wide template is appropriate for an article of this length with 25 citations. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]