What Are the Major Contributions of Recent Famous Mathematicians?

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathshead
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the contributions of recent famous mathematicians, exploring their major works and comparing their talents to historical figures in mathematics. It touches on the evolution of mathematics, the role of technology in proofs, and the perception of modern mathematicians' capabilities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention recent famous mathematicians, including Andrew Wiles and Ed Witten, highlighting their significant contributions.
  • There is a suggestion that modern mathematicians may focus more on popularizing mathematics rather than making broad contributions across multiple fields.
  • One participant argues that the growth of mathematics makes it challenging for individuals to achieve the same level of impact as historical mathematicians like Ramanujan, Gauss, Euler, and Fermat.
  • Another participant questions the assertion that we will never see mathematicians of equal talent again, suggesting that modern mathematicians could be as talented as their predecessors.
  • The discussion includes a technical explanation of the four-color theorem and the role of computers in its proof, noting that traditional mathematics established a finite set of maps that could be used to demonstrate the theorem.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using computers in mathematical proofs, with participants seeking clarification on the validity and acceptance of such methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the capabilities and contributions of modern mathematicians compared to historical figures. There is no consensus on whether modern mathematicians can achieve the same level of significance as those from the past, and the discussion on the use of computers in proofs remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the evolution of mathematics and the impact of technology on mathematical proof, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the implications of computer-assisted proofs.

mathshead
can someone tell me some recent famous mathematican, and the major works...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do a google search on Fields medalalists.
 
Wiles is brilliant, but that one accomplishment was based closely on the work of many others. Not as bad as using a computer to solve the four-color map theorem, though. Have you see the movie The Beautiful Mind about John Nash? We'll never again have a mathematician with the talents of Ramanujan, Gauss, Euler, Fermat...
 
We'll never again have a mathematician with the talents of Ramanujan, Gauss, Euler, Fermat... [/B]

Why would you say that?

I think the problem nowadays is that math has grown so much that it would be really hard for a mathematician to make significant contributions in multiple fields. However, I don't see why we would not have now people as talented as any old-time mathematician.

I would also mention Ed Witten as one of the best mathematicians ever. IIRC, besides being one of the fathers of string theory, he is a Field medalist.
 
Yes, from what I understand, Witten is a mentor and math genius. The talents of modern mathematicians incline more toward popularizing their field, and less toward generalization than those of old.
 
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Wiles is brilliant, but that one accomplishment was based closely on the work of many others. Not as bad as using a computer to solve the four-color map theorem, though. Have you see the movie The Beautiful Mind about John Nash? We'll never again have a mathematician with the talents of Ramanujan, Gauss, Euler, Fermat...

What is this four color theorem, and how was a computer used to solve it?
 
What is the minimum number of colors needed for arbitrary regions covering a (two-dimensional) map, such that no two regions of the same color adjoin?
 
And the computer proof went as follows:

Using traditional mathematics, you can prove that there exists some finite set of maps with the property that if you know how to 4-color all of those maps, you can find a way to 4-color any map.

From there, you use a computer to compute the entire set of maps and to compute a 4-coloring for each map. I can't remember if the actual number of maps was in the thousands or tens of thousands... it certainly wasn't a task doable by hand.


Since then, more advanced arguments have reduced the number of maps to consider, but to my knowledge haven't reduced the problem to something an individual could expect to do himself in any reasonable amount of time.


The peculiar thing is that the optimal n-coloring was long since known for EVERY other two dimensional topological surface aside from the sphere, for which the problem is equivalent to the plane, and the proof really isn't that difficult.

Hurkyl
 
i remember reading there was some problem with using a computer to do mathematical proof, can some one explain that to me?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K