Did Ramanujan's work look like crackpottery?

  • B
  • Thread starter RPinPA
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Work
In summary, Ramanujan developed his results on his own without access to standard mathematical notation, and so when he began corresponding with mathematicians at universities they all (with the notable exception of G. H. Hardy) dismissed the work as nonsense. However, due to his brilliance, he was able to overcome this and the work is now considered to be some of the greatest mathematical insights of all time.
  • #1
RPinPA
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
587
329
I happened to come across an old thread, "What counts as crackpottery?" and the above question came to my mind. The story is well known that he developed his results on his own without access to standard mathematical notation, and so when he began corresponding with mathematicians at universities they all (with the notable exception of G. H. Hardy) dismissed the work as nonsense.

Does anyone know what that correspondence looked like? Aside from using non-standard notation, did it have elements of crackpottery which contributed to it getting dismissed?

Sort of apropos to this question, I recently read of an experiment where someone submitted a novel, a recent (I think) prize winner to various publishers pseudonymously. It was rejected by all of them, including the publisher who had published the actual novel.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
RPinPA said:
It was rejected by all of them, including the publisher who had published the actual novel.
If they published it already then rejecting further submissions of the already published material is the right thing to do.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #3
mfb said:
If they published it already then rejecting further submissions of the already published material is the right thing to do.

I believe the point was that the editors did NOT recognize it and rejected it as not suitable for publication.

The place where I read that story had no details or citations, but I just tracked down the details. You could argue that it's because the editors are right, a style that sold in 1962 might not sell in 2017. But not that they cleverly detected that it was an existing novel.
 
  • #5
There are lots of reasons publishers use to reject manuscripts. Its handwritten and hard to read. Its on hole punched notebook paper. There are food stains. The spelling is bad, the grammar is worse...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/068485743X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm pretty sure Ramanujan used poor quality paper, his results and derivations were handwritten and there were no proofs only expressions in his own notation that were extended from the ideas in the book he learned from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synopsis_of_Pure_Mathematics
Ramanujan had a creative brilliance that was obscured by his presentation and to many would be considered crackpottery especially those not versed in the notions of higher math. His insight into math was his greatest asset, an asset other mathematicians would strive for but never reach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
You can see his work online:

http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/
or his first two notebooks here:

https://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/NotebookFirst.htm
 

1. What is Ramanujan's work?

Ramanujan was an Indian mathematician who made significant contributions to the fields of number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. He is known for his intuitive understanding of mathematics and his ability to come up with complex formulas and equations without formal training.

2. Did Ramanujan's work look like crackpottery to others?

At the time, some of Ramanujan's work was considered unconventional and even bizarre by his contemporaries. His methods and results were often difficult to understand and lacked the rigorous proofs that were expected in mathematics. This led some to dismiss his work as crackpottery.

3. Why did Ramanujan's work look like crackpottery?

Ramanujan's work looked like crackpottery to others because it did not follow the traditional methods and conventions of mathematics. He often relied on his intuition and insights to come up with solutions, rather than using formal proofs. This made his work difficult to understand and accept by his peers.

4. Was Ramanujan's work eventually recognized as legitimate?

Yes, Ramanujan's work was eventually recognized as legitimate and groundbreaking. His notebooks were studied and analyzed by mathematicians, who were able to verify the accuracy and significance of his results. He is now considered one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.

5. What lessons can we learn from Ramanujan's work?

Ramanujan's work teaches us to think outside the box and to trust our intuition. He showed that unconventional methods and ideas can lead to groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics. His work also highlights the importance of perseverance and determination in pursuing one's passion and interests, despite facing criticism and rejection from others.

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top