- #1

- 1,105

- 25

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter gravenewworld
- Start date

- #1

- 1,105

- 25

- #2

- 175

- 0

Nobody else cares about mathematicians though, and besides, what would they do with the prize money?

- #3

- 167

- 0

There's the Abel Prize.

- #4

- 70

- 0

Fields Medal

- #5

- 420

- 2

I was always under the impression that there was a mathematics category. Seems you proved me wrong.

- #6

- 101

- 1

Maybe it's becouse mathematics in it's purest form probibly isn't useful enough.

- #7

- 105

- 0

Moral: Even the noblest man is just a man

- #8

- 1,105

- 25

Maybe it's becouse mathematics in it's purest form probibly isn't useful enough.

If I use that logic, then what good is Literature? There is a nobel prize for literature, but really how does it help people?

- #9

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 965

kuengb said:with a mathematician. Therefore...well, you can figure out the rest. I don't know if you knew the story (I don't know if it's true either).

Moral: Even the noblest man is just a man

A somewhat more correct story is that Nobel and a mathematics professor were courting the same woman, who married the mathematician. There is no reason to think that is why Nobel never established a prize for mathematics. It is much more likely that mathematics was too "abstract". Even the prize for physics is given for very specific, often experimental work. When Einstein was given the Nobel prize in physics, it was, at least technically, for his work on Brownian motion- no mention was made of relativity.

- #10

shmoe

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,992

- 1

LENIN said:Maybe it's becouse mathematics in it's purest form probibly isn't useful enough.

So you might think at the time. But sometimes even the purest, most abstract, apparently useless mathematics can have a profound impact on our lives:

"The theory of Numbers has always been regarded as one of the most obviously useless branches of Pure Mathematics. The accusation is one against which there is no valid defence; and it is never more just than when directed against the parts of the theory which are more particularly concerned with primes. A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life. The theory of prime numbers satisfies no such criteria. Those who pursue it will, if they are wise, make no attempt to justify their interest in a subject so trivial and so remote, and will console themselves with the thought that the greatest mathematicians of all ages have found it in it a mysterious attraction impossible to resist."

-G.H. Hardy

How wrong he turned out to be!

No nobel prize, but we do have the financially rewarding prizes from the Clay Institute.

- #11

NateTG

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,450

- 6

HallsofIvy said:When Einstein was given the Nobel prize in physics, it was, at least technically, for his work on Brownian motion- no mention was made of relativity.

Actually, I believe it was brownian motion and the photo-electric effect, and really, Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect has had huge implications since it's essentially the first of a number of LASER nobel prizes.

- #12

- 88

- 0

because Mr. Nobels wife ran off with a mathematitian, thats why there is no Nobel prize for Math

- #13

- 746

- 13

i think there's a story of an astonomer running off with nobel's wife, which is why there isn't a nobel prize in astronomy. i think those are just stories though, and nobel simply wasn't interested in math, and there's nothing more to it.

i've read that hardy was very proud of the fact that he had never done anything "useful"... that's a good quote; is it from his autobiography?

shmoe said:"The theory of Numbers has always been regarded as one of the most obviously useless branches of Pure Mathematics. The accusation is one against which there is no valid defence; and it is never more just than when directed against the parts of the theory which are more particularly concerned with primes. A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life. The theory of prime numbers satisfies no such criteria. Those who pursue it will, if they are wise, make no attempt to justify their interest in a subject so trivial and so remote, and will console themselves with the thought that the greatest mathematicians of all ages have found it in it a mysterious attraction impossible to resist."

-G.H. Hardy

i've read that hardy was very proud of the fact that he had never done anything "useful"... that's a good quote; is it from his autobiography?

Last edited:

- #14

- 1,430

- 5

2)Eintstein did win it for his theory of the photo-electric effect, not relativity.

3)The earlier Nobel prizes in physics were more theoretical, but they all centered on quantum theory (as far as i can think of). Recently they have all become more centered on experimental work.

- #15

- 175

- 0

Hmmm.

- #16

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 6,852

- 10

The Fields medal has a complicated system only a mathematician could love. It's only awarded every four years when the international mathematical congress is held. But they award four at a time, so it averages. The Fields medals are given for recent work and I think there's an age limit too, so the older mathematicans don't have the hope that sustained Wilczek, Gross, and Pollitser.

- #17

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,025

- 134

The prize level is about a million dollars, I think; the first to receive it, was Atiyah&Singer(?) for the index theorem.

- #18

- 933

- 0

Ohhh! Nobel was a guy with very bad luck then. A mathematician and an astronomer. I wonder that the fact that there's no Nobel prize for architecture is because her wife ran away with an architect :surprisedi think there's a story of an astonomer running off with nobel's wife, which is why there isn't a nobel prize in astronomy.

- #19

- 746

- 13

meteor said:Ohhh! Nobel was a guy with very bad luck then. A mathematician and an astronomer. I wonder that the fact that there's no Nobel prize for architecture is because her wife ran away with an architect :surprised

i don't know whether that's true or not, but an astronomy student definitely said in class that there's a story about nobel's wife running off with an astronomer

- #20

- 1,430

- 5

selfAdjoint said:

The Fields medal has a complicated system only a mathematician could love. It's only awarded every four years when the international mathematical congress is held. But they award four at a time, so it averages. The Fields medals are given for recent work and I think there's an age limit too, so the older mathematicans don't have the hope that sustained Wilczek, Gross, and Pollitser.

There is an age limit, because the medal is meant to honor those who have made great achievements, and have the potential to make further achievements.

Economics was added in the 1960s, long after the death of Nobel. But it still doesn't seem likely that a Mathematics category will be added, becuase the prize is meant to honor those who have greatly advanced mankind with their work, ergo, and this has been the case, any mathemtician that would win would ahve to win for the application of their work. This would then fall under the category of the realm of application, say physics, economics, etc., which is how mathematicians have won prizes in the past. There would not be a logical reason for a purely mathmetical "discovery" to be awarded a prize, until it was shown to have significantly advanced mankind, which means it would ahve been applied, but the advancement of mankind then occured in the are of application, not in the realm of mathematics. This is why there is not, and probably never will be, a nobel prize for mathematics.

- #21

- 1,105

- 25

But it still doesn't seem likely that a Mathematics category will be added, becuase the prize is meant to honor those who have greatly advanced mankind with their work, ergo, and this has been the case, any mathemtician that would win would ahve to win for the application of their work. This would then fall under the category of the realm of application, say physics, economics, etc., which is how mathematicians have won prizes in the past. There would not be a logical reason for a purely mathmetical "discovery" to be awarded a prize, until it was shown to have significantly advanced mankind, which means it would ahve been applied, but the advancement of mankind then occured in the are of application, not in the realm of mathematics. This is why there is not, and probably never will be, a nobel prize for mathematics.

What does literature do to significantly advance mankind?

- #22

- 420

- 2

gravenewworld said:What does literature do to significantly advance mankind?

Good question. However, I will say that a certain book (it was a science book, so I doubt it would be considered literature) literally changed my life. Because of it I got into computers and science even more than I was before. Now I'm studying it when, before I read the book, I wasn't planning to.

Share: