Who Are Today's Top 5 Mathematicians Destined for Greatness?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying contemporary mathematicians who may achieve legendary status comparable to historical figures like Gauss and Euler. Participants highlight the significant contributions of mathematicians such as Grothendieck, Serre, Connes, and Mumford, suggesting they are already viewed as modern greats. Terry Tao, Grigory Perelman, Andrew Wiles, and Ed Witten are also mentioned for their impactful work, with Witten's potential in string theory noted as particularly promising. The conversation reflects on how each generation builds upon the foundations laid by its predecessors, emphasizing the importance of recognizing current talents. Overall, the thread explores the criteria for greatness in mathematics and the potential future legacy of today's mathematicians.
kramer733
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Who are the current greats that will go down as "Gods equal to Gauss, Euler, etc.)?

Each generation of mathematics (dunno how long a generation is) have great mathematicians. Last generation was Hilbert, Poincare, cantor, and prolly 1-2 more. Alot of the works that these mathematicians have done are the building blocks for the mathematics of today. They paved new insight to mathematics.

My question is, who are the top 5 mathematicians of today that will be listed as the greats equal to the other big names?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Grothendieck, Serre, Connes, Mumford. These are my current mathematical Gods :!)
 


Paul Erdos (not exactly current generation but close); probably Terry Tao if he does more stuff like before but he has a long way to go; of course Grigory Perelman and Andrew Wiles will go down as greats for the individual but very important results; Ed Witten will be like Hilbert or von Neumann if string theory pans out;
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top