From newton's time, does the order of "greatest living mathematicians in the world" go

George Green

/thread

Poincare --> Hilbert --> von Neumann --> Grothendieck --> Perelman

You don't die by losing a kidney.

These fucking people who dont understand how time works.

I think there's a case to be made for Euler and Gauss.

You're a fucking idiot if this isn't bait

>You're a fucking idiot if this isn't bait

Two of my professors (at my top ten math program btw) agree von Neumann was GOAT. But they must be idiots, even though they both got their PhDs from Princeton.

Newton is a fraud

Oh it's the
>"Hey Guys, which guy with 200 IQ picked off the most low hanging fruits?"
thread.

>muh appeal to authority
with such a pathetically illogical brain you must be in the stats program

>with such a pathetically illogical brain you must be in the stats program

Yeah, because "You're a fucking idiot if this isn't bait." is a much better argument than what I said.

Btw, only faggots namedrop fallacies like you just did.

>That being said, if you honestly think Galois was not the greatest who's ever lived, you're a stupid undergrad.

ftfy

/thread

two shite arguments stacked together don't make a good one, prole

and it wasn't me who made the original remark, I only btfo out your meagre post because it is such low hanging fruit.

thanks this was the kind of answer I was looking for

poincare looks pretty likely, but do you think Hilbert was eh best after him?
I mean it seems like Hilbert was more of an organiser who said "we need to start solving these problems and we need to use this level of formality" as opposed to someone who broke significant ground in a large number of fields.

Isn't there someone better that came immediately before Neumann, or was Hilbert the best maths had to offer at that time?

>Newton

Lolno, put Leibniz instead. Newton's version of Calculus was shit, and eventually the UK was forced to use the version Leibniz created. Good Physicist, shitty Mathematician.

By century, who was the greatest mathematician?

>calling me a prole

Nigga, if only you knew who I was.

Just imagine what Galois could've done if he lived a normal lifespan. Is there anyone in math, science, or philosophy who accomplished as much as he did by age 20?

>a fruit-picker is greatest mathematician of his time

Just because you received a double digit score on your IQ test, it doesn't mean you're less of a person.

Neuman >> Da Vinci = Newton > Everyone Else

So many butthurt brainlets cant handle the fact that Neumann had both the greatest intellect as well as the greatest memory, and was entirely socially normal (no autism spectrum).

Poincare --> Hilbert --> von Neumann --> Grothendieck --> Witten -> Wildberger -> Barnett

>Da Vinci

...

HINT: They were all white/jewish

Feelsgoodman to be part of the master race. It's bothering me that we're allowing others to drag us down with them right now though.

Ramanujan, then.

Who was irrelevant until a white man found him

Irrelevant because the white man wasn't paying attention. That doesn't demerit him in the slightest.

>Barnett

dank maymay

Anonymous is best mathematician .

>Neuman >> Da Vinci
only in SSJ 1 form

surprised to see no mention of chris langan

I'd say Galois had probably the deepest of insights going after OP's list, but as his career was cut short by dying it might be hasty to include him in such a list. Even still, Grothendieck said,"if I'm following anyone, it's Galois." And there you go: Grothendieck would be the next entry after Gauss, who in my opinion doesn't belong on the list. Grothendieck towers over everybody so if you're trying to identify the key mathematician of the past century. If you're a professional mathematician that isn't in industry or statistics, one way or another, you are swimming in the wake of Grothendieck.

Sorry to double post but I would exchange Gauss for Riemann in that list. I think it should go Newton Euler Riemann Grothendieck if you can only pick one per century.

Perelman is a genius, but a one-trick horse. There is no greatest living mathematician.

Also, if you're looking for people who revolutionized mathematics, Gödel should be on the list.

Langlands?

Shelah still lives. The dude is seriously Gauss tier. He is somewhat less known than he should be outside of logicians.

Why should Godel be on that list? Voevodsky seriously doubts whether his incompleteness result is valid. There's a good discussion of that on the IAS website. Beside which, practically no practicing mathematician ever worries about incompleteness results, whereas the other individuals mentioned are the people who formed the basis of what everybody studies, and in certain cases for entire centuries after their deaths. I can't think of a single major result in mathematical logic anyone gives a shit about beside incompleteness and again no one pays any attention to it in practice. Godel however accomplished he was, which I guess means being an inactive recluse in New Jersey for most of his career, is just a name people who don't work in math throw out to sound impressive, but trust me, he's largely irrelevant.

As far as intuition goes, you're right.

It is truly remarkable how Langlands came up with his vast range of incredibly deep and incredible difficult conjectures.

Even the fundamental lemma, postulated by Langlands in 1983, was not proved until 2008, and for proving the lemma alone Ngô Bảo Châu was awarded the fields medal.

Yet somehow Langlands realized this vast web of deep conjectures that have proven virtually unassailable for 30 years.

As a logician, I actually had him in mind. I agree that he really is is Gauss-tier, has published 1044 papers, and has literally founded entire new fields in various branches of mathematical logic.

>I can't think of a single major result in mathematical logic anyone gives a shit about

Then you don't know very much mathematics. Model theory is used in algebraic geometry, and many conjectures in "mainstream mathematics" have been proved independent, such as Whitehead's problem, the normal Moore space conjecture, and Kaplansky's conjecture.

>Voevodsky seriously doubts whether Gödel's incompleteness result is valid
I have immense difficulty believing a fields medalist would seriously doubt the validity of a well-established proof that has been scrutinized by literally every mathematical logician. Please provide a source of exactly he says.

all of those people are dead lad

Mad brainlets that their hero wasted his life with low hanging fruit

The video is on IAS, Deligne himself introduces the speaker... I actually am an algebraic geometer by trade and I'm aware of a few results from model theory, but to me at least every contribution from model theory seems to resolve something technical that couldn't be figured out through commutative algebra or some other more familiar method. Plus the result is always expressed in model theory garbage so it's impossible to incorporate usefully unless you switch over from the language of stacks and schemes to logical nonsense. I stand by assertion that the field of mathematical logic is largely unimportant, where importance in mathematics means interesting. I'll go even farther and say that I expect higher categorical methods, homotopy theory and toposes (whose relation to model theory I'm aware of fair enough) will entirely erase both mathematical logic and set theory in fifty years. They're just relics of a bygone era. I feel like the point you're making is that point set topology is important because it's taught in grad school.

>bunch of dead white men

Umm.. do you think you could make your list a bit more inclusive?