Greatest Mathematician Ever

You mean pooposting? Poomanujan was a curry nigger, that's a fact.

fuck off attention seeking whore

>pooposting
Yes, exactly.

This is a legitimately Veeky Forums topic.

Fine, but in name only. I still want to talk about Ramanujan and why his math was so significant.

Take the poo to the loo

All I want to know is why he didn't take the poo to the loo.

shut the fuck up.

greatest one ever is Euler. second one was Newton. third place is debatable. von Neumann is not in 3rd or 4th place for sure (he was a fame seeker and dipped his hands into too many pots and failed to create anything great... what a waste of the mind).

>Euler
He was just the first. Anyone would have done what he did if they'd had nothing else to work with.

Newton did decent work, but we can see it wasn't all that unique. Other people struggling with the same issues came up with the same answer.

Poomanujan discovered the loo, so he should be on the first place.

>He was just the first. Anyone would have done what he did if they'd had nothing else to work with.
No. He was the greatest because he did so much. Books are _still_ being published with his papers that have never seen the light of day. That's amazing.

Just look at how many things carry his name:

mathworld.wolfram.com/search/?query=euler&x=0&y=0

Insane.

Ramanujan was an idiot savant and was great at a single area of math. Interesting fellow, lots of interesting work, but nowhere near the greatest. He's not even in top 10.

>was great at a single area of math
Exactly which one is that, and how are the methods he used not on par with things that came afterwards, in "other" fields of mathematics?

I swear I'm the only one here not from /pol/

"Suppose that we rate mathematicians on the basis of pure talent on a scale from 0 to 100. I would rate myself 25, Littlewood 30, Hilbert 80 and Ramanujan 100."
- G. H. Hardy

Ramanujan wrote down his famous formula

[math] \displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi} = \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{9801} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(4k)! (1103 + 26390k)}{(k!)^4 296^{4k} } [/math]

Modern proofs use modular forms, though Ramanujan proved it within the limits of real analysis, illuminating a deep and elegant theory.

However, the calculations of the exact numbers is extremely difficult. To this day no one knows how Ramanujan got 1103 and modern approach to get 1103 is based on numerical calculations.

Yet Ramanujan realized the equation just by thinking about it.

It is tragic that he was not born into a situation where he could have received formal training in modern mathematics. Who knows what he would have accomplished. Modern mathematics would probably look very different.

>idiot savant
having an IQ > 200 and growing up with no education in a third world shithole doesnt make him an idiot savant

i wish sci would just stop calling profound geniuses autistic or savants or any other mental gymnastic to ignore the fact that you will never achieve even 1/10th of the greatness they did because they have an inherent talent that you do not

>Who knows what he would have accomplished.
Yes, that's the equation I was thinking of. Would it actually help to understand him if I could produce the method he used to obtain that equation? Like, is the gap between his mathematical intelligence and everyone else that's studied that equation so large that nobody's gotten it yet or is it just not all that big of a deal?

This. I didn't read much of the last great mathematicians thread because it seemed like shit. Brainlets that can't understand why we have a brainlet meme need to GTFO.

Hint: It isn't to denigrate anyone's intelligence.

>"One of [Ramanujan's] remarkable capabilities was the rapid solution for problems. He was sharing a room with P. C. Mahalanobis who had a problem, "Imagine that you are on a street with houses marked [math]1[/math] through [math]n[/math]. There is a house [math]x[/math] such that the sum of the house numbers to left of it equals the sum of the house numbers to its right. If [math]n[/math] is between 5050 and 500500, what are [math]n[/math] and [math]x[/math]?" This is a bivariate problem with multiple solutions. Ramanujan thought about it and gave the answer with a twist: He gave a continued fraction. The unusual part was that it was the solution to the whole class of problems. Mahalanobis was astounded and asked how he did it. "It is simple. The minute I heard the problem, I knew that the answer was a continued fraction. Which continued fraction, I asked myself. Then the answer came to my mind," Ramanujan replied.

His genius is like something out of a fairy tale.

>like something out of a fairy tale
Does that mean I can have my name back?

I'll call bullshit on these stories.

of course you do. someone cant be that smart, it's not fair

just like how that guy who is more ripped than you does steroids

>brainlets can't answer this simple question

lel, figured it out in like 2 seconds

Damn, took me over 30 seconds here. I'm really out of shape.

>Ramanujan
>Not Cauchy or Riemann
Take Complex Analysis

Not to denigrate their work or anything, but all they did was formalize it. In the end C is just R^2. The point of posting Euler's formula was to form a basis for what makes something more complex than the complex numbers. If you can't at least get that [math]e^{i\pi}+1 = 0[/math] then there's no real hope for you.

Maybe Riemann, but Cauchy in no way.

Hardy's bitch

Reminder that numerical methods > symbolic analysis

>You know this to be true
Jokes on you, I don't know anything about math

popmath faggot

>no gauss
Intothetrash.jpg

The only thing I've ever heard about Gauss is the summing 1 through 100 thing. I did that in tenth grade too, so it doesn't really impress me.

Newton was a much better physicist than mathematician. To name him the second best mathematician is almost certainly wrong.

Have you studied any math since that moment in the tenth grade? And you've never heard Gauss come up?

I've been as far as calculus as far as formal education goes. Informally, no.

>everyone in between was just a causal
filthy causal

...

Gauss discovered Euler's identity

The only way this post could be even more true is if it had quads or quints