Re: Amatuer mathematicians.
From: Herman Rubin (hrubin_at_odds.stat.purdue.edu)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: C. Bond: "Re: Counting primes, innovation"
- Previous message: Matt Gutting: "Re: Infinite series problem"
- In reply to: Jim Spriggs: "Amatuer mathematicians."
- Next in thread: Roger Bagula: "Re: Amatuer mathematicians."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Mar 2005 10:34:22 -0500
In article <42347565.AF1AB9C5@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>,
Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>Fermat, most famously I suppose. Also John Napier. How about more
>recent times? Would one say that Erd\"os was an amateur? Are there any
>noteworthy amateurs working now? [Naturally when I write "noteworthy",
>I mean noteworthy for the right reasons!]
Erdos was definitely not an amateur. However, one might
make a case for Ramanujan, as he did not have the academic
training to be a mathematician. However, he was paid for
doing mathematics.
-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
- Next message: C. Bond: "Re: Counting primes, innovation"
- Previous message: Matt Gutting: "Re: Infinite series problem"
- In reply to: Jim Spriggs: "Amatuer mathematicians."
- Next in thread: Roger Bagula: "Re: Amatuer mathematicians."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|