Re: Who were the 25 Greatest Mathematicians?

First of all, you were extremely arrogant:

More gross ignorance.

Did you know Gauss invented, e.g., FFT? Together with Gaussian
elimination he invented, much before the invention of digital
computers, those which are likely to be the most important algorithms
in practical use nowadays. What to say about the proof of the
fundamental theorem of algebra (he was not the first one to prove it,
but James Wood's proof was almost completely ignored and Gauss did not
know about it) and many more fundamental, I repeat, FUNDAMENTAL

I call the following "invented evidence" as you do not mention names:

I am sure that if you were to take a poll
of people who are actually qualified to have an opinion
(i.e. working PhD research mathematicians) that many of them
would choose Grothendieck. It would be close, however.

Now, this is plain an simply not true:

It is a pretty sure sign that someone has very little to say that is
constructive when they start using profanity.

Have you ever heard of style? Even if you dislike I call it style.
And, as I see, it is reaching its objectives.

How do you know this is false? As you said it is "very bold, arrogant
and ignorant statement" for "it dismisses the possibility that others
might think differently":

I drew my conclusion
you stated something as fact something that I know is false. How do I
know it?
Because I have heard first hand opinions from others that Grothendieck
probably number one in their opinion.

Again, whose first hand opinions?

to disqualify my opinion this way.

I said PhD mathematicians. I don't read anywhere where I cited you
Since I could not and did not (until now) know your background my
remarks could hardly
have been aimed at you personally. But YOU CHOSE to take them
personally simpy.

Well, you called me ignorant ("more gross ignorance"), remember? More
than that, there is no reason to believe only PhD mathematicians can
afford to have an opinion on this subject. Only an arrogant PhD
mathematician could think like that. Perhaps there is nowhere you have
written I am not qualified, but still you are wrong when you say PhD
mathematicians are the only "qualified ones".

I do know the work of some of these
you have mentioned, but I still prefer Gauss. I guess I should have
written "IMHO the only one who could ever be in the first position is

Agreed. But what you DID write was:

The only one who could ever be in the first position is Gauss.

This is a very bold, arrogant and ignorant statement. You posted it as
a fact,
rather than an opinion. Indeed, it dismisses the possibility that
others might
think differently and that anyone who does have a different OPINION
must be wrong.

Well, I guess we already know who is the arrogant here, but I still
think a different opinion about that subject is very likely to be

May I ask how many research papers you have published?

Is "how many" the correct question? I have published two while
obtaining my Master degree and I have two more coming. Remember,
however, that I am not trying to include my name in the list, so that
would be actually an irrelevant question. I am not trying to be a
better mathematician than you are. Give this bullshit away, man! Oh, I
am sorry about the dirty word.

You, on the other hand, may end up as Aristotle saying that heavier
balls fall faster, when saying that you are sure of something without
giving precise empiric evidence. Here is real gross ignorance: trying
to make people believe in something by showing some invented evidence.

What invented evidence??? I invented no evidence.

Could you say that an imaginary poll is not an invented evidence?

Irrelevant. Most of the mathematicians who have ever lived are alive
They are MUCH BETTER TRAINED than the vast majority of their
To suggest that the bulk of this 'top 25' list should come from pre
20th Century
mathematicians ignores simple statistics. The vast majority of all
that has ever been discovered/invented/published has come in the last
50 to 70 years.
To suggest that the best mathematicians must be among those who
invented the
much smaller body of mathematical knowledge that came before simply
isn't sensible.

Is not it sensible? Does greatest equals better trained? You are being
dumb! Even you could be, nowadays, better trained in mathematics than
Arquimedes could ever be. Does it make us greater than him? Think
about things before saying, this is ridiculously dumb as an argument!
I believe that finding solutions for second degree equations was, at
that time, much more an achievement than the bulk of what has been
written and published in the last is now. I bet you would not be able
do do it by yourself given the notation and poor communication
facilities of the time.

Unless of course you can suggest a mechanism which would make earlier
mathematicians smarter, more creative, and more creative than they are

I can, and it is very simple: put things in historical perspective and
measure the influence the past achievements have nowadays.

Indeed, one can assume that prior mathematicians and today's
are about equally gifted, on average. Combine this with the fact that
current ones
are certainly better TRAINED and you reach the conclusion that any
list which contains
mostly dead mathematicians is highly biased rather than the opposite.

No it is not, simply because you cannot say training equals greatness.