Who contributed more to Mathematics?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Science through the Ages
Forum Discription: Discuss science and its effects on the world…
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27667
Printed Date: 21Aug2018 at 00:06 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a  http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who contributed more to Mathematics?
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Who contributed more to Mathematics?
Date Posted: 23Aug2009 at 13:07
I found these names here: http://www.ebookee.com/AHistoryofMathematicsFromMesopotamiatoModernity_70164.html  http://www.ebookee.com/AHistoryofMathematicsFromMesopotamiatoModernity_70164.html I am watching an Iranian TV serial about Jamshid Kashani (alKashi), I didn't know him but he seems to be one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, he is called the true inventor of the calculator, the inventor of decimal fractions, he calculated pi to 14 decimal places (3.14159265358979) from just 3 correct decimal places, ...


Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 23Aug2009 at 14:04
You left out a very important name. Ida Mae Bernkoff. It was Ida who, upon recognizing I had no math apptitude whatsoever, made a deal with me. She would give me a C grade for the first 2 semesters, if I pulled out of advanced math, thus advancing the future of math considerably.

Posted By: Kamran the Great
Date Posted: 23Aug2009 at 14:29
can names be added to the list? Biruni and Khayyam are missing !!!!

Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 23Aug2009 at 14:47
I would go for Newton / Leibnitz from this list. Both discovered calculus, but Newton had a far better publicity machine. In my opinion, the greatest mathematician that ever lived was Karl Gauss or perhaps some of the 17th18th French Mathematicians.
As side note, the Indian Srinivasa Ramanujan was said to have incredible potential. Unfortunatly, he died young (during WWI) of health issues possibly complicated by mental illness. His full potential was never shown.

Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 24Aug2009 at 04:02
Originally posted by Kamran the Great
can names be added to the list? Biruni and Khayyam are missing !!!! 
There are several other ones like Nasir alDin Tusi in Trigonometry or Sharaf alDin Tusi in Algebraic Geometry but alKashi and alKhwarizmi, the founder of Algebra and Algorithm, are the greatest Persian mathematicians.


Posted By: LuisG
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 11:10
There's so many mathematicians absent here: Riemann, Gauss or Nother. It depends in which area we focus, the Modern Number Theory will not exist without Gauss contributions. The same happens in Differential Geometry with Riemann or in Abstract Algebra without Emmy Nother
 ... and justice for all

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 13:18
alKhwarizmi isnt persian. He is ozbek Turk.

Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 15:26
For sure there is no Maths without the degit (0), so that means there is no Maths without alKhwarizmi, my vote to the great man of history whose intentions were great and of which the world has developed the now so called Computers (imagin a computer without 0, that would be a hard guess).


Posted By: Spey
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 16:25
Study this brief wiki page http://0%28number%29%20%20en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29  0(number) , for the background and origin of the spacer , the point and the zero in maths . It seems that it just sort of grew over the centuries

Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 16:45
Dear Spey, what I was refering to is:
"In the twelfth century, one of his major works (Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians) was translated into Latin, bringing the positional number system and the number 'zero' to the Western world (Seife, 2000). " Reference: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1991414/history_of_algebra_muhammad_bin_musa_pg2.html  History of Algebra
You see the western world used to have the Latin digit system of (i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv ...) where they knew nothing about zero. So it was Al Khwarazmi's work that introduced it to the western world.


Posted By: Spey
Date Posted: 30Sep2009 at 17:00
Originally posted by Gharanai
Dear Spey, what I was refering to is:
"In the twelfth century, one of his major works (Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians) was translated into Latin, bringing the positional number system and the number 'zero' to the Western world (Seife, 2000). " Reference: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1991414/history_of_algebra_muhammad_bin_musa_pg2.html  History of Algebra
You see the western world used to have the Latin digit system of (i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv ...) where they knew nothing about zero. So it was Al Khwarazmi's work that introduced it to the western world.

And that has what to do with me ?
Where have I mentioned Al Khwarazmi ?

Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 01Oct2009 at 10:13
How about John von Neumann, the founder of modern computer science; and game theory, which is applicable to virtually every scientific deciplines from economics, political science, biology, psychology, quantom physics to even military strategy.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01Oct2009 at 18:20
Originally posted by Siege Tower
How about John von Neumann, the founder of modern computer science; and game theory, which is applicable to virtually every scientific deciplines from economics, political science, biology, psychology, quantom physics to even military strategy. 
Though I lack the technical knowledge to defend my opinion well, I think that game theory is way over rated. Most systems are too complex and too chaotic to be "game theoried".
For example, the two ivy league math professors who "game theoried" stock market options did very well..... for about four years and then chaos took over. They then went bankrupt fast. In other applications, emotional humans may constantly change their understanding of the "game" and their goals and thus throw off any game theory applications.

Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 02Oct2009 at 07:20
I was thinking of Pythagoras, but his contribution was mostly in geometry.
 Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.

Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 02Oct2009 at 12:49
I think we just don't know the names of Babylonian mathematicians, they were certainly among the greatest ones.
A math problem assigned to Babylonian kids about 4,000 years ago:
Here's the problem:
Suppose you have two equilateral triangles, one inside the other. Can you figure out the area of the space between the two triangles? Here's a hint: see how you can divide the area into three trapezoids?
source: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/westasia/science/mathproblem.htm  http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/westasia/science/mathproblem.htm


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03Oct2009 at 18:22
I did not vote in the above test! But for those of you who did, I would like to entertain the thought that the winner, is by p;roxy if nothing else, ordained to win! It is more like a question, "if you could die for Christ, or Moses, or Allah, just whom would you most likely vote for?
IE, a fixed question with a fixed response, expected!
Can any one of you deny it?
Please see; "Few details of alKhwÄrizmÄ«'s life are known with certainty, even his birthplace is unsure. His name may indicate that he came from Khwarezm (Khiva), then in Greater Khorasan, which occupied the eastern part of the Persian Empire, now Xorazm Province in Uzbekistan. Abu Rayhan Biruni calls the people of Khwarizm "a branch of the Persian tree".[10]", the above is from Wikipedia!
Thus the winner of the test question can only be correct if he or she does not ever look at the possibility that this person "never existed", or at least that this person never wrote within the period where he is now expected to reside! This is called "revisionism!"
Thus, just what reliability can be established for the above "winner?"
 http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/

Posted By: Nurica
Date Posted: 26May2010 at 20:24
looking to the results of "popular vote", one don't need an astrologer to tell him that middle easterners are majority here!
Hilbert, Leibnitz and Newton as insignificant people, that's very new as a trend in history of math., isn't it?

Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 26May2010 at 23:06
looking to the results of "popular vote", one don't need an astrologer to tell him that middle easterners are majority here! 
The only middle easterner in the list is alKashi who has no vote.


Posted By: Nurica
Date Posted: 27May2010 at 00:40
so we have to admit that westerners really don't know about such guys bigggggg in maths like leibnitz, newton or hilbert? And by the way, by which mean established yout the ethnicity/religion of those writing here? (or your conclusion is based only on the country of origin????)

Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 27May2010 at 01:43
so we have to admit that westerners really don't know about such guys bigggggg in maths like leibnitz, newton or hilbert? 
They certainly know but they have to learn algebra at school!
And by the way, by which mean established yout the ethnicity/religion of those writing here? (or your conclusion is based only on the country of origin????) 
I don't know what you mean, for example I think Leibniz was a German mathematician (from Leipzig in Germany), however he wrote primarily in Latin and French, don't you think so?


Posted By: Nurica
Date Posted: 31May2010 at 01:29
<<They certainly know but they have to learn algebra at school!>>
And in virtue of which miracle simple algebra makes someone "the biggest mathematician", and differential calculus, or integral calculus, or linear algebra, can't? I for one I did study math. a bit and I remember being astonished by the genius of those developping such method as those in differental and integral calculus (not taking into account the fact that, e.g., newton conceived all this trings before being 22 years old!). But I never found something to wonder in simple algebra! That dosen't mean that simple algebra doesn't require geniality to invent it: I just did wonder how otherwise than by ethnic or religious bias, those that made a muslim mathematician "the biggest" could reach such a verdict; in the last 4 centuries it was made a big, very big progress, but some people here remember, selectively, this "xxx", that knew only how to group algebraic terms...
You'll say now that without this knowledge, newton could not invent his differential calculus, but in this case I'll tell you that before "muslim" mathematicians were greek, egyptian and mazdaist, or sumerian mathematicians. My point is that if we can speak about "the biggest mathematicians of one certain century", or of "big mathematicians of the whole history", to make hierarchies of all mathematicians is always unjust. <<I don't know what you mean, for example I think Leibniz was a German mathematician (from Leipzig in Germany), however he wrote primarily in Latin and French, don't you think so?>>
My question was about those making here contributions on this topic; it was a reply to your notsoconvincing assertion that here are writing (and voting) just one or 2 middleeasterners.

Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 31May2010 at 05:48
Euler is near the top. Fermat was also amazing, especially considering that he did math in his spare time.

Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 31May2010 at 10:12
Originally posted by Nurica
And in virtue of which miracle simple algebra makes someone "the biggest mathematician", and differential calculus, or integral calculus, or linear algebra, can't? I for one I did study math. a bit and I remember being astonished by the genius of those developping such method as those in differental and integral calculus (not taking into account the fact that, e.g., newton conceived all this trings before being 22 years old!). But I never found something to wonder in simple algebra! That dosen't mean that simple algebra doesn't require geniality to invent it: I just did wonder how otherwise than by ethnic or religious bias, those that made a muslim mathematician "the biggest" could reach such a verdict; in the last 4 centuries it was made a big, very big progress, but some people here remember, selectively, this "xxx", that knew only how to group algebraic terms... You'll say now that without this knowledge, newton could not invent his differential calculus, but in this case I'll tell you that before "muslim" mathematicians were greek, egyptian and mazdaist, or sumerian mathematicians. My point is that if we can speak about "the biggest mathematicians of one certain century", or of "big mathematicians of the whole history", to make hierarchies of all mathematicians is always unjust. 
First it is good to read this article: http://www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/pub/cbn3.pdf  Calculus Before Newton and Leibniz by David Bressoud , I think if we analyse the development process of mathematics then the very big role of Muslim mathematicians can be certainly seen, I don't deny the roles of ancient and modern mathematicians but I believe the zenith of mathematical development was in the Medieval times.
Originally posted by Nurica
My question was about those making here contributions on this topic; it was a reply to your notsoconvincing assertion that here are writing (and voting) just one or 2 middleeasterners. 
Posting and voting are two different things, it is possible someone posts but doesn't vote and vice versa, and it is impossible to know who has voted whom, so your conclusion is totally wrong.


Posted By: Nurica
Date Posted: 31May2010 at 20:59
in the doc to the link above there is nor differential or integral calculus (no wonder!); as already said, in my (maybe biased) opinion that the most important development in math. for a long time. I was really impressed by al those methods of nummerical approximation, or the methods by which newton or leibnitz made such things as calculus of an area below a curve possible. Polynomial algebra is not so impressive in my opinion, although I realize very well that for an 11th century man to develop it, it takes a lot of genius.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18Feb2011 at 05:14
I'm amazed that Euclid didn't get even one mention, let alone a welldeserved place in the poll. His work The Elements apart from being an excellent foundation for geometry also defined the rigorous axiomatic proof system that all of modern math is built upon. The Elements is considered to be the most influential science book of all times, its contents having been taught and studied in schools for centuries and the work itself being a direct inspiration to many important scientists and mathematicians throughout history.

Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 18Feb2011 at 10:19
Originally posted by richardvesely
apart from all these legends of mathematics, Ramanujan's contribution cannot be denied. He was an exceptional mathematical genius. 
He is probably less well known because he died at a very young age.

Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 18Feb2011 at 18:07
Here you are: http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm choose your man. I am concerning about ancient mathematicians that are still unknown. Personally answer will be:Nothing have happened inside theoretical math since NewtonLeibniz,except in areas of logical algebra and probabilities!?!Fourier and Laplace can not be neglected by me also.

Posted By: Delelarose
Date Posted: 08Mar2011 at 03:06
Gauss is usually considered one of the top three mathematicians who
ever lived (the other two being Archimedes and Newton), but Euler was
far more prolific. Honestly, I don't even consider the two comparable.
They both contributed so much to mathematics, I would feel guilty
saying one was better than the other.
 http://www.bidanswer.com/  pre algebra

