The point about Leonardo da Vinci makes sense, but is definitely unfair. Of course, an art historian might assume Leonardo's mathematics was as great as his art

The point about Leonardo da Vinci makes sense, but is definitely unfair. Of course, an art historian might assume Leonardo's mathematics was as great as his artistic ability. In practice, no one has the time or the ability to be equally great in all fields of knowledge. This paper : https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00004-007-0055-9.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00004-007-005... talks about what mathematics he did > . The equation a^n + b^n = c^n does not have a solution in integers for n > 2 . But this theorem had yet to be demonstrated. It was not before 1753 that Leonhard Euler demonstrated that the equation a^3 + b^3 = c^3 does not have a solution. And the final demonstration of the so-called “Fermat’s third theorem”, which is that the general equation does not have a solution for n > 2 , was given by Andrew Weil in 1993. So its fairly impressive that Leonardo was on a path that leads to Euler and then to Weil. Of course, Euler himself was a 'mathematical polymath' as it were, with a wide range of proofs across a number of fields. To critise Leonardo da Vinci for not being good enough at mathematics is a little like complaining about Euler's drawing skills.