4 ms·

Very ignorant comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/w

• rsj_hn 5y ago
  You're kinda making my point. None of these are actually contributions to mathematical research. A computer program is not mathematical research, nor are field equations in physics. Which is not to say that they are not noteworthy achievements, but it is to say that they are not achievements in mathematics. These three made contributions in other fields. I am not saying they don't deserve fame in the fields of physics or computer science or literature. They certainly do. But they deserve no fame in the field of mathematics, anymore than Morse deserves fame in the field of computer science, or Gromov deserves fame in the field of literature (but he did write books!). The only person in your list of three who could even be called a mathematician was Dodgson, but his contributions are not considered noteworthy enough to make any kind of timeline.
  • User23 5y ago
    Computing science is doing to mathematics what the physical sciences did to philosophy. Within a couple generations “mathematicians” will be a set consisting solely of charlatans and incompetents while the real work is done with formal methods.
    • dzolob 5y ago
      What an ignorant comment.
    • dang 5y ago
      Please stop taking HN threads into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • User23 5y ago
        I didn't mean to flame, just calling it as I see it. That said your house your rules thank you for the guidance.
  • meiji163 5y ago
    I have to disagree on Einstein, without the field equations it's doubtful psuedo-Riemannian geometry or so-called "Einstein manifolds" would be so big in math. There is also his work on Brownian motion and diffusion. Even if you deny he did "mathematical research" his importance for mathematics justifies him being on a timeline of mathematics .. imho
    • rsj_hn 5y ago
      You can argue that Einstein spurred interest in Geometry, but he himself made no contributions to this field. In fact it was pretty famous that he kept bugging Ricci to help him frame his ideas in mathematical terms. Einstein was a physicist through and through, and not even a mathematical physicist. Now someone like Ed Witten is a completely different beast.
  • JadeNB 5y ago
    > Dodgson, but his contributions are not considered noteworthy enough to make any kind of timeline. By whom? Obviously the poster did. Lots of people think of him in connection with his work in logic, which isn't research-level, but I think of him in the context of, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgson_condensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgson_condensation , which to my somewhat amateurish knowledge of the subject was a research-level contribution for its time.
  • plurinshael 5y ago
    Did computer science as a field exist in Lady Ada's time? No, it did not. And where did computing science get its formal beginnings? In mathematics departments. I guess I just have an inclusionist mindset with these matters. Popularizers, esotericists, eccentrics, early pioneers of new thought-tech, and people in closely associated fields should at least be considered in projects like this. Contributing to mathematics culture seems important to me, not just contributing to mathematics achievements.
    • rsj_hn 5y ago
      > "And where did computing science get its formal beginnings? In mathematics departments." Citation needed. You might be able to argue that it had its beginning in EE departments, but CS as a field did not spring from math at all. Seriously there is a difference between formalizing something in mathematical language - which happens to almost every technical field - and having that formalization be considered an advancement in math itself. This is exactly my point about throwing everyone "technical" into the mix. After all, the formalization of chemistry requires lots of math, so Marie Curie must be on the list of mathematicians, too!
  • perilunar 5y ago
    > None of these are actually contributions to mathematical research So what? The site is a Timeline of Mathematics, not a Timeline of Mathematical Research. Surely notable new applications of mathematics belong on the timeline, regardless of whether they involved new research or not.