5 ms·
If anything, the article probably understates her importance (and doesn't really explain why she is so important). You do get an idea when you start at her bibl
by rbehrends 15y ago
If anything, the article probably understates her importance (and doesn't really explain why she is so important). You do get an idea when you start at her bibliography; not many scientists have their papers subdivided into epochs [1].
To begin with, Einstein didn't describe Emmy Noether (in his obituary of her, sent to the New York Times) as "the most 'significant and 'creative' female mathematician of all time". The exact quote is instead: "In the judgment of the most competent living mathematicians, Fräulein Noether was the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began." [2]
In essence, he is describing her as the greatest mathematician of the past decades, male or female. That may have been a slight exaggeration (she was a friend of his and visited frequently at Princeton during her time at Bryn Mawr), but not much: she was definitely one of the most influential mathematicians of the 1920s and early 1930s. Many mathematicians and physicists visited Göttingen specifically to interact with her.
What made her so important were not just her contributions to abstract algebra (groundbreaking as they were, essentially redefining the field), but probably most of all her axiomatic "method of abstraction", pioneered in several papers starting with 1921's "Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen". For non-mathematicians, it is roughly the same concept as abstract data types; instead of proving theorems about very specific mathematical constructs (such as integers and polynomials), you prove them for more general constructs, abstractly defined through operations over them and axioms connecting those operations. It is one of those things that seem blindingly obvious in retrospect, but the approach was actually hotly debated in the 1920s; these days, it's foundational for much of mathematics.
A good example of this is the so-called Lasker-Noether theorem, which was initially proven by Emanuel Lasker for a couple of specific rings, a result that Emmy Noether later generalized for a wide class of rings (rings that we now call, for other reasons, Noetherian rings).
Another reason why she is little known these days even among mathematicians is probably that she didn't care much about getting credit for her ideas (even though she was painstakingly careful about giving others credit in her own papers). Her own publications, numerous as they were [1], are probably only the tip of the iceberg; it is known, for example, that volume 2 of van der Waerden's "Modern Algebra" (the standard textbook for abstract algebra for decades) was essentially her work (van der Waerden never made a secret of it). A lot of her other work was likewise published under the name of her students and colleagues. (Unlike what the article states, she never published under a man's name.)
This is the final way in which she influenced mathematics -- as a teacher. She never was a very good teacher when it came to actual lecturing (being too much of an absent-minded professor), but she was generous with sharing her ideas and an inspiring influence for her students on colleagues (her first Ph.D. student, Grete Hermann, went on to lay the foundations for Computer Algebra, for example).
As van der Waerden wrote, "Each of her lecture series was a paper. And nobody was happier than herself when such a paper was completed by her students. Completely unegotistical and free of vanity, she never claimed anything for herself, but promoted the works of her students above all."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether_bibliography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether_bibliography
[2] http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Obits2/Noether_Emmy_Einstein.html http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Obits2/Noether_Emmy_...
- dhimes 15y agoThank you for taking the time to share this. I didn't appreciate that her work was a far-reaching as it was.
- jhales 15y agoNo doubt she is a very signifigant figure, but (Although you do qualify your statement later) I have to disagree with: "If anything, the article probably understates her importance ..." In the second paragraph of the first page the author subtly suggests that she is the greatest mathematician as well as the greatest physcicist (at least a bunch of her contemporaries, who are smarter than you, the reader, thought so). Also, in my personal experience, she is quite well known. I would add to your list of her accomplishments: I've been told that she was one of the first to push for Homology to be treated as groups and not simply just betti numbers.
- rbehrends 15y ago> In the second paragraph of the first page the author subtly suggests that she is the greatest mathematician as well as the greatest physcicist (at least a bunch of her contemporaries, who are smarter than you, the reader, thought so). This isn't quite what it says. That paragraphs talks about her being the most significant and creative female mathematician of all time, and attributes it to Einstein. That's a significant weaker statement, given how few women mathematicians there were before modern times. Conversely, if the article had described her as the greatest mathematician and greatest physicist of all time, that would be a massive overstatement, of course. What I was trying to get at here (and what Einstein probably was trying to convey to a lay audience, too) was that she was very (probably critically) important for the development of early 20th century mathematics, when many of the foundations of how we do mathematics today were laid, and that this was the case regardless of her gender.
- jhales 15y agoI get what you are saying, one has to read between the lines a little, but if you read carefully I think that is what is implied: "Albert Einstein called her the most “significant” and “creative” female mathematician of all time, and others of her contemporaries were inclined to drop the modification by sex." If you drop the female from that sentence then it reads "most significant and creative mathematician of all time." Another point that, which I think you pointed out as well, was that this is a misquote of Einstein. The original statement included the clause 'since the education of women...' which would make the dropping of gender much more reasonable.