4 ms·
Since there are still ~200 countries without a Fields Medal, this isn't mathematically remarkable in comparison to the parent point. So, I understand instead t
by titter 12y ago
Since there are still ~200 countries without a Fields Medal, this isn't mathematically remarkable in comparison to the parent point.
So, I understand instead that you're identifying this as notable for the following reason:
There are 100 times more women in the world than Canadians, yet women and Canadians have the same number of Fields Medals.
- IvyMike 12y agoFirst of all, there's not enough data to be statistically significant in any of my ramblings, so it's all kind of hand-wavy and I apologize for that. But my general feeling is that there used to be a few "powerhouse" countries and institutions that dominated, but that has been changing for many years. There's a lot more diversity these days. So I think kiyoto's point speaks to the changes there. In 1950, it would have been pretty inconceivable that a woman from Iran would have had the access and opportunities to contribute to mathematics in a way that would have earned a Fields medal; in 2014, it's a first-time feat; hopefully, in the future, it quickly becomes mundane.
- conjectures 12y ago"not enough data to be statistically significant" ^suspect this is incorrect.