Who is the best mathematician right now?
Nobuo Saito
Is this FAQ?
Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
Lee Rudolph
Why in the world should anyone believe that there's an interesting
total order (by "goodness", presumably "at mathematics") on the set
of "mathematician[s] right now"?
One proto-argument against such a belief might begin by claiming that
there are ("right now") branches of "mathematics" which are as incomparable
as, say, solid-state physics and virology.
...Oh, I see I haven't posted my opinion. My opinion is that
the question is both meaningless and valueless. If you please.
Lee Rudolph
A N Neil
The President of the International Mathematical Union?
mathedman
wrote:
>Of course this is a subjective question.
>Is this FAQ?
>Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
What is the point of these meaningless, nonscientific, public
opinion polls?
Who knows enough about all mathematicians to give an
informed answer?
I'd guess the greatest one today is the same as the greatest one
a century ago. But that probably doesn't answer the question
you meant to ask (but didn't).
Donald Watland
Harris, but as he would, I'm unworthy.
-DW
"Nobuo Saito" <genki...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1d437f.02101...@posting.google.com...
Glenn Blanchard
Glenn Blanchard
"Nobuo Saito" <genki...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1d437f.02101...@posting.google.com...
Nico Benschop
>
> > Of course this is a subjective question.
> > Is this FAQ? Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
Glenn Blanchard wrote:
>
> My vote is James Harris ...
Indeed, the only sensible answer (to such nonsensical question;-)
(like: what is the most beautiful flower?-)
or: name the best colour of all)
Bart Goddard
news:3DAD60E7...@chello.nl:
I have to say, you guys are not being very Zen about this.
What about all the obvious responses along the lines of
He is the best mathematician who does is not grasp at theorems,
but lets them flow from their own essence.
Or
The best mathematician for the job is a woman.
Or
The best mathematician right NOW, is the one who is apprehending
this statement right NOW. Oops, too late!
Or
The best mathematician is the one who gives 110%.
Or
The best mathematician is the one who argues that you can't
really give 110%, because, you see, if you're able to give
that much, then it was really 100% of what you're able to give
in the first place, do you follow...?
Or
The best mathematician is the one who realizes that if he
shuts up about the 110% thing, he might leave this pub with
all his teeth.
Bart
Nobuo Saito
I understand your sentiment.
However, Gauss is, for example, regarded as a great mathematician by
_most_ of mathematician today. Grothendieck may be the greatest
mathematician of 20th century. Take for example again, the Fields
medal. Though there is age limit in the award, it is, in a sense, an
ordering of mathematicians.
So my common sense tells me that my question is not meaningless.
This is my opinion, if you please.
P.S.
You can choose one within a certain branch of mathematics if you want:
like someone is the best mathematician in algebraic topology.
Nobuo Saito
Bart Goddard
@netnews.worldnet.att.net:
> On 15 Oct 2002 05:00:11 -0700, genki...@hotmail.com (Nobuo Saito)
> wrote:
>
>>Of course this is a subjective question.
>>Is this FAQ?
>>Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
>
>
> What is the point of these meaningless, nonscientific, public
> opinion polls?
> Who knows enough about all mathematicians to give an
> informed answer?
Well....how different is it really from the referreeing of papers
for math journals? Certainly that's a non-scientific opinion poll,
in the sense that a couple guys read the paper and judge whether
the it makes the cut between good-enough and not-good-enough. We
feel that they are experts enough in their fields to make this
judgement call, eh?
Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
mathematician today?" That would be me. It used to be Jeff
Lagarius, but I'm funnier. For a while Mike Bennett was funnier
than me, but I switched medication and I'm back in form again,
and I'm funner than Mike now (besides, Mike's Canadian, and they
have no staying power.)
Just yesterday I was at Sun Harvest with my wife and some of
our groceries were on the heavy side so the checker put them
in a paper bag. We ended up with one plastic and one paper
bag. (Delivery is everything in comedy, of course.) As soon
as the checker made eye contact with me I said "Ah, we're
bi-sackual today." She almost peed her pants. Yes, it was
corny, but it was quick and deadpan. Like I said: Delivery.
I cut her quick and I cut her deep. It's a good thing we were
the last in line, because she went off to tell the manager what
had "just happened." She's probably still gasping for air.
She'll be retelling this story at every family dinner on
Thanksgiving and Christmas this year, and probably shoot
Mogan David out her nose.
What other mathematician can make a person shoot bad wine out of
her nose from two months away? No one. I'm the funniest.
No contest. No subjectivity. Just lie there, don't even try
to get up.
Maybe I could get a gig at the next joint meetings as
the Plenary Stand-up?
Bart
Bill Branson
> lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote in message news:<aoh1e2$631$1...@panix5.panix.com>...
> > genki...@hotmail.com (Nobuo Saito) writes:
> >
> > >Of course this is a subjective question.
> > >Is this FAQ?
> > >Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
> >
> > Why in the world should anyone believe that there's an interesting
> > total order (by "goodness", presumably "at mathematics") on the set
> > of "mathematician[s] right now"?
> >
> > One proto-argument against such a belief might begin by claiming that
> > there are ("right now") branches of "mathematics" which are as incomparable
> > as, say, solid-state physics and virology.
> >
> > ...Oh, I see I haven't posted my opinion. My opinion is that
> > the question is both meaningless and valueless. If you please.
> >
> > Lee Rudolph
>
well, we can rephrase the question maybe...
suppose an obscure billionaire decides to start a
math research facility, and asks you to do the hiring,
and gives you a billion dollars to spend...
who do you go after?
--bill
David Ames
> My vote is James Harris ...
>
> Glenn Blanchard
Don't be so modest. Your initials (GB) reveal that you must really be
Garrett Birkhoff.
David Ames
Gerry Myerson
<Pine.GSO.4.33.021016...@u00.math.uiuc.edu>, Bill
Branson <bra...@math.uiuc.edu> wrote:
=> well, we can rephrase the question maybe...
=> suppose an obscure billionaire decides to start a
=> math research facility, and asks you to do the hiring,
=> and gives you a billion dollars to spend...
=> who do you go after?
I go after Cindy Crawford, and the heck with the math research facility.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Nico Benschop
>
> Nico Benschop <n.ben...@chello.nl> wrote in
> news:3DAD60E7...@chello.nl:
>
> >> "Nobuo Saito" <genki...@hotmail.com> wrote :
> >>
> >> > Of course this is a subjective question.
> >> > Is this FAQ? Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
> >
> > Glenn Blanchard wrote:
> >>
> >> My vote is James Harris ...
> >
> > Indeed, the only sensible answer (to such nonsensical question;-)
> > (like: what is the most beautiful flower?-)
> > or: name the best colour of all)
>
> I have to say, you guys are not being very Zen about this.
>
> The best mathematician is the one who argues that you can't
> really give 110%, because, you see, if you're able to give
> that much, then it was really 100% of what you're able to give
NB: 110% is no problem:
ever heard of "the whole is more than the sum of the parts" ?
In a coupled network the difference (Whole - \sum Parts)
must be the couplings (arrows) between the parts (components).
Sum (+) is commutative, so the couplings cause non-commutativity,
which by Zen is essential (the arrow of time does not return to
its source;-) Forget about 'best' mathematicians... -- NB
Jan
> well, we can rephrase the question maybe...
> suppose an obscure billionaire decides to start a
> math research facility, and asks you to do the hiring,
> and gives you a billion dollars to spend...
> who do you go after?
I wouldn't go after anyone in particular - this approach doesn't work.
I'd instead create a research institute with a rotating visiting
faculty. (Except such places already exist.)
Examples and counterexamples to selection-by-committe abound:
1. Who would have hired a certain obscure government employee in 1904
to *any* semi-decent university, let alone to a prestigious
billion-dollar institute? (I'm talking about Einstein, obviously).
2. OTOH no member of the permanent faculty at the Institute for
Advanced Study has ever done anything on a comparable scale AFAIK.
(Obviously, they *had done* something significant before they were
hired but can anyone think of anything truly big accomplished while
they were already there? Maybe I'm missing something obvious but I
can't think of anything at the moment...)
Jan Bielawski
Nico Benschop
Re(2):
Think about it: they got it made, and took Gerry's approach
(wouldn't you, in that case?-)
Nico Benschop
>
> math...@hotmail.CUT.com (mathedman) wrote in news:3dac27af.3702443
> @netnews.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > On 15 Oct 2002 05:00:11 -0700, genki...@hotmail.com (Nobuo Saito)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Of course this is a subjective question.
> >>Is this FAQ?
> >>Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
> >
> >
> > What is the point of these meaningless, nonscientific, public
> > opinion polls?
> > Who knows enough about all mathematicians to give an
> > informed answer?
>
> Well....how different is it really from the referreeing of papers
> for math journals? Certainly that's a non-scientific opinion poll,
> in the sense that a couple guys read the paper and judge whether
> the it makes the cut between good-enough and not-good-enough.
> We feel that they are experts enough in their fields to make this
> judgement call, eh?
Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-stigma
(say FLT or GC) then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene! (yes RC, you
can take my word for that too, and the journal is quite well known
in Europe;-)
> Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> mathematician today?" That would be me. [..skipping one-upmanship]
>
> Just yesterday I was at Sun Harvest with my wife and some of
> our groceries were on the heavy side so the checker put them
> in a paper bag. We ended up with one plastic and one paper
> bag. (Delivery is everything in comedy, of course.) As soon
> as the checker made eye contact with me I said "Ah, we're
> bi-sackual today." She almost peed her pants. -- Bart
It's not so funny written down as it would be spoken properly
(and probably not funny at all for say a Dutchman/Dutchwoman,
or any other 'foreigner' ;-( Yet, I doubt if it would land you
the 'funniest mathematician' prize .. don't forget Bill Taylor,
down under, or Lee Rudolh (or is it Rudolf Lee ?-)
And don't you worry, we have _our_ (Dutch) jokes. -- NB
Jan Kristian Haugland
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Nico Benschop wrote:
> Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-stigma
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (say FLT or GC) then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
> a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene! (yes RC, you
> can take my word for that too, and the journal is quite well known
> in Europe;-)
Who says your papers on FLT and GC are good?
--
J K Haugland
http://www.neutreeko.com
Charles Matthews
>Grothendieck may be the greatest
> mathematician of 20th century.
An extraordinary talent, not fulfilled. You can't really compare him with
the likes of Weyl, Serre, Atiyah who are in large terms talents fulfilled -
and who count as 'ordinary' in the strictly limited sense that their
processes of thought differ from the normal more in velocity than direction.
If one doesn't care about being invidious, one can go on from here.
Charles
Nico Benschop
>
> math...@hotmail.CUT.com (mathedman) wrote :
>
> > On 15 Oct 2002, genki...@hotmail.com (Nobuo Saito) wrote:
> >
> >> Of course this is a subjective question.
> >> Is this FAQ? Anyway, post your opinion if you please.
> >
> >
> > What is the point of these meaningless, nonscientific, public
> > opinion polls? Who knows enough about all mathematicians to
> > give an informed answer?
>
> Well....how different is it really from the referreeing of papers
> for math journals? Certainly that's a non-scientific opinion poll,
> in the sense that a couple guys read the paper and judge whether
> the it makes the cut between good-enough and not-good-enough.
> We feel that they are experts enough in their fields to make this
> judgement call, eh?
Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-stigma
(say FLT or GC) then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene! (yes RC, you
can take my word for that too, and the journal is quite well known
in Europe;-)
> Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> mathematician today?" That would be me. [..skipping one-upmanship]
>
> Just yesterday I was at Sun Harvest with my wife and some of
> our groceries were on the heavy side so the checker put them
> in a paper bag. We ended up with one plastic and one paper
> bag. (Delivery is everything in comedy, of course.) As soon
> as the checker made eye contact with me I said "Ah, we're
> bi-sackual today." She almost peed her pants. -- Bart
It's not so funny written down as it would be spoken properly
(and probably not funny at all for say a Dutchman/Dutchwoman,
or any other 'foreigner' ;-( Yet, I doubt if it would land you
the 'funniest mathematician' prize .. don't forget Bill Taylor,
down under, or Lee Rudolph (or is it Rudolph Lee ?-)
Nico Benschop
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Nico Benschop wrote:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > (say FLT or GC) then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
> > a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene! (yes RC, you
> > can take my word for that too, and the journal is quite well known
> > in Europe;-)
>
> Who says your papers on FLT and GC are good? -- J K Haugland
It was not on FLT, nor on GC (which are not complete, although nearly
so;-) And 'probably good' (enough) is only my educated guess.
Why would a reviewer have it for two months, and then have it
returned by the editor with such rather strange - to my taste -
'backlog' argument. Didn't they have that backlog also 2 months ago!?
And if there is/are essential error(s) would naturally result in non-
acceptance: the proper thing to do would be to point them out, no?
I've collected quite an interesting list of excuses, by now,
but this one gets the originality prize;-).
Tim Norfolk
Timsn274
"Just when we manage to idiot-proof something, Nature comes along and builds a
better idiot."
Bart Goddard
@chello.nl:
>> She almost peed her pants.
>
> It's not so funny written down as it would be spoken properly
Of course not. Like I said, "delivery". And you didn't hear
the drum roll either.
Bart
James Hunter
"Tim Norfolk" <tims...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021017082423...@mb-fe.aol.com...
It is impossible to idiot-proof anything,
since both mathematics and "Nature" have
the recurring and obvious problem of ZERO IQ.
Mathematics has been diagnosed with the
medical condition known as physics (a skin rash actually).
But, Physics has the terminally moronic
mutant disease known as Geometry,
which has been eliminated from proof
by the mere act of:
FREE WILL and FREE ENERGY FOR GOOBERS.
Randy Poe
> And don't you worry, we have _our_ (Dutch) jokes. -- NB
Do the Dutch laugh at German jokes? And vice versa?
German humor seems to be orthogonal to practically
everybody else's.
- Randy
Robin Chapman
>
> Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-stigma
> (say FLT or GC)
stigma?
> then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
> a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene! (yes RC, you
> can take my word for that too, and the journal is quite well known
> in Europe;-)
Which journal was that?
--
Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"His mind has been corrupted by colours, sounds and shapes."
The League of Gentlemen
Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake
<snip>
> Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> mathematician today?" That would be me. It used to be Jeff
> Lagarius,
That should be spelled Lagarias. He can be quite funny. He was once
asked why he went into mathematics. He replied that he was very shy
as a young man, and when he heard that there was safety in numbers, he
knew what his occupation had to be.
>but I'm funnier. For a while Mike Bennett was funnier
> than me,
funnier than I. There are so many mathematicians out there depending
on us for proper use of English grammar, that we should not casually
mislead them.
>but I switched medication and I'm back in form again,
> and I'm funner than Mike now (besides, Mike's Canadian, and they
> have no staying power.)
I don't know Mike Bennett, but I can tell that the winner is not going
to be you.
Regards,
Achava
Lee Rudolph
> mathematician today?"
When Dennis Sullivan introduced me to Pierre Deligne, he
asserted (on a body of evidence of which I was, and am,
acquainted with no more than half) that I was funnier than
Daniel Rudolph.
But that was in another country; and, besides, that "today"
is very, very dead.
Lee Rudolph (no known relation to Daniel, other, of course,
than "funnier in one Texan's opinion one day in 1982")
Gerry Myerson
ach...@hotmail.com (Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake) wrote:
=> Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote in message
=>
=> <snip>
=>
=> > Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
=> > mathematician today?" That would be me. It used to be Jeff
=> > Lagarius,
=>
=> That should be spelled Lagarias. He can be quite funny. He was once
=> asked why he went into mathematics. He replied that he was very shy
=> as a young man, and when he heard that there was safety in numbers,
=> he knew what his occupation had to be.
Lew Lefton is a mathematician & a stand-up comic.
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~llefton/personal.html
Len Smiley
...and I was over in the corner playing rock, paper, scissors with
Charlie Fefferman and Gerd Faltings...
Is this your way of responding to the OP, Lee?
Len Smiley
Nico Benschop
Interesting question.
This requires deep analysis (a German might say;-)
All I recall now, is that Dutch presenters of TV & other shows are quite
popular in Germany (Rudy Carrel, Linda de Mol come to mind),
while the reverse is not true. The light Dutch touch seems to be popular
in Germany, apparently in need of importing it from elsewhere.
On the other hand, we import excellently engineered cars from Germany
('gruendlich' is their game;-) as do many other nations in the world.
So: to each his own, I'd say...
PS:
My countryman Joachim Verhagen has a nice collection of science jokes:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/2_14.html
Nico Benschop
>
> Nico Benschop wrote:
>
> >
> > Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-stigma
> > (say FLT or GC)
>
> stigma?
>
> > then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
> > a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene!
> > (yes RC, you can take my word for that too,
> > and the journal is quite well known in Europe;-)
>
> Which journal was that? -- Robin Chapman
The usual RC question again. This time I'll just mention
one clue word, sufficient for insiders: Wieferich. -- NB
Nico Benschop
>
> In article <5bbb5f5d.0210...@posting.google.com>,
> ach...@hotmail.com (Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake) wrote:
>
> => Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote in message
> =>
> => <snip>
> =>
> => > Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> => > mathematician today?" That would be me. It used to be Jeff
> => > Lagarius,
> =>
> => That should be spelled Lagarias. He can be quite funny. He was once
> => asked why he went into mathematics. He replied that he was very shy
> => as a young man, and when he heard that there was safety in numbers,
> => he knew what his occupation had to be.
>
> Lew Lefton is a mathematician & a stand-up comic.
NB: Does that mean, orthogonal to his audience - if he's doing well?
(who are "laying flat of laughter" - literally translated fro Dutch)
Nico Benschop
>
> Gerry Myerson wrote:
> >
> > In article <5bbb5f5d.0210...@posting.google.com>,
> > ach...@hotmail.com (Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake) wrote:
> >
> > => Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote in message
> > =>
> > => <snip>
> > =>
> > => > Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> > => > mathematician today?" That would be me. It used to be Jeff
> > => > Lagarius,
> > =>
> > => That should be spelled Lagarias. He can be quite funny. He was once
> > => asked why he went into mathematics. He replied that he was very shy
> > => as a young man, and when he heard that there was safety in numbers,
> > => he knew what his occupation had to be.
> >
> > Lew Lefton is a mathematician & a stand-up comic.
(more specific ^^ to avoid misinterpretation of my intended question;-)
Joona I Palaste
> Nico Benschop wrote:
>> Gerry Myerson wrote:
>> > Lew Lefton is a mathematician & a stand-up comic.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (more specific ^^ to avoid misinterpretation of my intended question;-)
>> NB: Does that mean, orthogonal to his audience - if he's doing well?
>> (who are "laying flat of laughter" - literally translated fro Dutch)
OK, now I got the joke. Quite funny. BTW, the English language has such
an expression too, "rolling on the floor laughing", usually abbreviated
on Usenet to ROTFL.
Saying "rotfl" in actual physical conversation instead of laughing is a
sure sign of being on Usenet too much. Luckily I've never done it...
yet.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"This is a personnel commuter."
- Train driver in Scientific American
Bart Goddard
news:5bbb5f5d.0210...@posting.google.com:
>>but I'm funnier. For a while Mike Bennett was funnier
>> than me,
>
> funnier than I.
No, it's OK to say "than me" in short informal prose. If
you're going to be anal about grammar, than be REALLY anal.
Lee Rudolph
>
>>>but I'm funnier. For a while Mike Bennett was funnier
>>> than me,
>>
>> funnier than I.
>
>No, it's OK to say "than me" in short informal prose. If
>you're going to be anal about grammar, than be REALLY anal.
Talk about "holier than thee" attitudes...
Lee Rudolph
Joona I Palaste
Holier than _thou_. Erm, wait, that's not right... =)
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Life without ostriches is like coffee with milk."
- Mika P. Nieminen
Bart Goddard
@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
> Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> scribbled the following:
>> Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> writes:
>>>>>but I'm funnier. For a while Mike Bennett was funnier
>>>>> than me,
>>>>
>>>> funnier than I.
>>>
>>>No, it's OK to say "than me" in short informal prose. If
>>>you're going to be anal about grammar, than be REALLY anal.
>
>> Talk about "holier than thee" attitudes...
>
> Holier than _thou_. Erm, wait, that's not right... =)
>
Stop trying to be funnier than me!!!
Bart Goddard
(Oh, wait, I should have put that in all caps, oughtn't I have?)
Nico Benschop
>
> Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> scribbled the following:
> > Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> writes:
> >>>> but I'm funnier.
> >>>> For a while Mike Bennett was funnier than me,
> >>>
> >>> funnier than I.
> >>
> >> No, it's OK to say "than me" in short informal prose. If
> >> you're going to be anal about grammar, than be REALLY anal.
>
>
> Holier than _thou_. Erm, wait, that's not right... =)
>
> "Life without ostriches is like coffee with milk." - Mika P.Nieminen
Re[*]: You must be careful with LR, he probably made this error on
purpose, his mind works with greatest ease in double & triple twists;-)
BTW:
1. Finland may rule on land,
but England rules the waves (or is it: waves the rules?-)
ever since they learned the trade & tricks from the Dutch...
2. Nieminen's quote escapes me:
does he, or does he not, like milk in his coffee?
(and what does that have to do with ostriches?-)
3. Another urgent point: is Joona a girl's or boy's name in Finland?
(e.g Andrea in Holland is a girl's name, as all names ending on 'a',
but a boy's name in Germany and in Italy).
Mind you, I do think this all is highly OT (on topic): -- NB
Nico Benschop
NB: No, just stuff it in YOUR CAP! (or elsewhere, your anal grammar;-)
Joona I Palaste
>> /-- Joona Palaste --- Finland rules! ------------/
>> "Life without ostriches is like coffee with milk." - Mika P.Nieminen
> Re[*]: You must be careful with LR, he probably made this error on
> purpose, his mind works with greatest ease in double & triple twists;-)
> BTW:
> 1. Finland may rule on land,
> but England rules the waves (or is it: waves the rules?-)
> ever since they learned the trade & tricks from the Dutch...
I'll take your word for it.
> 2. Nieminen's quote escapes me:
> does he, or does he not, like milk in his coffee?
> (and what does that have to do with ostriches?-)
This is actually a mystery to me, too. Nieminen was my former boss,
but I did not hear this quote from him personally. Rather, it appears
on the web page of Sari A. Laakso, who is a lecturer at the University
I study at, and apparently is a friend of Nieminen. I'll have to ask
her what he meant...
> 3. Another urgent point: is Joona a girl's or boy's name in Finland?
> (e.g Andrea in Holland is a girl's name, as all names ending on 'a',
> but a boy's name in Germany and in Italy).
It's a boy's name.
> Mind you, I do think this all is highly OT (on topic): -- NB
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"We're women. We've got double standards to live up to."
- Ally McBeal
David C. Ullrich
<n.ben...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Joona I Palaste wrote:
>>
>> Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> scribbled the following:
>> > Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> writes:
>> >>>> but I'm funnier.
>> >>>> For a while Mike Bennett was funnier than me,
>> >>>
>> >>> funnier than I.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's OK to say "than me" in short informal prose. If
>> >> you're going to be anal about grammar, than be REALLY anal.
>>
>> > Talk about "holier than thee" attitudes... ..[*]
>>
>> Holier than _thou_. Erm, wait, that's not right... =)
>>
>> /-- Joona Palaste --- Finland rules! ------------/
>> "Life without ostriches is like coffee with milk." - Mika P.Nieminen
>
>Re[*]: You must be careful with LR, he probably made this error on
>purpose, his mind works with greatest ease in double & triple twists;-)
Um. it's actually not just that he made up a silly error. There's
an obvious homomorphism between the pairs ('than me', 'than I')
and ('than thou', 'than thee'). Thee is the objective of thou,
just as me is the objective of I. (not sure "objective" is the
right word in English grammar...)
David C. Ullrich
Bart Goddard
@chello.nl:
I have a truly marvelous short proof that I really am the
funniest mathematician.
They didn't laugh at Gauss! They didn't laugh at Newton!
They didn't laugh at Fermat! They didn't laugh at Wiles!
And now they're not laughing at me, which proves that I'm
so deeply funny that you mere mortals can't understand
my humor.
Joona I Palaste
> I have a truly marvelous short proof that I really am the
> funniest mathematician.
> They didn't laugh at Gauss! They didn't laugh at Newton!
> They didn't laugh at Fermat! They didn't laugh at Wiles!
> And now they're not laughing at me, which proves that I'm
> so deeply funny that you mere mortals can't understand
> my humor.
This also proves that I am the smartest, most intelligent mathematician
who ever lived.
Gauss was a man. Newton was a man. Fermat was a man. Wiles is a man.
And I am a man! That must make me an equal to all of them!
Bow down to me and worship the ground I walk on, you pathetic mongrels.
=)
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark
to read anyway."
- Groucho Marx
Nico Benschop
Not so obvious, that homomorphism, to me, but thanks anyway.
However, I see something else now:
'thee' (Dutch) = 'tea' (English).
So, with Tea the holiest of drinks in the UK, the association
of Lee's 'Thee' with Bart's 'Anal' *is* obvious (so it seems...)
-- NB - http://www.hgpa.com HGPA (Holy Grail Protection Agency)
" The minimum required CGPA or HGPA is not attained even after
completion of the allowed additional courses (see the section
Requirements for Obtaining a Degree)", in :
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/info/regist/crs/gngEN/gng-eng5.htm ;-)
Nico Benschop
Pah! You've sunk deep indeed! You call that short?
I bet Fermat's was MUCH shorter - did you see *his* margin?-)
(.. *and* funnier: people have been trying for 360 years to
recover that joke, to no avail, until recently, ask JSH;-(
NB - http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/nf-abstr.htm (RC bait;-)
John R Ramsden
>
> (Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake) wrote:
> >
> > Bart Goddard <godd...@concordia.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > Now a really interesting question would be "Who's the funniest
> > That should be spelled Lagarias. He can be quite funny. He was once
>
> Lew Lefton is a mathematician & a stand-up comic.
>
> http://www.math.gatech.edu/~llefton/personal.html
So is Adam Spencer. See http://www.geocities.com/tangawarra/adamart3.html
The latest issue of New Scientist (2002-10-19) features an interview
with him and his stand-up comic partner (Karl Kruszelnicki, a physisict
at Sidney University).
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (j...@adslate.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end."
Woody Allen
Robin Chapman
Never heard of that one.
And where have you submitted you "Goldbach" MS?
Moufang Loop
>
> .... But that probably doesn't answer the question
> you meant to ask (but didn't).
Why this urge in ngs to tell ops what question they meant to ask? The
question may be unanswerable but it was asked just as the asker meant to
ask it, I guess.
ML
Phil Carmody
>>> Which journal was that? -- Robin Chapman
>>
>> The usual RC question again. This time I'll just mention
>> one clue word, sufficient for insiders: Wieferich.
>
> Never heard of that one.
Writings In Elevated Fields Extolling Results In Complete Hogwash
It's the journal published by the
Wacky Idiot Experimenters For Educational Research Into Chronic
Hopelessness
HTH.
Phil (and Anna)
Denis Feldmann
> Nico Benschop wrote:
>
>> Robin Chapman wrote:
>>>
>>> Nico Benschop wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or, if the paper is good and too close to a math-problem-with-
>>>
>>> stigma?
>>>
>>>> then they send it back 'unreviewed' because there's
>>>> a backlog - after having it for two months. Nota Bene!
>>>> (yes RC, you can take my word for that too,
>>>> and the journal is quite well known in Europe;-)
>>>
>>> Which journal was that? -- Robin Chapman
>>
>> The usual RC question again. This time I'll just mention
>> one clue word, sufficient for insiders: Wieferich.
>
> Never heard of that one.
Oh, Wieferich is indeed a clue word. He could also have used "1093 & 3511".
But a clue word for a journal????
Bart Goddard
@chello.nl:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> They didn't laugh at Gauss! They didn't laugh at Newton!
>> They didn't laugh at Fermat! They didn't laugh at Wiles!
>> And now they're not laughing at me, which proves that I'm so
>> deeply funny that you mere mortals can't understand my humor.
>
> Pah! You've sunk deep indeed! You call that short?
> I bet Fermat's was MUCH shorter - did you see *his* margin?-)
> (.. *and* funnier: people have been trying for 360 years to
> recover that joke, to no avail, until recently, ask JSH;-(
But seriously folks....
In an uncharacteristic fit if sobriety this weekend, I thought
about what it took to be one of the best mathematicians. Dream
sequence on:
The thing about Shakespeare was more than that he was a master
of the English language. He actually conquered vast new territory
for her. He single-handedly decided what English should be
and what she would become.
Likewise, when we say "Gauss was the last complete mathematician"
we sell him short, because we give the impression that he only
learned all the mathematics there was to know. When in fact, he
pounded out the direction for mathematics to take, insisted on the
rigour that would characterize mathematics for the rest of her
existance, and essentially gave 100s of 1000s of us dissertation
topics. Gauss determined what mathematics was and would be.
Who else has done this? Hilbert with his list of problems.
Erdos by promoting collaboration has certainly had a dramatic
effect on the face of mathematics.
So someone comes along and proves or disproves the GRH. That's
a big deal, of course, and the fallout from the techniques
involved might last for centuries. But it may involve no inherent
changes in the philosophy or character of the discipline itself.
Certainly the (dis)prover will be a great hero just for this act.
But, for my money, if he is not also someone who can lead mathematics
into new realms, then he's just another Ph.D. in math who happens
to be more clever than the rest of us. (Or has fewer kids and
more free time.)
Anyway, there's sort a real question. Not "who's the best mathematian
now?" but "who is doing something now that's carving out some
substantial new frontiers for the discipline?"
Where is Hari Seldon?
Bart