Talk:Mathematician

message: I removed the phrase about proofs being verified by computers in the future because it's nonsense. This might only apply to very specific areas in mathematics, if at all. Also I changed the phrase about the source of mathematical problems. Most of them come from within mathematics, only a small part comes from economics and the sciences, and those problems would be concerned applied mathematics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterationx10 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofs by computer

message: If the article acknowledges that Augustine's famously hostile saying about mathematicians was in fact directed at astrologers, then why is the son of a bitch even in the mathematician article? Wouldn't it create less confusion to simply omit the quotation which has created some measure of confusion over the years?
:Agreed, it is irrelevant to the article, especially without context. Woudl anyone object to its removal?--&m@ 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dump it I say!  :-)  capitalist 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Konstable 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless Quotation from St. Augustine 

message: I find the article rather confused: it does not know whether it is talking about mathematicians or mathematics. Some parts really should be moved or dropped. The Overview section is not about mathematicians! The Problems in mathematics section is not either. As it is now, the Differences section is only halfway about mathematicians.
We must set up a proper outline for what should be and what should not be in the article, and how it should be organized. PhS 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires beans! 

message: As always, an interesting point would concern the racial and ethnic composition of mathematicians (I see below that the Jews have nice mathematical heritage).  I think that a link to the Race and Intelligence article would be good here.  People with low IQs tend not to make good mathematicians.  Perhaps also some reference to common moral attributes of mathematicians (mathematics has been held in high esteem in one form or other by almost all historic civilisations - perhaps that statement is true by definition). 
I see on wikipedia that most mathematicians in history have been held to be white - some comments on the nationality of these white mathematicians would be interesting.  Perhaps it is also fair to comment upon how it is that racial and ethnic differences between mathematicians have often resulted in different 'types' and 'flavours' of mathematics - there would be some interesting issues concerning the foundations of mathematics here.  How do mathematicians know whether or not what they are doing is actually *real* mathematics (the answer here is usually ZFC - though it has been a long time since I say the following comment in a journal : 
"And here we have computationally, apolitically and non-racially verified the authenticity and accuracy of our theorems via the use of a colour-blind ZFC diagnostic routine to make sure that it was not complete b******s....".  Well, you get the point.  I found the following website interesting (though it probably wasn't programmed in by a black guy : ) : 
http://metamath.org/
(the last comment was given when observing that all the countries associated with meta-math are white, but I'm not complaining, merely stating colour-blond fact.  )
Nukemason2 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Interesting criticises of Mathematicians 

message: Can I just remove this section? While mildly interestig from a trivial point of view, it's not particularly encyclopedic or relevant to the notion of mathematician.--Boffob 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctoral degree statistics in the US 

message: How about a demographics section that tells us what proportion of mathematicians are male vs. female, a breakdown by age, a breakdown by race/ethnicity (if we must...) and so forth?  Why do I have to be told that some group or another is "underrepresented?"  Can't I take the basic facts from the encyclopedia article and decide that for myself?  Who determines the "proper" representation of each group anyway?  I'm proposing that we either radically rewrite or eliminate this section entirely.  Other comments?  capitalist 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I had forgotten that I had this rant here.  I see an IP came in and rewrote the section to eliminate the POV at least.  It reads much better now!  :)   capitalist 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Under-represented comes from the social sciences and is typically taken to mean representation within the subgroup compared with the population as a whole. --lquilter 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics section reeks of POV

message: It would be useful, I think, to address in the demographics section about the popular belief that mathematicians are most productive in their 20s and that by their 30s and certainly 40s their most "brilliant" years are over. Sources on this topic? --lquilter 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: I believe this article needs /at least/ extensive work, and perhaps even a complete rewrite. Most of the sections on the article focus on mathematics, as opposed to mathematicians. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it's impossible to discuss one without overlapping into the other... I do have some more specific complaints:
1. The "Problems in Mathematics" section is mostly focussed on recent developments in mathematics. This isn't a bad thing, but the title is misleading and doesn't match the content.
2. I take it the "Motivation" section is intended to discuss the reasons why mathematicians are mathematicians, or at least what kinds of things mathematicians focus on. It seems like a poor place to talk about awards, as I don't really think major breakthroughs are performed just for a medal. Of course, even this perspective isn't NPOV... But even placing information there seems to imply that this is the case. It seems like the best solution would be to give the awards it's own section.
Regardless, the Motivation section seems like a good place to discuss Hardy (regarding the aesthetics of Mathematics), and Wigner (unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics). At the least, these seem like a good starting point as far as motivation is concerned. More recent material could include Lockhart's essay on mathematical pedagogy (a mathematician's lament). 
3. I think the "Differences" section should be completely axed. Some of the content on conjectures and generalizations could be merged with the Motivation section. A discussion on the differences between mathematicians and scientists seems far more appropriate, but even the title of "differences" seems biased. I mean, why not call it similarities? Something like "Relationships between mathematicians and scientists" seems better, and more focussed.
4. The entire "Demographics" section is just talking about women in mathematics. This could be heavily expanded to include things like... What regions/countries have traditionally produced a lot of mathematicians? What regions/countries are producing a lot today? Has this changed a lot? Sexes? Races? etc etc...
5. Doctoral degree statistics in the US should at the least be merged with the Demographics section... But if we include this, why not also include the doctoral statistics for other countries? This might be too much. 
6. ...Do we really need all those quotes? How do these kinds of tidbits give anybody an idea of what mathematicians do? This seems like the kind of material that people include because they just love the quotes. I mean, I love the quotes too! But they make the article seem unprofessional.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticktwig (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues listed here are all worthy of consideration (see also sections "Article Is In Sorry Shape", and "Pruning content more about mathematics than mathematicians" below. Paul August ☎ 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: leodams was Mathematics differs from natural sciences in that physical theories in the sciences are tested by experiments, while mathematical statements are supported by proofs which may be verified objectively by mathematicians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.210.54 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What you just described is a difference between mathematics and natural sciences, and has already been addressed in the article on mathematics...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematcs vs Science

message: This article could do a better job of describing a job as a mathematician. What is their average pay? for example. --DocDeel516 discuss 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info wanted 

message: "Two channel DNA microarrays are used when one wants to compare data from one sample, against some other sample (which will often be a reference sample)". This implies that this is only used with two channel DNA microarrays, when the method is also used with oligonucleotide arrays (in which case the two channels are on separate arrays).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoolium (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Statement 

message: whoever wrote this self contradictory definition, will you please present the source of this definition, or elsewise, stop reverberating my editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarsalankhalid (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it says: A mathematician is a person whose primary area of study and/or research is the field of mathematics... so you could say that an engineer who taught math and only live lecturing them is one of the mathematicians? I think that some level of abstractness is needed... How much? Let's argue...--kmath (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of mathematician 

message: There is too much about mathematics and too little about mathematicians here. I suggest we look at the Scientist article for ideas of how to improve this one, since it appears to be a better made article on an analogous subject. The "Problems" section should go and the "Differences" section should be reworded to be about mathematicians vs scientists instead of the current mathematics vs science (and get a slightly more descriptive title). Does anybody else agree? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes see new section immediately below. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Is In Sorry Shape 

message: I cut the following form the article since it is more about  mathematics than mathematicians, perhaps some of it could be merged into mathematics:
:The publication of new discoveries in mathematics continues at an immense rate in hundreds of scientific journals. In particular, mathematics is not a closed system, in that there is no shortage of open problems; in fact, at any given time, there are infinitely many potential open problems which mathematicians have not stumbled upon. The diversity of mathematics also allows for problems, which, in certain contexts, may not be solved or are undecidable in particular theories!
:Recently, an important problem in the field of number theory was resolved by the mathematician Andrew Wiles; this is known as Fermat's Last Theorem. The problem remained open for approximately 350 years making it one of the oldest problems in the history of mathematics. 
:Another recently resolved important problem, in the field of differential topology, is the Poincaré conjecture. Like Fermat's Last Theorem, this conjecture withstood 100 years of attempts at its solution, but was eventually resolved by Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2003. A peer review was completed in 2006, and the proof was accepted as valid.Elusive Proof, Elusive Prover: A New Mathematical Mystery
 
:The Poincaré conjecture belonged to a larger class of open problems (prior to its proof) known as the Millennium Prize Problems. These problems concern such diverse fields of mathematics such as algebraic geometry, algebraic number theory, differential geometry, theoretical computer science and so forth. For any one of these problems, there is a US$1,000,000 award for its solution. However, many mathematicians consider the prestige to be of a greater value than the actual sum of money.
There is a a lot more like it that needs removing in my view. Paul August ☎ 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I wrote that content at some point. My point of view is that "mathematics" and "mathematician" are connected, and thus one cannot mention one without mentioning the other (as an analogy, consider "axiomatic set theory" and "set-theoretic topology" :)). For instance, should the article cover some famous mathematicians in the past, or should the article also consider what mathematicians, in general, do? I feel that both ideas should be a fundamental part of the article, but the former is certainly the most important. However, when I added the content under the current "motivation section", I kept in mind the section title, and as such described "mathematics" in relation to "mathematician". Do you think that some of this content should be merged into mathematics instead? If so, feel free to do that. With regards to the above content, I actually mentioned "mathematician" in the last three paragraphs, although not to a significant extent. As such, I do not think (correct me otherwise) that there is mention of either Andrew Wiles or Grigori Perelman (who are famous mathematicians). Could you please expand slightly on your point? Cheers, --PST 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning content more about mathematics than mathematicians 

message: I referred to a 1990s study of research mathematics in the USA, which found that the majority of academic authors of MR-reviewed papers were in departments outside of mathematics. This study was referenced by the outside review of USA mathematics around 2000, by a panel that included Lennart Carleson, which I assume is known to full professors and other sufficiently wizened.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most mathematicians are applied mathematicians 

message: Maybe it's just me, but I expected an article about the "hardest" of the hard sciences to have a lot less subjective generalization than this one does (specifically, the "Motivations" section).  For one thing, I doubt the section describes the motivations of every mathematician (if so, that definitely deserves a reference), so it would be nice to know where these described motivations are coming from, to get a sense of how well they can be expected to describe any given mathematician.  For another thing, leaving aside the point about the section as a whole, there are multiple factual statements made in the section that should be cited, for example, "However, among academic mathematics, the majority of mathematical papers published in the United States are written by academics outside of mathematics departments." --Spameroo (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations...

message: User:115ash, who has been blocked repeatedly, is behaving very oddly. He has taken out noted mathematicians like Hilbert.
Someone with more time might reverse this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones he put in are mostly Italian. Those taken out are mostly or all non-Italian. 115ash has already been banned for patriotic peacockery. Most of his efforts have been reverted by Alessandro57, but not all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He uses dishonest edit summaries like "fixes".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uselessnogood (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor 

message: As I contemplated repairing the damage done to this section by recent edits (see above), it occurred to me that I would only be using my own sense of who the most notable mathematicians were. There are individuals who I think should be listed and others who I don't see any reason to list. I am sure that other editors would have different takes on these lists. I see a need to have some criteria for inclusion in this gallery, perhaps something like having more than  amount of space devoted to them in some general History of Mathematics tome or having to appear in the top twenty of someone's greatest mathematicians list. Having such a criteria would be in the spirit of WP since it would not be a judgement call on the part of editors as to whether or not someone is included. Another concern that I have is whether or not the quality of a person's mathematics should be the sole factor in determining their notability. For instance, I would keep Fibonacci on this list, but not because of his mathematical contributions which are paltry, but because he was so influential in opening up Europe to the influx of Hindu-Arabian mathematical ideas. I would also keep Agnesi, again not due to her mathematics, but as a woman writing a very influential textbook that spread and popularized the concepts of calculus. These are people whose notability is grounded in what they did for mathematics as a field and I believe that they need to be recognized for this as well as those whose mathematical contributions were seminal. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you've mentioned, I am going to add legends like Fibonacci and Agnesi. I am also going to add Cardano and remove Euclid, as he is already included in the infobox. Nevertheless, I'd keep also keep lovelace, Peano and Aryabhata. --115ash→(☏) 10:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the part entitled "Notable mathematicians" and I am surprised that Stefan Banach has not been mentioned there.
Banach is listed at #58 of Allen's list. Would you care to make an argument for his inclusion? Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable mathematicians 

message: A mathematician is someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in his or her work, typically to solve mathematical problems. Mathematics is concerned with numbers, data, quantity, structure, space, models and change.
Add, plz url "change" to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus"
Thanks!
Mgreat (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Altamel (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015 

message: Instead of that "notable mathematicians" section, why don't we create a new collage and label it on the infobox? I think this would be a better idea and it will certainly stop vandals. --115ash→(☏) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a big fan of infoboxes, and they are certainly not the place to put long lists of things. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But I believe that a collage for this article will be very useful. Shall I create one like this? --115ash→(☏) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text: There are a couple of problems with the montage idea. The most important for me is that the image selections are controlled by only one editor and to make a change you have to create a whole new montage. This runs counter to the basic idea of Wikipedia - that it is a collaborative effort that anyone can contribute to. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Let's wait. --115ash→(☏) 14:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the amount of screen space it takes up, I don't think the current picture gallery of historically notable mathematicians is an improvement to the article.  The pictures achieve nothing in explaining to the reader what a mathematician is, perhaps apart from illustrating that it is an ancient vocation.  Tayste (edits) 01:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The very concept of a section on "notable mathematicians" is prone to constant tinkering (at best) and bickering (at worst). Abandon the idea of a "who's-who", and make this article about the history and nature of the profession.  "notable" people in the profession will come naturally in the progression, and will be in appropriate context. As it is now, I'm tempted to remove the whole section to discourage this lazy sort of presentation of material. -- Netoholic @  01:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it needs culling.  I've seen the same kind of thing in various articles about music.  Lists get longer and longer, turning into an example farm.  If we need to list notable mathematicians then let's do it with an actual List page and/or Category, not in the article itself.  Tayste (edits) 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you think? ("notable mathematicians" section)

message: Are all Mathematicians a specific type of logician? If so then the parent category of :Category:Mathematicians should be :Category:Logicians —User 000 name 09:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most mathematicians I know (including myself) would consider that an insult. You are confusing the wielder of a tool with someone who studies that tool. That is not a hierarchical relationship, unless you want to claim that everyone who uses logic is a logician. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the reasons for a supposedly insulting categorisation? I am surprised by this statement!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logician 

message: A truly "mathematical" approach to writing an article about the concept of "mathematician" is to investigate first whether an answer to the question "what is a mathematician?" exists at all. Mathematicians know that attempts to find non-existing answers may occasionally be apparently successfull, although the answer is inevitably nonsensical.
The article demonstrates the problem of defining the "mathematican" by using a circular definition: mathematicans work on mathematics. And mathematics is what mathematicans do, of course. Is mathematics just logical thinking in abstract symbols? The written representation can not be decisive for the nature of mathematics. 
Take the example of the concept of a "sufficient condition". It can be defined with a formula in boolean variables, and then it "looks like" mathematics  But lawyers apply exactly the same reasons if they interpret statutory provisions containing sufficient conditions. But no one calls them "mathematicians" if they do that.
This example shows that definting mathematicians is a conventional matter, not a fundamental one.    
Incidentally, the same problem applies to engineers: prople involved in engineering. Vice versa.
Rbakels (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefinable? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mathematician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206151209/http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm to http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609220806/http://www.careercornerstone.org/math/math.htm to http://www.careercornerstone.org/math/math.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121214194422/http://valure.wiki.ccsd.edu/ to http://valure.wiki.ccsd.edu/
*Added  tag to http://www.mathmajor.org/careers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003171929/http://mathmajor.org/ to http://mathmajor.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I think that some data from RS re the employability of math graduates are useful for inclusion in article. Examples , , , ...--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employability of math graduates 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I can do Grammer K5gproWiki (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021 

message: lol i dont like math  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.57.85 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022 

message: Mathematician actually means a machine for turning coffee into theorems(if you know what I’m saying). 112.150.25.221 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong definition 

message: vedic mathematicians are ancient in the world , pythagoras theorem, number system, zero , geometry was already mentioned in Vedas much much earlier than these mathematicians mentioned. It is time people respect the ones who gave the world these things, mutilating history is extremely disrespectful Kayera (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic maths is earliest and ancient in the world