User talk:Ascii/Mathematicians Level 1

"According to Wikipedia?" Seriously?

We use Wikipedia, if at all, as a tertiary source, as by its very nature it cannot be considered definitive. If we can find a more-or-less "official" published source (e.g. a well-cited historical work) we might be able to categorise them accordingly -- but the whole exercise would be too subjective to be able to be taken as fact. --prime mover (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

The question of who was objectively more important and influential would need more education to answer it than I have, if it's even a sensible idea.

It might even necessarily be unanswerable as maybe some modern day Euclids would prefer to be forgotten about and publish under pseudonyms.

So, I don't bother with it and just sometimes think about who people think was great or want others to think was great (similar thoughts for political history if I ever engage with it).

There's also that great Eric Temple Bell quote on here: Mathematician:Mathematicians/Sorted By Birth that has made me reconsider this.

In any case, this, like much of the other stuff in my user space, is experimental and unintended for the main space. And will probably be unfinished. --Ascii 15:41, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

No worries, the fact that it was in your own user space initially escaped me. By all means use your user space exactly how you like. It will only get interfered with (in general) as the result of refactoring operations (when pages change their names etc.)

We might want to publish, for example: the top mathematics as according to Bell, and another page according to Simmons (seriously, his Calculus Gems is really rather good), and even whoever else lists their favourites in whatever book they publish.

But all such lists, it will need to be emphasised, can only be personal assessments based on subjective judgments. --prime mover (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (EDT)