Re:Incorrect casual assumptions in the history of science
by dr_dshiv on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @04:21PM
(#37680709)
Gauss, you mean the guy who lived 1500 years later? Yeah, he definitely set a higher bar. But a “first-rate” restaurant does not mean “the best ever of all time.” Theon and Hypatia were probably some of the best mathematicians of their century. That is enough to be both “first rate” and “formidable” — and I’d be surprised if Gauss would talk smack about them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Incorrect casual assumptions in the history of science
by jhp123 on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @06:41PM
(#37682420)
You're talking about two people who don't seem to have contributed a single new theorem, proof, conjecture, or formula to mathematics. That bar is cleared by their contemporaries Pappus and Diophantus.
I don't think your idea that being "one of the best of the age" makes you "first-rate" holds any water. A reenactor at a local Renaissance Faire who has never worn a suit of plate armor or ridden a war horse is probably one of the best jousters of the current age, because it's not really pursued any more, but I would never call them a "first-rate, formidable jouster". The medieval scribes who wrote dry annals of what happened each year were among the best writers of their age, because writing was rare, but I wouldn't call them "first-rate, formidable writers". There is an objective component to this kind of language.