Are there any examples of mathematical crackpots who turned out to be right? By crackpot, I mean someone who is not a mathematician whose mathematical theories were not taken seriously, but turned out to be correct.
Crackpots who turned out to be right.
-
3That doesn't really make sense if you think about it, if they're theories turned out to be correct wouldn't they be a mathematician? – 2012-12-07
-
7I have voted to close this question because the crackpot label is not about being an outsider or doing research that is out of fashion, it is about communication failure and lack of perspective and autocriticism. It is not useful to answer a question about this label with stories about Ramanujan, Hippasos or Cantor. – 2012-12-07
-
1I disagree (not with the closure, per se). "Crackpot" suggests one who maintains a position against the status quo, despite pressure to conform. A "crackpot" proven right over time becomes an enlightened thinker with courage to stand up for what he believes. In that individual's contemporary context, however, that is not always the case. Consider also Galileo, Copernicus, etc. – 2012-12-07
-
1I don't understand the dismissal or correction of the term crackpot. Sureshs defined his term, which is what is done on these boards all the time. Not only that, but I think he defined it well. People have been called crackpots many times who had good theories. Martin Gardner is one of the ones who championed the term and brought it to modern prominence. Remember what he said about Rene Thom and Catastrophe theory? This is a perfectly valid question, with many good, illustrative answers on how one should _actually_ do math. – 2012-12-07
-
1Intuitionism. Finitism. Ultrafinitism (which is probably the most accurate view of mathematics as it physically operates in the universe). Heck, even Perelman was laughed at by his contemporaries at Steklov before he published online and went into seclusion. The early discussions on infinity, constructivism, and sets was loaded with labelling of alternative ideas as non-serious, even nonsensical. – 2012-12-07
-
0Lotfi Zadeh and fuzzy set theory. Actually, with this definition, one could take Leibniz with his infinitesimals as a crackpot, as for a very, very long time infinitesimals got thought to not have a rigorous foundation, but they do. – 2012-12-07
-
0I completely agree wity Phira: to call "crackpot" to someone holding a position against the status quo is unfair and, afaik, not existent *usually* at least within the mathematical community. A crackpot is someone who won't hear criticism, reasoning and someone who won't learn. Anyway, and even accepting the non-usually accepted definition of Sureshs, I can't find examples. Lofti Zadeh was an engineer with heave mathematical orientation so I'd consider him to be so, and Perelman is, of course, a trained mathematician. – 2012-12-08
2 Answers
Legend has it that Pythagoras would put to death anyone who promoted the idea that $\sqrt{2}$ was irrational. To the Pythagoreans, surely such an individual would be considered a crackpot. They're ideas turned out to be right in the end, nevertheless.
-
1This is a bad example on many counts, not least because the Pythagoreans took this quite seriously. – 2012-12-07
-
3That it was taken quite seriously is exactly why it is a good example. – 2012-12-07
-
1The reason for that was quite different. The Pythagoreans knew $\sqrt{2}$ was irrational (there are some suggestions that they themselves have simply "borrowed" that knowledge from Egyptian mathematicians) but they considered this a "secret" knowledge which was not to be disclosed to the uninitiated. Thus death threats... – 2017-02-07
While he should never be called a crackpot, the story of Ramanujan is certainly interesting and illustrates that good math might start life in obscurity. When he sent his work to Cambridge, it was initially written off as nonsense because the notation and logical structure wasn't standard. It wasn't until Hardy saw his work and realized Ramanujan's talent and brought him to England.
Also, I agree with the above comment - if someone (anyone) creates mathematics that stand the test of logic and time, that person is by definition a mathematician. It doesn't matter what their "job title" is. A doctor who makes art is still an artist!
-
5We all *start life in obscurity*, you know. – 2012-12-07
-
0Well, what I meant by that is not all good math comes from the top universities etc. – 2012-12-07
-
0Hardy's response wasn't like that. He immediately recognized Ramanujan's extraordinary talent. – 2012-12-07
-
0You're right, I remembered the story a bit wrong. He had tried to contact others before Hardy and they had ignored him. Moot point anyway, question is closed... – 2012-12-07