Talk:Srinivasa Ramanujan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Srinivasa Ramanujan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Movie announcements?

Do we know anything about the state of the biopic movie projects which were announced in 2006? I can't find anything new on the internet about these films dating before 2006 / 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.134.199 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Handedness?

Was he right or left handed or ambidextrous? It appears that many geniuses were left-handed, which I think is interesting. I'm sure this amazing man's brain must have been unusual in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.199.35 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by _unknown_

I think that, overall, this is an excellent and informative article. Many of the criticisms here seem trivial or off the mark- especially the ones about his religious and spiritual life. To understand the man it is essential to see him in the context of his beliefs and caste. The superlatives are warranted, if excessive. Some of the critics need to do their homework- it's G.H. Hardy, not Harding. A Link to his PH.D dissertation might be added.

Comment by 89.27.17.4

As a casual Wikipedia browser, I must say I find this article much more "romantic" and centered on personality than is the case with articles on e.g. Hilbert and Cantor. In my opinion, it needs more input from mathematically knowledgeable writers (of which I am not one), and less of the "untutored genius" aspect, however fascinating that is. 89.27.17.4 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Is this article written by a BJP activist? Please note that Ramanujan was a scientist and must be regarded as one. Science has no religion. I would, therefore, suggest modifying the article accordingly without references to his caste, astrological beliefs, etc. Currently it has a feeling of BJP's manifesto. Dec. 7, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.243.168 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I dont understand your problem with Srinivasa Ramanujan being religious and it being mentioned here. Being a scientist, to be precise here a mathematician, need not make one atheist. And science and religion being in opposition largely applies to the christian world because of church's interference in the developement of scientific ideas in the western world. Almost all other religions had no problem with the new advancements in Science in any part of the world. So, what is your problem here? And the commonly used statement - Science and Religion are in opposition - is used in the sense of superstition and rationality being opposite. I hope you understand the difference between blind belief and faith in someone or something, like God.And how does BJP come into picture? If you have some problem with it, shout in some political forums.Zangetsu quest (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Life

The article contains the phrase "like most modern scientists who believe it 'professionally necessary and helpful' to dub themselves atheist". I cannot understand where this comes from. I've certainly seen no reference to such a 'professional' requirement on the part of scientists anywhere else, and the phrase the article puts in quotes ("professionally necessary and helpful") shows up nowhere in Google except on this page.

Might I suggest something closer to the following: ...whereas G. H. Hardy believed him to be essentially agnostic as far as metaphysical matters were concerned. It could be that Hardy, an atheist, simply preferred to describe him thus too.

Poor Religion Section

I found the religion section with grammatical mistakes, a non sequitor, and very little comment. I fixed the grammatical mistakes and removed the non-sequitor, but I'm not qualified to beef the section up.

Name in Tamil

is there any reason his name should be transliterated in tamil script too?? this is not an article about tamil, tamil literatrure or tamil history or arts...nor is his contribution in the field of tamil language. will remove it unless someone clarifies.

the above anon is right. why hasnt anybody clarified this?? there indeed, is no reason why the name should be in tamil. would you add Euler's name in brackets in tamil on Wiki's page on Euler?? would u do it for Newton. Ramanujam's field of study was in no way connected to tamil, except for the fact that his mother toungue adopted the arabic numerals into its script and he also used the same arabic numerals in this research.209.180.28.6 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Euler was Swiss and Newton was British. These are written in Latin script. Ramanujan is Tamil and spent most of his life in India. His name is Tamil. It makes sense to have his name in Tamil script. Having Euler or Newton's name in Tamil would make no sense. NTK 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is common practice on wikipedia to specify the names in the original languages (Vladimir Drinfel'd in Cyrillic, Mikis Theodorakis in Greek, Yitzhak Rabin in Hebrew, ...). Not only is it respectful, it is often very useful since transliteration is a process in which almost invariantly information is lost. Thus having the original name helps for example into identifying a person or into pronouncing a name. I am sure this discussion has been held countless times on wikipedia, and I do not feel at all for reopening it. So I propose to put back the name in Tamil, and for somebody qualified to verify its correctness. --Lenthe 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agreeing Lenthe's view. It is absolutley mandatory to have his name in Tamil , when one attain proud from his origin. If his name not in Tamil, then his nationality also be expelled, then field also be deleted from the article and so on so forth. Eventually what would be left in an article Saravan_p 4th march 2006

Yes, it's standard to have it in there. Please put it back. - Taxman ^Talk 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It it Wikipedia custom to provide names in their original languages if the language has a non-Roman alphabet. See Fyodor Dostoyevsky or Akira Kurosawa.

Ramanujan's wife

It is really true that Ammal is still alive? If so, she will be 103 this year.

No, She died in 1994 (http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/janaki.pdf)

-- Paddu 15:07 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

the above anon is right. why hasnt anybody clarified this?? there indeed, is no reason why the name should be in tamil. would you add Euler's name in brackets in tamil on Wiki's page on Euler?? would u do it for Newton. Ramanujam's field of study was in no way connected to tamil, except for the fact that his mother toungue adopted the arabic numerals into its script and he also used the same arabic numerals in this research.209.180.28.6 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

   To clarify on the numerals, its the Hindu numerals which was propogated by Arabs.  So there is no concept of adoption of numbers by India.  India is the inventor of the decimal numerals not the adopter.

Article name

Has somebody checked the spelling of 'Aaiyangar'? To my knowledge, it is spelled either as 'Iyengar' or as 'Aiyangar'.
Gokul

I agree. There are 19 Google hits for "Srinivasa Aaiyangar Ramanujan" when you exclude the word Wikipedia compared to 155 for "Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan". I have moved the page. Angela 19:14, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Srinivasa Ramanujan" since Wikipedia's policy is most-common-name and his middle name is only rarely used. --Lowellian 07:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

His 1st name is his fathers name, his last is his caste name. Only the middle name was actually "his". FT2 01:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, 1st and 3rd are his real name (ie Srinivasa Ramanujan) His middle name is caste's.

Actually, Srinivasa Aiyangar is his *father's* name (The Aiyangar part being the name of his /sub-caste/); Ramanujan is his name. He would have written his name as: S. Ramanujan; which was (and still is, to a lesser extant) a common South Indian practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.108.151 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

False formulas

I have read that out of Ramanujan's long lists of formulas, written without proof, many of them were in fact false. If this is correct, it should be mentioned in the article. -- Cwitty

It is said that about 2/3 were new and strioking. However since he was self educated, using out of date books, and had not been aware of the change overseas, the new European trend towards analytic rigour, there were cases where the actual results he concluded were incorrect. However this is not as serious as it seems. A very large number (the majority) were correct, and even the incorrect ones often gave keen insight into mathematical structures which later mathematicians could build upon. FT2 01:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes absoultely correct, it's not prudent to critise an untrained mathematician who was the best in his contemporaries. Rejecting wrong result and accepting the new correct things is indeed this world should do. 61.1.216.85 02:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) saravan_p

According to this article--http://www.las.uiuc.edu/alumni/news/fall2006/06fall_lostnotebook.html-- the mathematician Bruce Berndt of the University of Illinois has proven all but five of Ramanujan's unproven formulas with the help of some other mathematicians as well. He's published the results in books along with GE Andrews, who found the lost notebook. Out of thousands of proofs, five is a pretty tiny number, and they may still be proven one day. It is quite a stretch to say "most" of his proofs are wrong.Gloriamarie 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

What does "[srInivAsa aiyangAr rAmAnujan]" after Ramanujan's name in the intro mean? It appears to have been added by an anonymous user. Wmahan . 18:11, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe it's an accentuation guide? Fredrik 18:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's the way Ramanujan's name is pronounced in Tamil. The first syllable of 'Srinivasa' is stressed; the third syllable is also stressed, though to a lesser extent. 'Aiyangar' is pronounced 'Eye-yen-gaar'. In 'ramanujan', the first and second syllables are equally stressed, and the vowel is pronounced like the 'a' in 'father'; hence RAA-mAA-nu-jan. Gokul 10:14, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

It would be a plus for the article to have the indication of the pronunciation put back in. I've heard an American math prof pronounce "Ramanujan" with the accent squarely on the third syllable. The guy in Good Will Hunting says it as you indicate, with accents on the first and second syllables, maybe more strongly on the second. Is the "u" pronounced as long-u (ū) or as "oo"?--BillFlis 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pronounced as "oo" as in the word 'look'. Mehfoos (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate any help with the pronunciation of Ramanujan's last name, since the common U.S. pronunciation (rah muh NOO j'n) has always sounded inauthentic to me, and I don't know what the correct pronunciation is. But nothing conveys pronunciation like hearing the actual sound, as from an audio file.

Luckily, there is an audio file linked in the first sentence. Unluckily for me, it is an .ogg file, which my Macintosh does not know how to interpret, so I can't listen to it.

Is there any chance someone who knows the exact correct pronunciation of Ramanujan's name in Tamil could please substitute for that an audio file in, say, .mp3 or other format that is more universally recognized by computers than .ogg ? I for one would be very grateful.Daqu (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Kanigel

Unfortunately the Kanigel book is not that good. The author is a journalist rather than a scholar. He's at sea with British culture from 90 years ago, and doesn't know much mathematics. The quote about Indian mathematicians - where does that leave Harish Chandra? Charles Matthews 09:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't know anything about Kanigel, but the only thing his book is currently used for is a quote about Ramanujan, so I don't see the problem. - Taxman 14:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is somewhat inaccurate and out of place in this article. Also, a section entitled "Quotes" is normally for quotes by the subject of the article, not merely about him. I'd support the removal of the quote entirely, perhaps replaced by some of the things Ramanujan himself has said. --LostLeviathan 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Orthopractic?

The article says he was an "orthopractic Brahmin". I can't find any mention of this anywhere (the only mention of the phrase google can find on the whole web is this very article). I suspect this is a word-choice of a non-native speaker of english, where "orthodox Brahmin" would be the intended. I'll change the article accordingly, but won't be offended if someone reverts me, brandishing weblinks replete with Brahmin orthopraxis. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll hold off for now, after thinking harder about the paragraph. If the intention is try to draw a difference between being orthodox and simply acting orthodox, I think a clearer phrasing should be used. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox vs. Orthopractic: Okay I'm intelligent to know the difference between the two. What we need for the Rest of Us(TM) is dictionary definitions. That way one does not need to know historical reference by rote to know the difference.

Mock theta functions

Can I clarify that these are not a type of theta function, but resemble them in some way? Reference: Hardy's lectures Ramanujan.

Charles Matthews 11:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone has done that again. They are not that important; I'll just cut them out of the article if they are linked to theta functions, which they are not. Charles Matthews 21:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what they are, but this article seems to discuss Ramanujan's mock theta functions: http://www.physorg.com/news91813611.html "Mathematicians [at University of Wisconsin-Madison] have finally laid to rest the legendary mystery surrounding an elusive group of numerical expressions known as the "mock theta functions." Number theorists have struggled to understand the functions ever since the great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan first alluded to them in a letter written on his deathbed, in 1920..." Just thought it might be useful to make mention of it, for those of you who can un-techtalk it for the rest of us :) 199.214.26.24 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Caste?

The article currently contains the phrase "...because of religious concerns that he would lose his caste by traveling to foreign shores." This sentence makes very little sense to me. Is the phrase "to lose one's caste" meaningful? Does it refer to losing one's status in the caste in some way? I hope that someone who knows more about castes than I do will clarify/expand this part of the article. --LostLeviathan 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Hindu religion specifies that a Hindu becomes a member of a lower caste as a punishment for traveling over the sea. A Brahmin will no longer be a Brahmin after taking a sea voyage.Lestrade 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

After relinquishing the position as a member of a caste, a Hindu who has taken a sea voyage can be purified through engaging in pilgrimages. These pilgrimages are never-ending and they are to the many shrines that exist in India. See The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins.Lestrade 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Just wanted to say that "caste" system in India at those times(and sadly even today) is more of a social practice and not a religious one.Mehfoos (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1729

The only two numbers which pop into my head are 10 and 9.. what are the other two? I suppose I'm only interested because that's the only part of the page I actually understand :D Dan 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. the other numbers are 12 and 1. Thanks so much for your help :)

What would have been reached, if Ramanujan survived for more years?

friends please spare your opinions GIven his amazing ability, I am sure he would have tackled more harder problems and perhaps solving some really hard problems like The Riemann hypothesis. That guy is extraordinary.{unsigned}

I agree that his death was a great loss; however hypothetizing here on what could have been achieved had he lived longer would consist in original research (OR). The article can only contain referenced information and the discussion page can only be used to discuss article improvements. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Superlatives

There are many adjectives in this article that attribute extreme attributes to Ramanujan. They may be correct or they may be incorrect. Does this depend on a person's point of view or is it universally agreed upon by convention? Should I go through the whole article and remove all enthusiastic and gushing descriptors?Lestrade 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I agree, the choice of words could be made more encyclopædic. However, this has been the subject of some back-and-forth reverting on this page. Perhaps it would be wise to list the phrases that you intend to change here on the talk page. This way the changes can be discussed, and hopefully implemented with some consensus. --Lenthe 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the Bounds of Rational, Grammatical Sense

The article claims that Ramanujan's nickname was "the man who knew infinity." This was also the title of Kanigel's biography. Why did Kanigel title his book about Ramanujan The Man Who Knew Infinity? Does he think that Ramanujan experienced infinity? Infinity is a word that signifies a negative concept: the total, absolute absence of a limit, boundary, or endpoint. Can anyone know or experience such an nothingness? Even if, impossibly, someone could experience such a non-thing, how could Kanigel himself know that it was experienced by Ramanujan? In other words, to call Ramanujan "the man who knew infinity" is to make a doubly senseless, absurd, foolish statement.Lestrade 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Here is an anecdote in Ramanujan's chilidhood days. When he was studying his 7 th grade schooling. It was a class about rule of division. The government school teacher explained when five numbers of banana in room shared by five man each one would get one that is when a number divides itself would result one. Everyone agreed the rule completely , execpt a child prodigy with shinning eye named Ramanujan. That child raised his arm and incisive question " No banana in the room also no one , whether everyone would get one( Whether same rule could be applied to Zero also)". This incident explains the meaning profoundity of "infinity" , which means nothing could divide nothing ie( $0/0$ is indeterminant) This is how he has been entitled as " the man who knew infinity" Saravan_p 08:30 IST 25-2-2006

Indeterminant = infinite?152.163.100.8 03:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Tetchy Smurf

The English language does not have a word "indeterminant." However, it has a word "indeterminate." "Indeterminate" means "unclear, not precisely established." Zero divided by zero is unclear because it does not conform to the conventional rules of arithmetic operation. It is not infinite in the sense of "having no limit, end, or boundary."Lestrade 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

these days i find some of the unknown user spoiling the quailty of the article such as deleting the articles.

I deleted one of my own postings because I used sarcastic language that I later regretted.Lestrade 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Ok no problem as it is only a discussion column. Any one having the rights of freedom of talk. But simply trading of fire and critising viz., grammatical mistake and spelling mistake on both side alone will not solve the intended purpose. Our aim is to give high quality of articles to the reader from all over the world. Why i wrote about is that deleting Ramanujan's photograph at Cambridge University and deleting his name in Tamil Language. Kindly some one restore the same. Why cann't we people having same attitude to give good biography, to become friend? saravan_p 3:00 4-3-2006

Biopic

The cinema biography of Ramanujan may be unconvincing to anyone familiar with his history. The casting is questionable, since Tom Cruise may not be the correct type. Also, many people may not accept Brad Pitt as G.H. Hardy.

False quote?

"...[T]he greatest mathematicians made their most significant discoveries when they were very young. Galois who died at 18, Abel at 29, and Riemann at 40, had actually made their mark in history. So the real tragedy of Ramanujan was not his early death at the age of 32, but that in his most formative years, he did not receive proper training, and so a significant part of his work was rediscovery..."

This is attributed to Harding in the article, but a google for the phrases within it only turns up one source that does not appear to be a direct quote, just a paraphrase. I'm thinking it should be removed. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In Ramanujan by Hardy, reprinted Chelsea, NY, 1978, on p.6, he says

The real tragedy about Ramanujan was not his early death. It is of course a disaster that any great man should die young, but a mathematician is comparatively old at thirty, and his death may be less of a catastrophe than it seems. Abel died at twenty-six and, although he would no doubt have added a great deal more to mathematics, he could hardly have become a greater man. The tragedy of Ramanujan was not that he died young, but that, during his five unfortunate years, his genius was misdirected, sidetracked and to a certain extent distorted.

That's Hardy, BTW, not Harding. Richard Pinch 18:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On Ramanujam's mother

This sentence make no sense to me:

His mother is believed to have been well educated in Indian mathematics and he is conjectured by some to be as well.

to be as well WHAT?

To be educated in Indian mathematics. See page 11 of [1]. --Pranathi 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Superlatives redux

Most mathemeticians and historians of maths who've cut their teeth would put Ramanujan as in a league of his own but this article is above the cuff and pretty "gushing" as mentioned earlier. I can make minor edits here and there, clarify some grammar and sentence flows, but anyone have any better edits? Lestrade? Thanks, --M a s 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ramanujan was "self-taught," or Ramanujan was well educated in Indian maths?

Hi, there seems to be some contradiction between:

A child prodigy, he was largely self-taught in mathematics and had compiled over 3,000 theorems between 1914 and 1918 at the University of Cambridge

and

His mother is believed to have been well educated in Indian mathematics and Ramanujan is conjectured by some to have been as well

(emphasis added.) That's why I was confused and added the comment about Ramanujan's father (sorry for not following the link earlier.)

Is there a way to clarify?

Thanks! --M a s 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a clarifying sentence like,

His mother .. conjectured by a few to have been as well {link}. The evidence for this being speculative though, he is considered by historians to be largely self taught.--Pranathi 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

His school teachers commented that they had nothing to teach him. he boorrowed textbooks of the basics from friends and outstripped them, and was teaching them. Self-taught it is. The contradiction could be resolved like this:

His mother is believed to have been well educated in Indian mathematics which may also have contributed to Ramanujan's education.

FT2 (Talk) 23:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me.--Pranathi 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I failed this article due to the lack of references.That is it.Some P. E rson 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Ramanujan

Does anyone know of any other pictures of Ramanujan that exist, or can anyone give an explanation why there is only one? Thanks.RSimione 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardy, in a book wrote there is another one, but its him with pyjamas so its not nice.

In five minutes of web surfing: the picture with this article appears to be one of several copies from the Indian postage stamp. As for "why there is only one," it's nearly "Whisper Down the Lane" (i.e., copies of copies, with distortions imposed by people trying to make the image clearer, or more square, or change his shirt collar). I did see one image of Ramanujan that looked younger and appeared to come from a vintage photograph (maybe the basis for the art that went postal). You might try searching group portraits of university mathematicians from his days in England, but I wouldn't recommend rushing to post any of them online. Who photographed him -- or sketched, or painted -- when, where, and why, must make a difference to anyone seeking to look into his eyes 90 years later. 152.163.100.8 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The photo usually given seems to have been taken from his passport. I vaguely

remember seeing a photo of Ramanujan in an academic out-fit with English mathematicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That formula

If I recall correctly, the apparently absurd formula $1 2 3 4 \cdots =(-1/12)$ makes sense in the deeper context of the analysis of the Riemann zeta function (ζ(-1) = -1/12, IIRC). Can anyone remember more details about this? -- The Anome 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. A look at Riemann zeta function indicates that an article about Ramanujan summation needs to be written. -- The Anome 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a marvelous achievement that a sum of all positive integers is (1) finite (2) negative. No wonder why his formulas had no proofs. [Dec. 27, 2006]

The "formula" 1 2 3 4 … = ⁻¹/₁₂ was never supposed to be understood as an exact equality, and Ramanujan indicated as much. What it does mean is that (A) the series 1^−s 2^−s 3^−s … defines the Riemann zeta function when s > 1; (B) that series can be analytically continued to a meromorphic function with a single simple pole at z = 1; and (C) substituting (−1) for s in the series for the ζ-function gives the formal series 1 2 3 4 …, which then may be reckoned to "correspond" to ζ(−1), which is in fact equal to ⁻¹/₁₂. DavidCBryant 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See Euler's argument here.Kope (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

he's not even in bookshelf 2000

how come this guy isn't even named in bookshelf 2000, if he is one of the greatest mathematicians of all time? i'm not trying to bash indians or ramanujan, just asking for a logical answer. Tridungvo 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What bearing does a piece of software have in terms of determining the greatness of a mathematician?123.255.20.224 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Bookshelf 2000....I guess not many people know about him....He was listed among unsung heroes by TIME magazine......You can google it and see.......badripk

Bookshelf 2000 is apparently a Microsoft product providing access to some reference material for Windows users. Ramanujan's name is well known to mathematicians – not because he published many books and papers, but because he communicated many previously unkown mathematical formulas to G. H. Hardy, his sponsor in England. Hardy published many of Ramanujan's results. R's manuscripts, especially the "lost notebook", are a continuing source of amazement and delight for mathematicians today. DavidCBryant 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramanujan is a well-known mathematician. I’ve heard about him. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA (2)

This article has failed the GA noms due to a lack of inline citations. If you feel that this review was in error; feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold

Everything else is good, but the citations are still not quite upto scratch. The referencing format is mixed - there are some (Authorname year) sort of references that need to be converted to the Wikipedia {{cite}} format, and it would be best to have inline citations for every quote about him. So I will put this WP:GA nomination on hold and if these issues are sorted out within a week, the article will be promoted. Cheers.--Konstable 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the citations are fixed now. Its time to promote this article. badripk

I believe it satisfies the GA criteria so I have promoted the article to Good Article status. I hope to see this as a Featured Article some day.--Konstable 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

GA status reviewed

This article has been reviewed as part of GA sweeps. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. (oldid reference #:152978738) OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Autistic savant?

I wonder if today he might be evaluated as being an autistic savant, and I do no mean to offend by suggesting it, or attempt to minimize his contributions. His interest in mathematics was precocious, with highly developed abilities, but narrow in scope. Most savants have one very highly developed aptitude, although the more famous ones might have several unusual abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.156.105 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See these:

Fitzgerald, M. (2002) Did Ramanujan have Asperger's disorder or Asperger's syndrome? Journal of Medical Biography. 2002 Aug; 10(3):167-9.

and

Fitzgerald, Michael (2004) Autism and creativity: is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability? Brunner-Routledge. [Wittgenstein, Sir Keith Joseph, Eamon de Valera, W. B. Yeats, Lewis Carroll, Ramanujan, Socrates, this book is at least partially available to read through Google Book Search]

and this too

James, Ioan (2005) Asperger syndrome and high achievement: some very remarkable people. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. [Michelangelo, Philip of Spain, Newton, Swift, John Howard, Cavendish, Jefferson, van Gogh, Satie, Russell, Einstein, Bartók, Ramanujan, Wittgenstein, Kinsey, Weil, Turing, Highsmith, Warhol, Glenn Gould]

But I doubt that they will let anyone even speculate that he was autistic in the actual Wikipedia article. I don't even bother making any contributions to this encyclopaedia any more, as anything the slightest bit debatable or new is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.199.35 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the sources you presented are correct, we can include it in the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong integral?

The integral formula given in the "Contacting English mathematicians" section is not correct. The integral diverges, and cannot be equal to what is given on the right side. This formula needs to be verified and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klk206 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

It would be nice if we could have an ogg file pronouncing his name.

Randomblue 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Last rites

I remvoed the following false claim: " He did not get any last rites. According to Hinduism, travelling across the sea makes a man lose his caste. Thus, no priest wanted to do his last rites." Robert Kanigel's biography flatly contradicts this assertion. Though some of his relatives stayed away, his body was put to flames near Chetput.

vishvas_vasuki (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't mix India and British India in the article

British India is enough. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Indian"

An anon editor is repeatedly deleting "Indian" from the article. Multiple pages identify Ramanujan as Indian, so there appears to be some separatist agenda-pushing here. [2] [3] [4] THF (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am worried about the mixed use of British India and India in the article you moron. Can't you read the above section? --91.130.91.84 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources identify Ramanujan as Indian. Do you have any cites for the proposition that "Indian" should be wiped from the article entirely? See also WP:CIVIL, incidentally. THF (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I too don't see the benefit of removing the identification of him being Indian or specifying Tamil. I'm an outsider but I am aware of the issues involved. Nonetheless, this article doesn't need to be tainted by them. It is currently very clear he was born in Tamil Nadu. - Taxman ^Talk 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

wow he is really smart

wow. he is really really smart. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.80.231 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the article could tell us how Ramanujan is pronounced

Bukovets (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the cystalographic insight

the lead talks about recent insights into crystallography from Ramanujan's math. I thought Xtal math was all settled. What is the new area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gushing Tone

Ramanujan was undoubtedly a great genius - no one disputes that. However, there is currently a gushing adulatory "fanboy" tone to certain sections of this article that is not only inappropriate in an encylopaedia but actually serves to undermine the subject by irritating the reader. 86.186.230.235 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ramanujan formula for pi: New section

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/9306/9306213v1.pdf

start of quote

Archimedes computed pi very accurately. Much later, Ramanujan discovered several infinite series for 1/pi that enables one to compute pi even more accurately. The most impressive one is([Ra]): (k(a) denotes, as usual, a(a 1)...(a k − 1).)

1                     k(1/4) k(1/2) k(3/4) * [1103   26390k)]
- = sqrt(8) * sigma --------------------------------------- (1/99)^(4k 2) .......... [1]
pi           k_0^inf         (k!)^3

This formula is an example of a non-terminating hypergeometric series identity. Many times, nonterminating series are either limiting cases or ”analytic continuations” of terminating identities, which are now known to be routinely provable by computer.

end of quote

I, a user of wikipedia, met above equation, and I transformed it to the form we familiar with

        1  4 1 8 1    4(k-1) 1
k(1/4) = -  --- --- .. -------
         4   4   4     4
        3  4 3 8 3    4(k-1) 3
k(3/4) = -  --- --- .. -------
         4   4   4     4
       1 * 3 * 5 * ... * (2(k-1) 1)  2 * 6 * 10 * 2[2(k-1) 1]    2 * 6 * 10 * ... * [4(k-1) 2]
k(1/2) = -------------------------   = -------------------    = ------------------
         2 * 2 * 2 * .... * 2          4 * 4 * 4 ... 4           4 ................. 4
                                     4 * 8 * ... * [4k]             
k(1) = 1 * 2 * ... * (k) = k! = ----------------------
                                          4^{k}

Then,

k(1/4)k(1/2)k(3/4)   k(1)k(1/4)k(1/2)k(3/4)    k(1)k(1/4)k(1/2)k(3/4) 
----------------- =  ---------------------- = ----------------------
k!^3                 k(1) k!^3                   k!^4
     1    1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * ....... * [4(k-1) 1][4(k-1) 2][4(k-1) 3][4k] 
  = ---* -------------------------------------------------------------
   k!^4   [4^{k}]^4
    [4k]!                  [4k]!
  = ----------         = -----
    k!^4   [4^{k}]^4     k!^4   4^{4k}

Then the original above equation becomes

1                     k(1/4) k(1/2) k(3/4) * [1103   26390k)]
- = sqrt(8) * sigma --------------------------------------- (1/99)^(4k 2)
pi            k_0^inf      (k!)^3
                    [4k]! [1103   26390k)]
 = sqrt(8) * sigma ----------------- 
                   k!^4   4^{4k} * 99^(4k 2)
     sqrt(8)               [4k]! [1103   26390k)]
  = ---------  * sigma --------------------------- (where (99^2=9801, 4 *99 = 396))
     99^2                 k!^4   [4*99]^{4k}
    sqrt(8)               [4k]! [1103   26390k)]
  = ---------  * sigma -----------------------------.......... [2]
     9801                 k!^4   [396]^{4k}

I have questions

question 1 What method should I use to derive the original equation [1].

question 2 What connection exists between [1], [2] equations and the $e^{\pi {\sqrt {58}}}=396^{4}-104.000000177\dots .$

question 3 Is above derivations appropriate for the main text of the page Ramanujan page?

question 4 Why 5×7×13×58 = 26390; 9801=99×99; 396=4×99; 1103 numbers are chosen? 1103 is a prime. Its prime property is important or just a coincidence??

(Gauge00 (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

I found a reference

http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/aa/aa73/aa7316.pdf http://mathdl.maa.org/images/upload_library/22/Hasse/00029890.di991740.99p0456b.pdf http://www.pluto.ai.kyutech.ac.jp/plt/matumoto/pi_small/node28.html

g_58^2 = ((sqrt(29)   5)/2 = 5.1925824

Then

 g^12   g^-12   1     sqrt(29) 5            2           1    sqrt(29) 5        sqrt(29)-5
 ------------ = --* [(----------)^6   (----------)^6] = --*[(----------)^6   (----------)^6]
      2         2          2           sqrt(29) 5       2         2               2
              = (1/2)^7 * [(sqrt(29) 5)^6   (sqrt(29)-5)^6],
                  and (a^3 b^3) = (a b)(aa-ab bb); a b=3*54; aa-ab bb = (54^2)   (3 * 100 * 29)
              = (1/2)^7 * 2 * 54 * [(54^2)   (3 * 100 * 29)] 
              = (1/2)^6 * 54 * 12 * [3 * (9^2)   25 * 29] =(1/2)^6 * 54 * 12 * 968 = 
              = (1/2)*6 * 2 * 3^3 * 2^2 * 3 * 2^3 * 11^2 = 3^4 * 11^2
              = 99^2

 g^12 - g^-12   1     sqrt(29) 5            2           1    sqrt(29) 5        sqrt(29)-5
 ------------ = --* [(----------)^6 - (----------)^6] = --*[(----------)^6 - (----------)^6]
      2         2          2           sqrt(29) 5       2         2               2
              = (1/2)^7 * [(sqrt(29) 5)^6 - (sqrt(29)-5)^6],
                  and (a^3-b^3) = (a-b)(aa ab bb); a-b=20sqrt(29); aa ab bb = 3*(54^2)   (100 * 29)
              = (1/2)^7 * 20sqrt(29) * [3*(54^2)   100 * 29] 
              = (1/2)^7 * 20sqrt(29) * 2^2 * [3^7   5^2*29]
              = (1/2)^7 * 20sqrt(29) * 2^2 * 2912
              = (1/2)^7 * 2^2 * 5sqrt(29) * 2^2 * 2^5 * 7 * 13
              = 2^2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * sqrt(29)

xn = [(g^12   g^-12)/2]^-1 = 1/99^2

k_58 = (-1   sqrt(2))^6 * (-99 13sqrt(58)) = 0.0000255076013

Warning: k_58 could be wrong!!!!

alpha = (5.1925824)^6 * (99 sqrt(29) - 444)*(99*sqrt(2) - 70 - 13sqrt(29))
     = 0.318309869

          alpha * xn^-1   sqrt(N)*gn^-12                gn^12 - gn^-12
dn(58) = [------------- - ---------------]   n sqrt(N)*(--------------)
           1   kn^2        4                                   2

  = A   nB; here n is the summation index.

A = (alpha * 99^2)/(1   0.000343879605^2) - sqrt(58)/(4*5.1925824^6)
  = (0.318309869 * 99^2)/(1   0.0000255076013^2) - sqrt(58)/(4*5.1925824^6)
  = 3119.75502 - 9.71300525 × 10-5
  = 3119.75493

Warning: A could be wrong!!!!

B = sqrt(58)*((g^12 - g^-12)/2)
  = sqrt(58) * 2^2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * sqrt(29)
  = 2sqrt(2) * 2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * 29
  = 74 642.1915

A/2sqrt(2) = 3119.75493 / (2sqrt(2)) = 1103
B/2sqrt(2) = 2sqrt(2) * 2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * 29 / (2sqrt(2)) = 2 * 5 * 7 * 13 * 29 
           = 26390

I was gauge00, I was automatically log outted (123.141.179.242 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

(Gauge00 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

Other relations

by the relations the elliptic integral and the jabobi theta function

\theta (x)=\theta _{3}(x)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }x^{n^{2}}=1 2x 2x^{4} 2x^{9} \dots

\theta _{2}(x)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }x^{(1/2 n)^{2}}=2x^{(1/2)^{2}} 2x^{(3/2)^{2}} 2x^{(5/2)^{2}} \dots

\theta _{4}(x)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }(-1)^{n}x^{n^{2}}=1-2x 2x^{4}-x^{9} \dots

Then the elliptic integral

K(k)=\int _{0}^{\pi /2}{\frac {d\theta }{\sqrt {1-k^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }}}=\int _{0}^{1}{\frac {dt}{\sqrt {(1-t^{2})(1-k^{2}t^{2})}}}={\frac {\pi }{2}}\theta _{3}(x)^{2}

where $k=\left({\frac {\theta _{2}(x)}{\theta _{3}(x)}}\right)^{2}={\frac {\theta _{2}(x)^{2}}{\theta _{3}(x)^{2}}}$

Since $e^{\pi {\sqrt {58}}}=24591257751.999999822213242=396^{4}-104.000000177\dots$ ; let's define $x_{0}=e^{-\pi {\sqrt {58}}}=1/24591257751.999999822213242=0.000000000040665$ ;

Then $\theta _{3}(x_{0})=1.00000000008133;\theta _{2}(x_{0})=0.00505050947059298533373729695$ and therefore $k(x_{0})={\frac {\theta _{2}(x_{0})^{2}}{\theta _{3}(x_{0})^{2}}}=0.00002550764590840036330394516395$ , and this is the above mentioned k_58.

Since $x_{0}$ was so small, that $\theta _{3}(x_{0})=1$ and $\theta _{2}(x_{0})=2x_{0}^{1/4}$ ; therefore $k(x_{0})\approx 4x_{0}^{1/2}={\frac {2}{396^{2}}}=0.00002550760127$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And its elliptic integral

K(k(x_{0}))={\frac {\pi }{2}}\theta _{3}(x_{0})^{2}={\frac {\pi }{2}}*(1.00000000008133)^{2}={\frac {\pi }{2}} small

and

For $k'={\sqrt {1-k(x_{0})^{2}}}=0.9999999996746811374$

K(k')={\frac {\pi /2}{agm(1-k',1 k')}}={\frac {\pi /2}{0.13130643284048091500475437313}}

Therefore we see that

{\frac {K(k')}{K(k)}}={\frac {K(0.9999999996746811374)}{K(0.0000255076459084003)}}={\frac {1}{0.13130643284048091500475437313}}=7.61577310697992350121060925657027

And we know that ${\sqrt {58}}=7.61577310586391$ , we see that

{\frac {K(k')}{K(k)}}={\sqrt {58}}

(Gauge00 (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

So what IS his name?

Throughout the first paragraph he's named as "Ramanujam". That's the first I've ever seen this. Is it a spello / typo or is it a subtle difference (hitherto unexplained anywhere I've ever seen) between how the last letter is "really" pronounced in Tamil and how Westerners pronounce it? I would guess "Ramanujam" is a mistake for "Ramanujan" - otherwise can we have a sentence explaining this discrepancy? --Matt Westwood 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

From the way the article is written, there appears to be at least two ways to anglicize his name. Whenever I've seen his name elsewhere, it has been anglicized as "Ramanujan" as used for the title. I suspect that "Ramanujam" is a more recent (and more accurate) English form for his name. In my opinion, "Rāmānujam" should be used in the lead, with the proper accents, to show that this is his actual name. This is consistent with other biographical articles (e.g., Bill Clinton). I think, the more common "Ramanujan" should be used elsewhere. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The journal that was named after him refers to him as "Srinivasa Ramanujan". I'm also quite sure that this was the name by which Hardy and others referred to him. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with this, but it might be a good idea to explain this somewhere, or link to the relevant page which goes into more detail about the ambiguity of this letter n/m. Otherwise someone else may think it's a typo and change it. --Matt Westwood 22:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly deprecating language

In "Other mathematicians' views of Ramanujan": end of para about Hardy's views: is "gushed" an appropriate word? In UK English, it has connotations of doting (and by implication simple) aunties prattling about amusingly precocious young nephews. --Matt Westwood 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consummation of marriage

In the section "Adulthood in India", there is a sentence which reads: "In the branch of Hinduism to which Ramanujan belonged, marriage was a formal engagement that was consummated only after the bride turned 17 or 18, as per the traditional calendar." This sentence is largely unnecessary; that marriage was consummated at 9, 17 or 18 had little or nothing to do with his further life. I am removing this; please discuss if you find the removal objectionable. Lynch 7 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Illness and death

I can well believe that Ramanujan suffered from a vitamin deficiency, but: scarcity of vegetarian food during the First World War? I was under the impression that it was meat and dairy that were scarce. Can this be substantiated? Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede Image

The lede image was recently changed. But I think I like the previous image better (and the new image has a digital watermark, which might be problematic). Here are the two images:

New

Anyone else wish to share an opinion? Justin W Smith (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I also liked the old one much better. Voorlandt (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The old one is much better.--Ancienzus (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the old one is better, but it is a copyright violation and nominated for deletion on Commons. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramanujan.jpg) The old image is from a 1962 Indian postage stamp, and its copyright runs for another 10 years. It is based on a 1917 passport photo, but the stamp image has clearly been improved enough to be a derivative work. See discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1. Glrx (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons deletion request page does not exist! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the hard link.Glrx (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramanujan died in 1920. Original photographs of him should now all be in public domain. I don't think that the concern over a "copyrighted" photograph of Ramanujan is valid. Justin W Smith (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The concern Glrx raised is that this image might be a "copy" of the 1962 stamp (which had an image derived from the same source). But this image was not derived from that stamp (it's clearly different), so the copyright concern is unfounded. Justin W Smith (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramanujan died in 1920, so anything Ramanujan authored is in the public domain. If photographer John Doe took a picture of R in 1917, then we have to wait some number of years after John Doe dies -- not after Ramanujan dies. Who took the passport photo and when did he die? Maybe the photographer lived to 1950. Or 1980. Arguably, R obtained the copyright, that right went to Mrs. R, and Mrs. R gave Chandrasekhar publication rights around 1937. Chandrasekhar's widow apparently still exercises those rights because C's photograph of R's passport photo is on the web with restricted rights.

One book lists four know life photographs of Ramanujan. They are the passport photo, two images from the same group sitting, and a graduation photo. (Neither the "good" image nor the "new" photo is listed in the four.)

The "good" image is not a photograph, so even if the died-in-1920 argument played, it doesn't apply to the "good" image.

If the "good" image is not the postage stamp image, then where did it come from? Who made it? When did they make? When did they die? Did they release it in the public domain? We know that 1962 stamp image has reserved rights. Even if the "good" image is clearly different, that does not make it a free image.

What, exactly, is "clearly different" between the stamp image and the "good" image? Color? Brightness? Contrast? Dithering? No stamp value or lettering? No engraving lines? Those modification would not remove the copyright issue.

The passport photo is the most flattering image of R; it has served as source for a sculpture. The plausible story is India decided to make a commemorative stamp; sometime before December 1962 somebody (possibly commissioned by India) used the passport photo to create the "good" image (which is clearly different from the passport photo: head slant, collar, shoulder line, hair); the improved image was then used to produce the 1962 stamp. The problem is we have no source information for the stamp image; nothing to say it is in the public domain. And we have the Indian government specifically reserving rights on the stamp; they have a good reason to prevent dissemination of the source image.

Glrx (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer (I particularly know nothing about Indian copyright law), but it seems clear to me that a passport photo taken in 1917 would be in the public domain. I think you're raising alarm where there's no need. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The "good" image is not the passport photo. Please read the featured article discussion; it has a link about Indian copyright law. Glrx (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of the image's copyright at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Passport_Photo_of_Srinivasa_Ramanujan. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

So here's the current state of things:

The discussion I started on Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions was archived with not a single person other than Glrx and myself commenting.
The deletion request started by Glrx for the image has been mostly ignored, except for two other users who voted to "keep".
The four users that have commented in this section have all been of the opinion that the previous ("good") image is better than the current.
The previous image is still included in several other articles.
- Edit: Here's a more complete list of the image's use on various wikis (besides just English Wikipedia). 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The only user I've seen who has stated a copyright concern about the use of this image is Glrx.

In any case, I don't think there's been enough discussion so far to form a "consensus". I'd like to get the opinion of a few others (before possibly returning the article to using its previous image?). Justin W Smith (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did this image come from? You claim it is the passport photo above, but a simple examination of the passport photo shows significant differences. You think a passport photo should be in the public domain. That's a statement without authority, but it is also irrelevant if the image is not the passport photo.

Ramanujan's work is in the public domain because he died before 1942. The unpublished work of an anonymous photographer runs for 120 years after creation, so an unpublished photograph would not expire until 2037.

If a photograph is "published" when it is put in an Indian passport, then the passport photo is public domain (published before 1923). That argument seems thin. Arguably, the passport photo was first published in Hardy's book (ca 1940), so its copyright may run for another 95 years (2035): compare never published to first published outside U.S. at Cornell summary. Chandrasekhar's widow apparently controls the rights to the passport photo.

The image does not even look like a photo. The claim on Commons is a vague statement that the image must have been made around 1900 so the copyright must be expired. That claim is suspect for reasons given above.

Where did India get the image it used in 1962? It's not the passport photo, so where did it come from? A "drawing (based on a photograph)" is a derivative work; see copyright circular. Arguably, India commissioned a drawing based upon the passport photo.

Wiki usage says nothing about copyright.

Your summary ignores the Featured Article review for pi (which made it to the main page today). There was a general recognition that the image was from the Indian stamp and still under copyright.

Glrx (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I found the Featured Article Review of Pi that included a discussion of the image. That is probably the most helpful discussion I've seen concerning it. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pi/archive1. The source of the image is simply not known (to us). Although it clearly resembles the image on a 1962 stamp, this image is not a "scanned copy" of that stamp. In any case, I'll let this topic rest until we have additional users interested in the discussion. (I don't see a point in just the two of us going back-and-forth, and I don't have the time/resources to discover an authoritative source for the image's origin.) Justin W Smith (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Srinivasa Ramanujan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bauer

The Bauer mentioned in the article seems to be G. Bauer, in 1859. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.33 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Would that be this G. Bauer? Justin W Smith (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bauer is a common name in Germany. Gustav A. Bauer was active in 1859. He seems to have been active in 1902, when he must have been quite old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.203.64 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardy's remarks on Ramanujan's paper on highly composite numbers

In the paragraph on Ramanujan's paper on highly composite numbers, there is the statement "Hardy remarked that this was one of the most unusual papers seen in mathematical research at that time and that Ramanujan showed extraordinary ingenuity in handling it." Would someone please cite a reference for this? Jsondow (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Ramanujan's wife

Please note a proposal to merge Ramanujan's wife's page to this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done so, per WP:BOLD and since this article will be getting a lot of pageviews today. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Surprised for the high number of readers?

This fact can owe to him to a news newly published that refers to certain notes that it would have left in his deathbed. Those writings did not have meaning up to "yesterday" when a mathematicians discovered that it is a sort of equations related to the mathematics that it governs the black holes.

Missing details between 8 February 1913 and 17 March 1914

The bio currently misses details of the his life between 1913 and 1914. During this period E. H. Neville, Francis Spring and Richard Littlehailes (new article) wrote three letters to Madras University and Governor of Madras for arrangement of money for Ramanujan to stay in England. This needs to be inserted in the article. Solomon7968 14:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bernoulli numbers

The quote from Ramanujan's early paper about Bernoulli numbers contains a mathematical statement that is incorrect. While there is no need to change the quote, the mistake should be noted immediately below it in the article.

The source for the quote is given as Kanigel's book, p. 91. Kanigel, himself, notes the error on p. 192. The numerator of B_20 over 20 factors as 283 x 617, refuting statement 1 of Ramanujan's three quoted properties of Bernoulli numbers.

Since the other two statements are true, it might be useful to give references for them in other wikipedia articles.

Unless someone else wants to work on this, I will make these changes in a few days. Hombre1729 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

His full name

The Russian version of this article gives his full name, in English, as Srīnivāsa Rāmānujan Iyengar (including accent marks as shown). Should the opening section be changed to indicate this? Hgrosser (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Iyengar denotes a caste and in the case of Ramanujan a different naming was followed. Google books have more "Srinivasa Ramanujan" (13.000) and just 50 dubious Iyengar entries.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the sources which indicate his name as being solely Srinivasa Ramanujan are vastly more numerous than those which indicate that the addition of Iyengar is valid, I think its reasonable to remove the dubious addition of Iyengar. Factcheckercorrecter (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Early JIMS problem

The problem

{\sqrt {1 2{\sqrt {1 3{\sqrt {1 \cdots }}}}}}.

given as an early J. Ind. Math. Soc. problem was surely not made up by Ramanujan in the way suggested by his proposed method of solution. It is simply what you get from the formula

(x-1)(x 1)=x^{2}-1

rewritten successively as

x={\sqrt {1 (x-1)(x 1)}}

={\sqrt {1 (x-1){\sqrt {1 x(x 2)}}}}

={\sqrt {1 (x-1){\sqrt {1 x{\sqrt {1 (x 1)(x 2)}}}}}}

axd so on. Setting x = 3 then yields the solution's equation

3={\sqrt {1 2{\sqrt {1 3{\sqrt {1 \cdots }}}}}}

Of course if you believe the movie then that equation might have sprung unbidden into his mind (put there by God?) and he found a not-so-elegant way of proving it, consistent with the movie's point of view that he was better at coming up with valid identities than with proofs of their validity.

Conceivably he obtained his considerably more complicated equation

x n a={\sqrt {ax (n a)^{2} x{\sqrt {a(x n) (n a)^{2} (x n){\sqrt {\cdots }}}}}}

by first seeing the basic argument above and then obfuscating the reasoning by substituting $x a n$ for $x$ and $n$ for 1 in the above line of reasoning, yielding his complicated equation as may be easily verified by elementary algebra. But this was never Ramanujan's style: before he focused on mathematics he wrote poetry, and no afficionado of the poetry of mathematics could imagine turning the foregoing basic argument into anything so pointlessly complicated! Surely more likely is that his complicated equation was something he merely stumbled over by chance during his early explorations and failed to identify its true provenance.

In any event this is the sort of triviality that must have been noticed in passing by various people during the century since the problem was published. The question is whether anybody thought it worthy of note anywhere, and if so where, as it would be worth mentioning in the article as an illustration of something, though whether of Ramanujan's sense of humour or of his overlooking one of the proofs from THE BOOK would have to remain unanswered. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathematical achievements, house address problem

There must be some kind of error. How can the solution to the address problem be a continuous fraction since it must belong to the set of natural numbers? No? Also, there is only one solution, n=288 and x=204. Peseve (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

n and x satisfy (2n 1)^2 - 8* x^2 = 1 This is Pell's equation, the solutions to which are found by calculating the continued fraction of sqrt(8) = (2;1,4) and the 8th convergent is 577/204 so that n = 288, x = 204. A1jrj (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

S.S. Nevasa

According to this Wikipedia article, the SS Nevasa was built in 1955. However, this page [on Ramanujan] says that he boarded it it 1914. Something isn't adding up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onevim (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ship names get reused. According to this website, SS Nevasa (1956) is the third incarnation for BI. Glrx (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.shf.org.au/archives-research/photographic-collections/shf-general-collection/merchant-ships-british-india/ for 1913-1948 version. Glrx (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Name etymology, caste designation

After seeing the AN/I section, I've restored the other thing removed by Panoramalama, the "Iyengar" at the end of his name. As explained at the start of the body of the article, this is neither a title nor an honorific, but a caste designation. It's therefore not comparable to calling him "Mr. Ramanujan" or "Sir Srinavasa", the kinds of things the ban on titles and honorifics is intended to prevent; nor is that a complete ban, or we wouldn't have "FRS" after his name at the start of the article. It's unconventional to explain the etymology of someone's name in an article section; that's more applicable to place names. It seems a bit peculiar to me, as if Wikipedia is implying that Indian names are so exotic they need explaining. So I'm not sure we need that section, but given that it includes an explanation of "Iyengar", we definitely need to include that in the first statement of his name. I see that the following section also links "Iyengar", so I think the article would actually be improved by explaining "Iyengar" there, like this: "a Tamil Brahmin Iyengar family (a caste of Hindu Brahmins of Tamil origin whose members follow the Visishtadvaita philosophy propounded by Ramanuja) in Erode, Madras Presidency", and cutting the section I've now re-titled "Name". Yngvadottir (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you did on the article. But I must say I am a bit surprised at your statement "It seems a bit peculiar to me, as if Wikipedia is implying that Indian names are so exotic they need explaining." In an English encyclopedia, as wp:en is, which is to be of use to the average English speaking individual who doesn't know much about India, and presumably nearly nothing concerning Indian names, Indian names are indeed exotic, and they do need to be explained. This is the very purpose of an encyclopedia: explaining. Sapphorain (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it necessary for a reader to know the derivation of someone's name? Few readers will know the etymologies of even common English names, such as Robert or Edith. We conventionally cover name etymologies in their own articles; this goes for surnames as well as forenames. Where the name is in fact an honorific or was bestowed on the person for some reason that needs explaining (such as some names of rulers), it's explained in that context, but otherwise I can't see any purpose of explaining the etymology of someone's name in their biography. It does seem to me like exoticizing. Frankly, I would have made the change I suggest if this were not a GA; I avoid making major edits to GAs and FAs. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Applications

The only application cited, and rather fleetingly, is the usage in the analysis of black holes.

Can people add more applications to Ramanujan's theorems, both in mathematics and physics? There must be some more applications to the hundreds and hundreds of Ramanujan theorems, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.189.242 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Srinivasa Ramanujan. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alteregoproductions.org/blog/2006/06/alteregos_new_theater_season_b.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020126193110/http://www.math.ufl.edu/~frank/ramanujan.html to http://www.math.ufl.edu/~frank/ramanujan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Srinivasa Ramanujan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Class number

Under "Mathematical achievements", the class number seems to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Might have been written in a confusing way since the following sentence starts with numbers. The class number is effectively 2, which you can verify on Wolfram Alpha: NumberFieldClassNumber[Sqrt[-232]]=2. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You are quite right.

I see that you have eliminated the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.131.222 (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

grammar and logic

As late as 2011 and again in 2012, researchers continued to discover that mere comments in his writings about "simple properties" and "similar outputs" for certain findings were themselves profound and subtle number theory results that remained unsuspected until nearly a century after his death and which relied on work published in 2006.

As written this suggests that the 'results' in marginal notes prior to 1920 . .relied on work published in 2006. I think the author meant that results independently published in 2006 where some years later seen to have already been anticipated in a number of marginal notes, whose signifioance only emerges when examined retrospectively in the light of the 2006 results. Whatever, the grammar is screwed up to create an ambiguity, if not a nonsense, and I have removed the offending words.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)