Fine

certainly those who have voted for quid feel that he is better than the rest and that he has shown this more distinctly. why would they then, sensing that quid shall win (which is what they want and hence why they voted in the first place), rob quid of their vote and proceed to give it to someone that they previously thought didn't deserve it?

@amWhy: if all users presuppose that quid will win and then proceed to direct their first vote to somebody else, are you not implying that those who as of this moment have casted their first votes to quid have done it without any reason?

if we are to judge the current state of this election by the questionnaire, then certainly you'll win it. you stand far above the opposition with the leading 48 upvotes, the second person in line is distanced from you by 26 upvotes.

@quid: you are indeed correct to some degree. your earlier campaign was dented by the rather unusual (and somewhat silly) criticism that since you had asked no question, you had no experience on "that" side of the matter and therefore you were unsuitable for the job of a moderator. but now everyone seems to have forgotten that

i guess that one can only ask who remains unsurpassed still to this date

@amWhy: many still thought Archimedes was the greatest despite the fact that 2000 years passed, the only difference was that he gained some opposition from Newton. certainly if someone were to make a range of absolutely profound discoveries across several mathematical branches of primary importance such as analysis, number theory, algebra, topology...etc, then the question would deserve a rethinking.

@quid: it is a given that you'll become a moderator, are you ready for your future in math.se?

@amWhy: i agree on that too

@amWhy: it's surely ridiculous to say that this is a wholly subjective matter and no certain answer to this can be given. everyone knows that Gauss is superior to Spivak and Tao, and if we agree on this, then perhaps we can generalize this properly.

there would be no debate

i must mention that choosing the best mathematician on just one criteria would be a disservice. as if we were to select the best mathematician on the sole basis of being ahead in time and being superior to his peers, archimedes would blow everyone out of the water

@amWhy: it is not subjective if one chooses a certain criteria: such as how influential their work was, or how much ahead of time they were, and how superior to contemporary mathematicians they were...etc and so on

thousands*

@quid: not hundreds, thousnads

Gauss said that Archimedes already had worked out the differential calculus to some great extent, and we know that he had a knowledge of continued fractions, diophantine equations...etc

@quid: ofcourse, but what seems outrageous about archimedes is that he was perhaps the only truly original researcher in his century, with Euclid and Apollonius resembling compilers of information

Lagrange on the other hand thought that Archimedes was the greatest perhaps in talent, but that Newton excelled him in achievement

with Newton, in his opinion, being somewhat superior

Gauss himself considered Archimedes and Newton as the greatest of all times

@quid: do you think Gauss was the greatest in both achievement and talent?

i agree

@quid: who in your opinion is the greatest mathematician of all time

do you need a certain amount of reputation to cast a vote

by the time this election ends, will math.se gain only one new moderator?

we all deserve time to think

@SimplyBeautifulArt: are you not proud that you're living in such a glorious time? you're freely discussing divergent series without any getting embroiled in any deeply heated controversy

ah! divergent series

atiyah has clearly lost his mind

atiyah has (apparently) submitted another solution to a remarkable problem, but he was warned by his close friends to not do so. and it appears that several people keep on detecting errors in his proposed solutions, but they don't make a "big scene" out of it, out of respect for atiyah

@vzn: if i remember correctly, atiyah had attempted to solve a very famous problem in arxiv.org/abs/1610.09366 but entirely failed to do so, his attempt was full of flaws.

hello @idolvon, do you think it's over? has blum's proof finally been nailed down?

Hironaka, a famous algebraic geometer, recently had offered a solution for the problem of singularities in the characteristic p (which is a very important issue) at the age of 86: reddit.com/r/math/comments/6aqwbo/…

Atiya also offered a proof for an eminent geometrical problem in old age, but it contained a flaw

you must remember that blum is rather old now, and as they say, once you're old, you're free to do anything you wish even if it's wrong. since people can always say "Oh but he was old, so it does not matter"

theregister.co.uk/2017/08/16/…

i was reading an article published by The Register, i think, in which blum was asked whether the proof's validity would soon be confirmed. he said that it was "too early" to say anything

yeah i know, but it was funny

blum seems pissed

this is hilarious: cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/38838/46483

idolvon has also posted an exposition on the fatal error which was exposed: cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/38836

yep its wrong