This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
I suppose it depends on how you assess the significance of condensed mathematics. Maybe it’s my bias but my view is that it’s one of the most significant developments recent years in mathematics. As a cofounder of the theory, he should be clearly notable. (Confounding a startup alone doesn’t make you notable but confounding some fairly major startup would make you notable. A similar idea should apply.) —- Taku (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I guess we can keep. But I think someone should create a page for Akhil Mathew because he's clearly far more notable (and I think is also doing work in condensed math). JDiala (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is he? He doesn’t seem to have a similar claim: as far as I understand, he is not credited to be a creator of condensed math (being a worker is less of notability). —- Taku (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh I think we have some disagreements on notability here. DC has a low citation count, no mention by independent sources (whereas Akhil was getting media attention as a teen), and on condensed math I think most people understand that Peter Scholze did far far more than DC did (almost a Wiles/Taylor type situation). Whereas AM is a near household name widely considered the strongest in his cohort (already tenured at Chicago). But I don't think this matter is serious enough to take to deletion review; we can agree to disagree. JDiala (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things.
The quality of research is irrelevant; the notability has to do with whether research works are somehow distinguished.
Maybe Akhil will win a Fields prize or something; then his notability will be unquestionable. Tenure isn’t enough.
"most people understand that Peter Scholze did far far more than DC did". I don’t have insider info but this is not necessarily factual as far as reliable sources are concerned. —- Taku (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
