IYO, who was the most brilliant, innovative and prophetic mind ever alive?

Leibniz. Honourable mentions to Aristotle and Newton.

Shen Kuo and Alhazen.

Leonardo daVinci - a deity in so many fields like math, astronomy, anatomy, painting, sculpting, invention, science, engineering, construction, philosophy etc.

How was Leonardo a deity in philosophy? I don't think he was even a minor angelic being.

Da Vinci would have been my first guess too!

I'd put Da Vinci in maybe the top 20, but Alhazen, Leibniz, Shen Kuo, Archimedes, Avicenna, Ibn al-Nafis, Abu Rayhan Biruni and others dwarf him in contributions to science, mathematics and invention.

I'm just going to give a shout out to ma boy G. Julius Caesar, because you can be a military genius too. :p

Leonardo Da Vinci, Aristotle, Newton

I'd go with Leonardo. Archimedes, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Liebniz, Pasteur and Salk are serious contenders.

I'd give honorable mentions to Thomas Edison (willing to fail hundreds or even thousands of times while working to get something working - after people had been failing for decades to make an electric light, his mere announcement that he would attempt it brought the kerosene and lamp oil stocks way down) and Henry Ford (partially for the idea of the assembly line but more for seeing that increasing the wages of workers ended up turning them into consumers that you could make even more money from).

I'm just going to give a shout out to ma boy G. Julius Caesar, because you can be a military genius too. :p

You know, I'm happy to count military geniuses as well, but wouldn't the ideal pick in this category be somebody from the modern age, where warfare is far more complicated? Erich von Manstein, for instance.

You know, I'm happy to count military geniuses as well, but wouldn't the ideal pick in this category be somebody from the modern age, where warfare is far more complicated? Erich von Manstein, for instance.
Not necessarily more complicated. Devolution of work to staff officers wasn't as much of a factor in the Roman military. Caesar also managed to be a pretty good lawyer and author too, something that von Manstein lacked.

Plato.

+characters

Who is Liebniz guy?

Who is Liebniz guy?

Look at your calculus textbook.

Look at your calculus textbook.

I hate math in almost every form. I would burn any calculus book that would fall into my possession by accident.

Who is Liebniz guy?

World's greatest polymath. Invented binary,optimism (the philosophy) and calculus.

I hate math in almost every form. I would burn any calculus book that would fall into my possession by accident.

If you hate math, you have no genius material.

downtown, nonconformist, and Plotinus. :p

If you hate math, you have no genius material.

Every genius has to deal with math?

Not necessarily more complicated. Devolution of work to staff officers wasn't as much of a factor in the Roman military. Caesar also managed to be a pretty good lawyer and author too, something that von Manstein lacked.

Ancient military is comparatively simple, I'd say. This is obvious when you just look at the fact that they didn't have aerial combat, much less all of the other factors.

Modern generals seldom command, they tend to direct, and the two seldom meet.

I'm going to throw in a wild card and say Tesla.

I'm going to throw in a wild card and say Tesla.

I see your Tesla and I raise you Georg Hegel.

We need to define Genius here. Genius in terms of what? In influence? In revolutionary ideals? In intelligence? In learning?

Ancient military is comparatively simple, I'd say. This is obvious when you just look at the fact that they didn't have aerial combat, much less all of the other factors.

At the same time, the modern military is much less centralized compared to those of the ancient era. A general of the classical age had to do a lot more micromanagement, so it's arguable that he needed to keep more things in his head -- and thus had a more complex job.

Joshua Sharwood.

I dunno, Archimedes?

Dave Thomas

For sheer stamina in penetrating through the mists of time I'd go with Imhotep, polymath-extraordinaire and general handyman to pharao Zoser. Considering the times he started out in, his achievements were pretty damn impressive.:egypt:

Starting with being the first individual to go down in history without being royalty. Got the Egyptians hooked on building stuff out of stone. They thought the world of him, enough so to make him a proper god later in their history.:goodjob:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/imhotep.htm

Polymaths appear to have a leg up in the genius nominations, esp. if their accomplishments are subdivided, making them even more impressive. Hence, a nominated genius might be all of the following: a novelist, science fiction author, poet, economic analyst, literary critic, essayist, journalist, historian,etc. or known as a great doctor who studied the circulatory system, the heart, arteries, veins, capillaries, etc.

I think that's why our geniuses are mostly in the past; nowadays you have hundreds of thousands of intelligent literati and doctors covering the same range of interests. Being a pathfinder is obviously different, it's harder to be the first in a field - though even then there exists the probability that in many cases the ideas are "in the air" circulating through what constituted their scientific or intellectual community.

Oh, well, just making an observation not a condemnation that this man or that woman was not "a genius" ...

We need to define Genius here. Genius in terms of what? In influence? In revolutionary ideals? In intelligence? In learning?
But how can you define genius? I was having a hard time doing it, and just tried my best in the OP. I'm asking for your first guess, and I'm not intending to let this degenerated into a nit-picking discussion about who's a genius and who's not.

Every genius has to deal with math?
I was told there would be no math!

Starting with being the first individual to go down in history without being royalty. Got the Egyptians hooked on building stuff out of stone. They thought the world of him, enough so to make him a proper god later in their history.
My stock knowledge leads me to believe the first peepz to go down in history without being royalty were Mesopotamian merchants.

I think that's why our geniuses are mostly in the past; nowadays you have hundreds of thousands of intelligent literati and doctors covering the same range of interests. Being a pathfinder is obviously different, it's harder to be the first in a field - though even then there exists the probability that in many cases the ideas are "in the air" circulating through what constituted their scientific or intellectual community.

Oh, well, just making an observation not a condemnation that this man or that woman was not "a genius" ...
Probably very true.

It has been pointed out that individuals like Newton loom partly due to the sheer mediocrity of the people surrounding them. The level of scientific competence not being particularily high, figures like Newton, Boyle, Hook, Wren et al. scientific gentlemen coalescing in the Royal Society stick out like sore thumbs. Same goes för victorian times with people like Lyell and Darwin.

The problem with science prior to the 19th c. however was to a large extent one of continuity. You get Newtonians for sure, but Newton himself didn't train them personally, there simply was not enough of an organisational framework to do that within, and building one wasn't yet a priority. Which leads to the curious situation of 19th c. scientists finding slews of "precursors" in the 18th c., people with ideas "ahead of their times", whose efforts weren't picked upon back then.

And while German, and French, science in the 19th c. produced enough brilliance to satisfy anyone, their real accomplishment was to push up the general level of competence and build infrastructure to reproduce scientific knowledge as a routine undertaking (universities, laboratories etc.). Bit boring, but still valid, as part of the "conditions of necessity" to get science rolling.:scan:

I'd go with Aristotle for writing so much diverse crap, but having read snippets of it, I wouldn't call it genius---probably a lot of it is at "Dummies" guide level. It's more polymath.

I'll go with Hero of Alexandria, since he has the handicap of being in the classical era. He's also a possible time traveller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria

Found this cool site about who the geniuses are, and what their IQs possibly were: http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm

Hero is teh awesome, he built a jet engine. So what was that about Caesar not having to deal with aerial combat, LS?

I doubt this would generate enough lift for a jet turbine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeolipile_illustration.JPG

Maybe the basis for an early WMD SCUD.

Ancient military is comparatively simple, I'd say. This is obvious when you just look at the fact that they didn't have aerial combat, much less all of the other factors.

Just because someone's field was more simple at the time and they didnt have as much to work with, doesnt take away from their genius. There are more complicated maths nowadays than calculus, yet people are nominating leibniz and newton.

I'd go with Aristotle for writing so much diverse crap, but having read snippets of it, I wouldn't call it genius---probably a lot of it is at "Dummies" guide level. It's more polymath.

If it seems "dummies" level, that's because (a) a lot of his work was in fields he simply invented, such as formal logic or zoology, and (b) you evidently haven't read the tougher stuff, such as metaphysics and ethics.

I'll go with Hero of Alexandria, since he has the handicap of being in the classical era. He's also a possible time traveller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria

I don't see how Hero really qualifies. He made a few clever inventions with minimal practical value. Clever and interesting, but hardly one of history's greatest geniuses.

Just because someone's field was more simple at the time and they didnt have as much to work with, doesnt take away from their genius. There are more complicated maths nowadays than calculus, yet people are nominating leibniz and newton.

That's because both Leibniz and Newton did far, far more than just inventing calculus. They were all-round universal geniuses, especially Leibniz.

Hero's steam engine was not the basis for an industrial revolution that got killed in the cradle. :rolleyes: It was a small toy with minimal power output for a lot of energy input.

Here's a brief list of polymaths, if you want to investigate some of the Renaissance men in history:

Imhotep (2650–2611 BC)
Pythagoras (580–490 BC)
Aristotle (384–322 BC)
Archimedes (287-212 BC)
Zhang Heng (78-139)
Ja'far al-Sadiq (702-765)
Geber (721–815)
Al-Khwarizmi (780-850)
Ziryab (789-857)
Al-Kindi (Alkindus) (801–873)
Abbas Ibn Firnas (810–887)
Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi (865-925)
Al-Masudi (896-956)
Abhinavagupta (950-1020)
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965–1039)
Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048)
Avicenna (980–1037)
Shen Kuo (1031–1095)
Omar Khayyám (1048–1131)
Acharya Hemachandra (1089–1172)
Ibn Tufail (Abubacer) (1105–1185)
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126–1198)
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274)
Ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288)
Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406)
Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472)
Suyuti (1445–1505)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519)
Akbar the Great (1542–1605)
Xu Guangqi (1562–1633)
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)
Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680)
Isaac Newton (1643–1727)
Gottfried W. Leibniz (1646–1716)
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765)
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)
Mary Somerville (1780-1872)
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854–1912)
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)
William James Sidis (1898–1944)
John von Neumann (1903–1957)
Herbert Simon (1916–2001)
Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas (1931-)

I don't see how Hero really qualifies. He made a few clever inventions with minimal practical value. Clever and interesting, but hardly one of history's greatest geniuses.



Fire-fighting is very important in urban areas.

And regardless of whether the materials engineering was there for Hero's engine to amount to a social revolution, it was genius to have invented it, thousands of years early.
I did specify he was working with the handicap of being in the classical period. Sadly it appears geniuses have to be popular to be deemed worthy.

EDIT: I actually did read both the Ethics and the Metaphysics. And I will say on recollection, the Metaphysics is a good stab at an early scientific method. The Ethics is aristocratic garbage though. I'd probably say the same about his Economics, if I could remember it.

that guy who became rich and contributed greatly to society but was never famous enough for anyone to want to kill him/her (yes, its possible) or over-commercialize and abuse their name

I see your Tesla and I raise you Georg Hegel.

Nah, he was just as sloshed as Shlegel.

How about Eratosthenes for having the simple genius to visualize the earth as a sphere, and find an experimental way to measure the circumference within 1%, and the distance to the sun within 2%, and may have invented the Leap Year. No telescopes or anything except basic geometry.

Thomas Edison for me, simple inventions that changed the world, a pratical business man, pure genious.

Thomas Edison for me, simple inventions that changed the world, a pratical business man, pure genious.

His genius was more in harnessing interns' and lab techs' brains for his own personal profit.
1% inspiration, 99% perspiration - where 100% includes everyone in Menlo Park.

[off topic]

Nice user title BananaLee :lol:

[/off topic]

I'd give honorable mentions to Thomas Edison (willing to fail hundreds or even thousands of times while working to get something working - after people had been failing for decades to make an electric light, his mere announcement that he would attempt it brought the kerosene and lamp oil stocks way down)

Thomas Edison for me, simple inventions that changed the world, a pratical business man, pure genious.

---

His genius was more in harnessing interns' and lab techs' brains for his own personal profit.
1% inspiration, 99% perspiration - where 100% includes everyone in Menlo Park.

This.

Edison's genius lay not in visionary or incisive thought but in the brutal plundering of other peoples work. Being 'willing to fail hundred of times' is not indicative of intelligence it's indicative of an inability to grasp fundamental theory and work from there. His zealous devotion to DC electricity largely discredits him in my eyes.

In the words of Tesla:

"His method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90% of the labour. But he had a veritable contempt for book learning and mathematical knowledge, trusting himself entirely to his inventor's instinct and practical American sense."

And that's from a real genius.

Fire-fighting is very important in urban areas.

Of course, but Hero didn't invent it, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

And regardless of whether the materials engineering was there for Hero's engine to amount to a social revolution, it was genius to have invented it, thousands of years early.

I still disagree. The fact that you characterise the invention as "thousands of years early" indicates that you're interpreting it as of a piece with the steam engines of the industrial era, just not as well engineered. But it just wasn't. It doesn't take great genius to see that boiling water makes a spurt of steam which can cause rotation if you build it into a machine. That's all that Hero did, and his device didn't work in the same way as modern steam engines at all. What takes great genius is to turn the simple idea into something useful.

I'm not denying that Hero was a very clever person who achieved a lot. But I am denying that he was at the same level of genius or achievement as most of the other people mentioned here.

I did specify he was working with the handicap of being in the classical period.

I don't see why that's a handicap. One might think it an advantage, since there was more to discover. There are no all-round geniuses today, because there is already far too much knowledge for any one person to master. That's why of all the figures who have been named so far, the ones after the seventeenth century or thereabouts only made great contributions to one or two fields each.

EDIT: I actually did read both the Ethics and the Metaphysics. And I will say on recollection, the Metaphysics is a good stab at an early scientific method. The Ethics is aristocratic garbage though.

You might plausibly say that of Nicomachean ethics III.6-IV.9, but as a judgement on the whole work, it's nonsense. It's one of the most important writings in the field ever written, and the fact that it continues to be treated as a serious contribution to the field today - rather than as an antiquarian curiosity of only historical value - is proof enough of its genius.

The Nichomachean Ethics, based on a recent re-reading, is still valuable both as a historical document and as an examination of the nature of virtue, happiness, and the good life. Both the Metaphysics and Nichomachean Ethics are still impressive documents thousands of years later - despite being essentially lecture notes.

His zealous devotion to DC electricity largely discredits him in my eyes

Actually to be fair, his motivations to stick to DC was more business-driven than any other practical reason. The fact that LVDC needed a highly distributed generation system meant that Edison could score many contracts to build generators and therefore garner more money.

Perhaps it was slightly short-sighted but ultimately, based on the mentality of the period, Edison had to take a punt on whether Tesla's AC was worth it or not (remember, AC was purely on paper whereas DC was a proven method). And he just happened to make the wrong decision.

David Hasselhoff.

In the interest of world peas, I, too, nominate David "The Hoff" Hasselhoff.

Isaac Newton was the greatest human being that ever lived. He was in another level as far as intelligence goes.

Me! All bow before my supeior American education!:crazyeye:

Me! All bow before my supeior American education!:crazyeye:

Indeed, the American education system is supeior.

Please tell me that was intentional. If so, you are getting a huge bonus of comedy bucks.

Myself. :)

Most of you probably haven't heard of him but I'm going to go with this guy. His achievement in math and astronomy are pretty much unparalleled. Especially when you consider the fact that he lived in classical times.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81skara_II

* Bhaskara is the first to give the general solution to the quadratic equation ax2 + bx + c = 0, the answer being x = (-b ± (b2 - 4ac)1/2)/2a

* A proof of the Pythagorean theorem by calculating the same area in two different ways and then canceling out terms to get a² + b² = c².

* In Lilavati, solutions of quadratic, cubic and quartic indeterminate equations.

* Solutions of indeterminate quadratic equations (of the type ax² + b = y²).

* Integer solutions of linear and quadratic indeterminate equations (Kuttaka). The rules he gives are (in effect) the same as those given by the Renaissance European mathematicians of the 17th century

* A cyclic Chakravala method for solving indeterminate equations of the form ax² + bx + c = y. The solution to this equation was traditionally attributed to William Brouncker in 1657, though his method was more difficult than the chakravala method.

* His method for finding the solutions of the problem x² − ny² = 1 (so-called "Pell's equation") is of considerable interest and importance.

* Solutions of Diophantine equations of the second order, such as 61x² + 1 = y². This very equation was posed as a problem in 1657 by the French mathematician Pierre de Fermat, but its solution was unknown in Europe until the time of Euler in the 18th century.

* Solved quadratic equations with more than one unknown, and found negative [disambiguation needed] and irrational [disambiguation needed] solutions.

* Preliminary concept of mathematical analysis.

* Preliminary concept of infinitesimal calculus, along with notable contributions towards integral calculus.

* Conceived differential calculus, after discovering the derivative and differential [disambiguation needed] coefficient.

* Stated Rolle's theorem, a special case of one of the most important theorems in analysis, the mean value theorem. Traces of the general mean value theorem are also found in his works.

* Calculated the derivatives of trigonometric functions and formulae. (See Calculus section below.)

* In Siddhanta Shiromani, Bhaskara developed spherical trigonometry along with a number of other trigonometric results. (See Trigonometry section below.)

[edit] Arithmetic

Bhaskara's arithmetic text Lilavati covers the topics of definitions, arithmetical terms, interest computation, arithmetical and geometrical progressions, plane geometry, solid geometry, the shadow of the gnomon, methods to solve indeterminate equations, and combinations.

Lilavati is divided into 13 chapters and covers many branches of mathematics, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and a little trigonometry and mensuration. More specifically the contents include:

* Definitions.
* Properties of zero (including division, and rules of operations with zero).
* Further extensive numerical work, including use of negative numbers and surds.
* Estimation of π.
* Arithmetical terms, methods of multiplication, and squaring.
* Inverse rule of three, and rules of 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11.
* Problems involving interest and interest computation.
* Arithmetical and geometrical progressions.
* Plane (geometry).
* Solid geometry.
* Permutations and combinations.
* Indeterminate equations (Kuttaka), integer solutions (first and second order). His contributions to this topic are particularly important, since the rules he gives are (in effect) the same as those given by the renaissance European mathematicians of the 17th century, yet his work was of the 12th century. Bhaskara's method of solving was an improvement of the methods found in the work of Aryabhata and subsequent mathematicians.

His work is outstanding for its systemisation, improved methods and the new topics that he has introduced. Furthermore the Lilavati contained excellent recreative problems and it is thought that Bhaskara's intention may have been that a student of 'Lilavati' should concern himself with the mechanical application of the method.

[edit] Algebra

His Bijaganita ("Algebra") was a work in twelve chapters. It was the first text to recognize that a positive number has two square roots (a positive and negative square root). His work Bijaganita is effectively a treatise on algebra and contains the following topics:

* Positive and negative numbers.
* Zero.
* The 'unknown' (includes determining unknown quantities).
* Determining unknown quantities.
* Surds (includes evaluating surds).
* Kuttaka (for solving indeterminate equations and Diophantine equations).
* Simple equations (indeterminate of second, third and fourth degree).
* Simple equations with more than one unknown.
* Indeterminate quadratic equations (of the type ax² + b = y²).
* Solutions of indeterminate equations of the second, third and fourth degree.
* Quadratic equations.
* Quadratic equations with more than one unknown.
* Operations with products of several unknowns.

Bhaskara derived a cyclic, chakravala method for solving indeterminate quadratic equations of the form ax² + bx + c = y. Bhaskara's method for finding the solutions of the problem Nx² + 1 = y² (the so-called "Pell's equation") is of considerable importance.

He gave the general solutions of:

* Pell's equation using the chakravala method.
* The indeterminate quadratic equation using the chakravala method.

He also solved[citation needed]:

* Cubic equations.
* Quartic equations.
* Indeterminate cubic equations.
* Indeterminate quartic equations.
* Indeterminate higher-order polynomial equations.

[edit] Trigonometry

The Siddhanta Shiromani (written in 1150) demonstrates Bhaskara's knowledge of trigonometry, including the sine table and relationships between different trigonometric functions. He also discovered spherical trigonometry, along with other interesting trigonometrical results. In particular Bhaskara seemed more interested in trigonometry for its own sake than his predecessors who saw it only as a tool for calculation. Among the many interesting results given by Bhaskara, discoveries first found in his works include the now well known results for \sin\left(a + b\right) and \sin\left(a - b\right) :

* \sin\left(a + b\right) = \sin(a) \cos(b) + \cos(a) \sin(b)

* \sin\left(a - b\right) = \sin(a) \cos(b) - \cos(a) \sin(b)

[edit] Calculus

His work, the Siddhanta Shiromani, is an astronomical treatise and contains many theories not found in earlier works. Preliminary concepts of infinitesimal calculus and mathematical analysis, along with a number of results in trigonometry, differential calculus and integral calculus that are found in the work are of particular interest.

Evidence suggests Bhaskara was acquainted with some ideas of differential calculus. It seems, however, that he did not understand the utility of his researches, and thus historians of mathematics generally neglect this achievement. Bhaskara also goes deeper into the 'differential calculus' and suggests the differential coefficient vanishes at an extremum value of the function, indicating knowledge of the concept of 'infinitesimals'.[2]

* There is evidence of an early form of Rolle's theorem in his work:
o If f\left(a\right) = f\left(b\right) = 0 then f'\left(x\right) = 0 for some \ x with \ a < x < b

* He gave the result that if x \approx y then \sin(y) - \sin(x) \approx (y - x)\cos(y), thereby finding the derivative of sine, although he never developed the general concept of differentiation.[3]
o Bhaskara uses this result to work out the position angle of the ecliptic, a quantity required for accurately predicting the time of an eclipse.

* In computing the instantaneous motion of a planet, the time interval between successive positions of the planets was no greater than a truti, or a 1⁄33750 of a second, and his measure of velocity was expressed in this infinitesimal unit of time.

* He was aware that when a variable attains the maximum value, its differential [disambiguation needed] vanishes.

* He also showed that when a planet is at its farthest from the earth, or at its closest, the equation of the centre (measure of how far a planet is from the position in which it is predicted to be, by assuming it is to move uniformly) vanishes. He therefore concluded that for some intermediate position the differential of the equation of the centre is equal to zero. In this result, there are traces of the general mean value theorem, one of the most important theorems in analysis, which today is usually derived from Rolle's theorem. The mean value theorem was later found by Parameshvara in the 15th century in the Lilavati Bhasya, a commentary on Bhaskara's Lilavati.

The study of astronomy in Bhaskara's works is based on a model of the solar system which is heliocentric and whose movements are determined by gravitation. Heliocentrism had been propounded in 499 by Aryabhata, who argued that the planets follow elliptical orbits around the Sun. A law of gravity had been described by Brahmagupta in the 7th century. Using this model, Bhaskara accurately defined many astronomical quantities, including, for example, the length of the sidereal year, the time that is required for the Earth to orbit the Sun, as 365.2588 days which is same as in Suryasiddhanta. The modern accepted measurement is 365.2563 days, a difference of just 3.5 minutes. This result was achieved using observations that had been made with only the naked eye, not any sophisticated instrument.


And this guy:

Āryabhaṭa (Devanāgarī: आर्यभट) (CE 476–550) is the first in the line of great mathematician-astronomers from the classical age of Indian mathematics and Indian astronomy. His most famous works are the Aryabhatiya (CE 499 at age of 23 years) and Arya-Siddhanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

Place Value system and zero

Pi as Irrational

Mensuration and trigonometry

Indeterminate Equations

Motions of the Solar System

Eclipses

Sidereal periods

Heliocentrism

Aryabhata's work was of great influence in the Indian astronomical tradition, and influenced several neighbouring cultures through translations. The Arabic translation during the Islamic Golden Age (ca. 820), was particularly influential. Some of his results are cited by Al-Khwarizmi, and he is referred to by the 10th century Arabic scholar Al-Biruni, who states that Āryabhata's followers believed the Earth to rotate on its axis.

His definitions of sine, as well as cosine (kojya), versine (ukramajya), and inverse sine (otkram jya), influenced the birth of trigonometry. He was also the first to specify sine and versine (1 - cosx) tables, in 3.75° intervals from 0° to 90°, to an accuracy of 4 decimal places.

Aryabhata's astronomical calculation methods were also very influential. Along with the trigonometric tables, they came to be widely used in the Islamic world, and were used to compute many Arabic astronomical tables (zijes). In particular, the astronomical tables in the work of the Arabic Spain scientist Al-Zarqali (11th c.), were translated into Latin as the Tables of Toledo (12th c.), and remained the most accurate Ephemeris used in Europe for centuries.

Plenty of others too. India has some crazy math guys :crazyeye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagupta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhava_of_Sangamagrama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira_(mathematician)

Chinese guys too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Xiaotong

Most of you probably haven't heard of him but I'm going to go with this guy. His achievement in math and astronomy are pretty much unparalleled. Especially when you consider the fact that he lived in classical times.

I don't know about other countries, but in Brazil everyone heard of him for the very simple reason that the solution for "ax2+bx+c=0" is known around here as Bhaskara's formula.

So I have known good old Bhask since I was about 10 years old.

THis guy- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Ranganathan

I don't know about other countries, but in Brazil everyone heard of him for the very simple reason that the solution for "ax2+bx+c=0" is known around here as Bhaskara's formula.

So I have known good old Bhask since I was about 10 years old.

Oh same here. He's in my pre-calculus textbook.

Of course, but Hero didn't invent it, so I'm not sure what your point there is.


I don't see why that's a handicap. One might think it an advantage, since there was more to discover. There are no all-round geniuses today, because there is already far too much knowledge for any one person to master. That's why of all the figures who have been named so far, the ones after the seventeenth century or thereabouts only made great contributions to one or two fields each.


Ctesibius is attributed with inventing the first force pump, but Hero expanded on it for fire-fighting.
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/section27.html


I'd say inventing in the ancient era is a terrific handicap considering the lack of useful materials.

I'd say inventing in the ancient era is a terrific handicap considering the lack of useful materials.

Or Patent Office

I'd say inventing in the ancient era is a terrific handicap considering the lack of useful materials.

That may be true, but the question was about the greatest genius, not the greatest inventor. It was harder to be a great inventor in antiquity than it is now, but it was easier to be a great philosopher (simply because less had been done).

I'm not denying the intelligence and originality of the individuals nominated yet neither am I especially moved by the enumerated list of problems solved or biological processes studied. It seems to me that plenty of research scientists today could present resumes that divide and subdivide their accomplishments into pages of accomplishments. Many of the engineers here at Intel have some of the most impressive looking resumes around - not having met them one would think they were veritable geniuses too. Probably contemporary scientists, authors, artists are just too numerous and their opportunities for uniqueness and originality too limited to allow them to gain comparable status as geniuses. Born too late to discover the Pythagorean theorem or the heliocentric model of the solar system, they can only bore JonathanStrange with stories of what might-have-been...

That may be true, but the question was about the greatest genius, not the greatest inventor. It was harder to be a great inventor in antiquity than it is now, but it was easier to be a great philosopher (simply because less had been done).

My point is that inventing against the odds is genius.

I'm actually tempted to say Voltaire, upon further thought.

I'm actually tempted to say Voltaire, upon further thought.

:lol:

Voltaire has got to be the most overrated philosopher in history. He would 'win' debates by putting his opponents' arguments into the mouth of an imbecile in a satirical story, and then knock down his own strawman while his followers lapped him up.

Voltaire wasn't a philosopher at all. That's not to say he wasn't brilliant, but his brilliance was not in that field.