Mathematical giftedness and mathematical genius: A comparison of G. H. Hardy and Srinivasa Ramanujan (Q2737503)

This is an interesting article, but the reader should be aware that it has no mathematical content. Moreover, the author is a psychologist, not a mathematician. NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEThat said, the piece concerns important the question of distinguishing excellence from true genius. That is, is it raw talent that separates there is much interest in this kind of question today, the excellence question having been taken up by books such as Herrnstein and Murray's Bell Curve, and Sulloway's Born to Rebel on the genius issue.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEThe article focuses on Ramanujan (genius) versus Hardy (gifted). It arrives at the conclusion that the differences of personality, not talent, led to the difference in achievement. A substantial argument, based on biographies of the principals, is adduced for this proposition; and in the end, this reviewer is convinced of the usefulness of this approach. Also interesting is the way the author tabulates the data obtained from the biographies to advance his purpose (Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.4).NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEAt this point Ramanujan has entered the popular culture as a certified, Einstein-class genius, and Hardy has not. The author assumes this judgment is accurate in pursuing his thesis. It seems to this reviewer that it is an accurate assessment; but also, it is a mathematical judgment and attention should be paid to the issue of whether a psychologist is entitled to make it or to use it.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEWhile I cannot pass on this issue, I can, as a mathematician, offer this thought: The assessment of the worth of a body of work is at least in part dependent on the current standing of field that work lies in. In this case, Ramanujan's work, for example, in elliptic functions, modular forms, and \(q\)-series, all lie in areas of huge current interest. The same cannot be said of Hardy's efforts in divergent series, or even classical analytic number theory.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEIs it really true that Ramanujan's choices of subject matter were better, more inspired, than Hardy's? Or was there an element of good fortune? The reviewer does not have the standing to even comment of this issue.NEWLINENEWLINEFor the entire collection see [Zbl 0964.00008].