/sci/ - Science & Math

him

"It is very hard for any mathematician to believe that mathematics is a purely empirical science or that all mathematical ideas originate in empirical subjects. Let me consider the second half of the statement first. There. are various important parts of modern mathematics in which the empirical origin is untraceable, or, if traceable, so remote that it is clear that the subject has undergone a complete metamorphosis since it was cut off from its empirical roots. The symbolism of algebra was invented for domestic, mathematical use, but it may be reasonably asserted that it had strong empirical ties. However, modem, "abstract" algebra has more and more developed into directions which have even fewer empirical connections. The same may be said about topology. And in all these fields the mathematician's subjective criterion of success, of the worth-whileness of his effort, is very much self-contained and aesthetical and free (or nearly free) of empirical connections. (I will say more about this further on.) In set theory this is still clearer. The "power" and the "ordering" of an infinite set may be the generalizations of finite numerical concepts, but in their infinite form (especially "power") they have hardly any relation to this world. If I did not wish to avoid technicalities, I could document this with numerous set theoretical examples-the problem of the "axiom of choice," the "comparability" of infinite "powers," the "continuum problem," etc. The same remarks apply to much of real function theory and real point-set theory. Two strange examples are given by differential geometry and by group theory: they were certainly conceived as abstract, non-applied disciplines and almost always cultivated in this spirit. After a decade in one case, and a century in the other, they turned out to be very useful in physics. And they are still mostly pursued in the indicated, abstract, non-applied spirit."

like how the fuck did he get that smart

this isn't a case of him being a meme or something, because literally everyone around him treated him like some fucking demi god

his politics seem far rightish/hawkish

>age
25
>major
mathematics
>interests
computer programming, mathematics, writing erotic fiction
>IQ
never tested but i suspect top 1% (given my track record of success)
># of friends
i have 56 friends on my Facebook, most of them i know quite well
># of sexual partners
0
>age you got into STEM
very early. i did the IMO

has more intelligence than Von Neumann

is he right?

he doesn't know how to speak proper english and is saying simple vocabulary and his response to the question is simplistic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLbllFHBQM4

is that the various accounts of top scientists/mathematicians, his colleagues that were in awe of him

usually mathematicians arn't interested in superlatives like "best or greatest" or interested in any type of ranking, but its crazy how there are so many accounts of people being in awe of Johnny..

but this man seems like a fictional character

someone you would create to be a super genius in a story, i have trouble accepting that such a mind actually lived

name me one philosopher that even comes close to approaching this man in terms of raw intellect

ohn von Neumann, the greatest polymath and fastest and most original thinker of the 20th century. From the purest of math to economics and weapons design, there was not a field he did not pioneer. Hans Bethe once wondered if his mind indicated a higher species.