/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6308344
>has an element that is actually found in nature named after him
lolno, it's not named after him, it happens to be named using the same word which is his last name.

A new kind of science was a step too far ... cellular automata can create pretty pictures the book. He's old though, so it's to be expected.

>>6308344
>wrote three books on particle physics by the age of 13
T-this doesn't sound like a thirteen year old

wolfram is a hack and the only people that think his contributions are noteworthy are calc students that are impressed that he made a website that does their homework for them

>>6308543
WolframAlpha is in its baby steps. The expected time span of the project is well over 30 years. It's supposed to be a whole knowledge engine that you can just ask questions to and get answers.

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2011/06/a-precociousness-record-almost-broken/

>Catherine Beni

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1760326

>Teaching at a community college

>You will never be as alpha as wolfram
Cmon man
That was way too easy

>>6308569

Holy shit... did Wolfram do a defense with Feynman on the panel?

>jewish

Into the trash you go

He's no Jacob Barnett

>>6308367
please stop posting these trite, reddit circle jerk comics in every fucking thread, thanks.

>>6308607

Yeah, Feynman was teaching at Caltech back then

>>6308569

Dude, how does that happen?

It's pretty strange how the success/failure rate among child prodigies is so well-distributed. Long ago some anon posted an article about where some child prodigies that were students or alumni of prestigious universities and it was really surprising how mediocre some became.

Really makes you think about the hype behind Jacob Barnett and whether it's deserved (it's not). I mean, Wolfram is clearly on another level with the stuff he published at 13 and 14

>>6308627

Pretty funny that Barnett is supposed to get a Nobel Prize while Wolfram is 10x the prodigy Barnett claims to be and still doesn't have one...

While scientific pursuit obviously stands on higher moral ground, it makes you think when your typical Wall Street higher-up probably has a greater net worth than Wolfram (not to diminish the intelligence of successful people on Wall Street, but there is obviously no comparison here)

> He received aPh.D.[3]in particle physics from theCalifornia Institute of Technologyat age 20.
How the fuck do you get a PHD at 20?
>tfw will be transferring from a cc to a 4 year university at age 23
but seriously, how?

That is a kind of a threads, which I hate.

Yours success in science depends only on you. You must work hard, learn a lot, and everything will be alright. That "prodigity" only enables you to learn things quicker, at shorter time. That's all. After a bunch o time you will have same knowledges.

>>6308658

Jesse Wilkins, Jr. received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from UChicago at age 19.

Oh, and he did it while BLACK.

#SWAG

>>6308367
>First language
Top lel

But has he ever snuggled all day with someone he loves?

>>6308400
It sounds like a 10 year old's writing.

>>6308700
There is no such thing as "love'. Stop using meaningless buzzwords. Love doesn't exist.

If you know his story you wouldn't be appreciating it. Dude's the definition of a small man.

You should know that Wolfram is very bitter that he never amounted to anything spectacular given the early hype and praises and expectations that was heaped on him. Read his correspondences with Feynman where he gets told. He has major issues with his ego and couldn't work with anyone in academia because he thinks he's better than everyone else. Feynman told him to grow the fuck up.

So what he did was found a tech company so he can do his own thing. He thinks his major breakthrough came in the form of NKS, but that book was ignored and lambasted to oblivion.

>>6308658
>not graduating with a Ph.D. in physics at the age of 15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-Yong

>>6308400
>T-this doesn't sound like a thirteen year old

It sounds like a kid trying to sound smarter than he is.

>But however much these ancient theories of discontinuity may seem to be ahead of their time, it should be remembered that at the same time, almost equal support was gained for a continuous theory of the universe, which was upheld with much zeal by Heraclitus and the Eleatic philosphers.

That clusterfuck of a sentence. Dear God.

>>6308648
>about the hype behind Jacob Barnett and whether it's deserved

There is no hype.

He's a fucking /sci/ meme to troll all of you faggots, and you fall for it every time.

So some idiots on a news show were astounded by his ability to do basic calculus. Noone gives a fuck.

>>6308689
>Jesse Wilkins, Jr.
>black

>>6308344
>> A New Kind of Science
>no, he didnt just cash in on von neumanns work on self automatic systems, published 60 years ago

>>6308711

Wow, never heard that story before. One letter is here for anyone interested like I was:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/06/you-dont-understand-ordinary-people.html

>Find a way to do your research with as little contact with non-technical people as possible, with one exception, fall madly in love! That is my advice, my friend.

;_; even when Feynman is mad it hurts to remember this great man is no longer with us.

>unathletic
>fat
>short
>jew
>bald
leeeeeel

>>6309187
>>Find a way to do your research with as little contact with non-technical people as possible, with one exception, fall madly in love! That is my advice, my friend.

Did Feynman do more in science though? If he did I'm so not a prodigy-believer anymore at all.

>>6309202

Of course Feynman did, which is why he can deride Wolfram's ego in that letter.

Feynman scored an average IQ and never really stood out as a child beyond stuff like fixing radios. He clearly showed his true colors in high school but was still denied admission to Columbia.

>>6309205
I find that some of the best people in physics never started out as complete aces from birth. Bohr, for example, was sllightly overshadowed by his brother and father due to their respective fields. Furthermore, Bohr had several issues with verbal communication, expressing his ideas and writing. In addition, Bohr had an existential crisis in his youth and suffered from a form of depression from it. Originally, he intended to go into Mathematics so he could separate himself in different complex planes.

Crazy how shit turns out.

>>6308344
>Wolframalpha is no longer free to use when you want explanations

He's a faggot and so is OP, as always.

>>6309244
>not doing 100% of my calc 1 homework for free makes someone a faggot

But... nobody does it for you. So I guess everyone in the world is a faggot.

>>6309239

Yeah, really interesting stuff. You gotta wonder though where the child prodigies writing novels or poetry, directing films, or painting masterpieces are. It seems that we only get mathematicians or physicists from these sorts of people. I think the answers to the questions that begs would tell us a lot about the merit of being a child prodigy.

>>6309256
I take the whole child prodigy thing withi a grain of salt at best. Don't get me wrong; I think child prodigies are awesome and filled with potential, but their individual results and achievements(or lack thereof) clearly show that a human being is comprised of more than some measurable g or "IQ." /sci/ will have you thinking that your entire life should revolve around taking IQ exams.

>>6308717
>mfw

does anyone else think he looks like constanza?

>>6309055

pick both

>>6308757

Dude has been on Glen Beck and has his own TED Talk which has garnered over 2 million views. There's hype amongst casuals, but not by anyone who actually knows something about science.

Barnett is no Evan O'Dorney.

>>6309254
>implying homework isn't given electronically and done electronically now
>damage controlling this hard

Ya blew it

>>6308711
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/06/you-dont-understand-ordinary-people.html
Interesting, thx.

>>6309284
>not crossing the rollercoaster life of this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seetapun
>not getting ad hoc promoted to be a Prof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Lu

Lately I stumbled upon this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kane_%28mathematician%29
and thought about my life

I really like computational views of nature, but I find the automata not really pretty and I never wanted to wrap my head around the way Turing machines are encoded in Mathematica (I mean, there is an enumeration system of small Turing machines implemented in it, apparently http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/TuringMachine.html))
Sadly, I've never read A new kind of science.
But I know of its famous review

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3KL7ITUIPVNOI/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R284ZDX360H6HC

How is the h index valid when some fields have obviously more citations due to their open nature while others have very few because it's so narrow.

10 citations in one field may be plenty while in others it's not much.

>>6308658
you do it in some kind of pure theory in which experiments are impossible to perform. that way nobody can really prove you wrong, while at the same time avoiding lab failures and the inevitable time sinks that even a success incurs.

>>6309239
I would hypothesise that this is almost an inevitable part of genius' biography (if we are to call the likes of Bohr geniuses), depending on the circumstances. I'm pretty sure Einstein and Newton overcame this too for they were unbelievable omegas (except for that overshadowing part, obviously). I, for one, am still not quite finished with this unholy fuckness. And who knows, I may be relatively lucky - I am charming on appearances - which never failed to cut me some slack, have /psy/ literature at my hands and a predisposition to anti-social disorder from my father (usually the rang of parents is the same). But I am quite probably more stupid than those. Now imagine what would Einstein be like if he had Feynman's emotional parameters, so to speak.
I'd say choice between maths and physics mainly depends on whether you are predisposed to APD or ASPD.

>>6309651
Yeah, forgot to mention: you always can tell whether some child is gonna be clever though. They always smarter from the very birth, "jumps" in intellect are very rare.

>>6309256
I don't remember if he was a child prodigy or not, but Noam Elkies also got his PhD fairly early on in his life, around his early 20s if I remember correctly.

It just makes me wonder if being a "child prodigy" has any effect on how you will amass knowledge and experience as you get older. Obviously someone like Barnett (since he's on topic in this thread right now) doesn't know as much about theoretical physics as Feynman. But my question is that if a child prodigy was where Feynman was when he was born (1918), would he or she have discovered more than Feynman did?

>>6309656
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKihbhYnVBA

>>6309205
The lowest estimate of Feynmans IQ (as a child) was about two standard deviations above average. Not "average".

>yfw computer science is confirmed master race
thank you based wolfram

>>6309698
What's the point exactly? Am I being too obvious?

>>6309651

Dude, Einstein was banging six women outside of his marriage. Einstein was much like Feynman in his emotional parameters.

Most of the great scientists of old were not aspies and conducted business with the elite from many different aspects of society.

>>6309774
Still, he was doing it kinda shy-ie