/sci/ - Science & Math

me

Jacob Barnett

>>6826247
Jacob Barnett

j the cobe barnett coming in

me

barnett the prodigy dropping off

Newton.

le bump

Jason Bernett

>>6826247
>man/woman
Sure, it's technically possible for a woman to be the most intelligent human.
I guess.

>>6826259
>le genius hairdo

>>6826546
The female candidate would be Emmy Noether

>>6826247
It sure as fuck wouldn't have been Edison.

"“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” ~ Nikola Tesla

Smartest person in the world?
I'm tempted to say Stephen Wolfram, if only because I'm not sure if he's crazy smart... or just crazy filtered through the lens of being smart.

Stefan Molyneux says he's the smartest man in the world, but I'm not so sure. He seems awful confident about it though.

I give up, and I'm just going to pick Richard Feynman, because he was extremely intelligent, yet seemed to recognize the limits of his knowledge better than most, had a genuine passion for just figuring shit out for the sake of figuring shit out, and was a pretty effective science communicator.

>>6826793
>stefan molyneux
>smart

kek

hes as pseud as pseud gets

>he picks the one physicist that got by on everything BUT smarts, actually the guy who is notorious because he doesn't have a high intelligence but had a killer work ethic and interest in science

lmfao

you suck at this

>>6826821
>> you suck at this

Says the guy who didn't get the joke. I admit, I thought it was weak myself, but turns out it was funny, because you got a few laughs out of it.

>>kek
>>lmfao

And I got a few laughs out of you. Thank you for turning that around for me.

You suck at this.

>>6826793
>Stefan Molyneux
Worst bait everrrr.

Maybe Gauss or Euler. Maybe Newton. Probably not Einstein but I suppose it's possible, he was definitely one of the smartest humans in history.

Philosophers say it's Goethe but I don't understand that.

Other possibilities: Maxwell, Ramanujan (though if him then no one will ever know).

Actually the smartest human ever is probably alive today. It's hard to judge because different interests make for different results and the lowest hanging fruit is always being cleaned out by each generation.

>>6826793
I don't think OP was saying Edison was the smartest human ever. I'm pretty sure it was pic unrelated. I've never heard of anyone talking about him as being all that smart.

I don't know much about Wolfram but I'm pretty sure he's someone who's widely seen as smart by people who aren't smart because he "revolutionized" science. (he didn't, Norbert Wiener changed science more than him but didn't go on to brag about it).

Stefan Molyneux is an intelligence scam artist. There are a number of them. examples: Marilyn Vos Savant, Christopher Langan. These people are intellectual nobodies who have accomplished nothing and probably aren't all that much smarter than an average human. Far from smartest in the world.

Richard Feynman is very popular for a number of reasons separate from his intelligence. He was obviously very very smart but if you compare his accomplishments to other, less famous physicists even of the same era you can find a number who did more impressive work.

>>6826247
Stephen Hawking is widely considered the smartest man alive. Not really sure why

Who is? Dunno

Who was? Maybe this guy?

Srinivasa Ramanujan

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

>>6826865
Actually na, no way, I'd say Tesla or Newton

Newton has gotta be the guy.

That nigger was just sitting there, realized the concept of gravity and independently invented calculus to describe it mathematically. My man.

It is very very very unlikely that the "smartest person ever" was/is someone you have ever heard of.

You have to wonder how far would have Galois or Abel reached if they lived a bit longer/

Is this even debatable?

>>6826247

Shakespeare

Dirac is regarded very highly

>>6826779

To be fair, Emmy Noether was probably around the same intelligence as David Hilbert.

>>6826247
Define intelligent

>>6827191
No doubt smarter than everyone on this board

>>6826247

Euler

>>6827191
>To be fair, Emmy Noether was probably around the same intelligence as David Hilbert.

No she wasn't.

>>6826247
wheelchair science man

>>6827331
>No she wasn't.

True, she was clearly smarter.

>>6827331
>Emmy Noether was probably around the same intelligence as David Hilbert
>probably
>around
This is a rather innocuous statement.

>Emmy Noether was certainly nowhere near the same intelligence as David Hilbert
This is the negation of the above statement. It is clearly a much bolder claim.

If you're going to make such bold claims, then please provide references.

>>6827468
If you are going to try to communicate with others please make an effort to suppress your autism

>>6826247
Not you.....

>>6827485
That normal people generally, or that the people on TV (or whatever persons whose discourse we value) always, don't use logic in their daily arguments, does not imply that one should not attempt to make rigorous arguments. Rather, your accusations are a reflection of a sick herd mentality, which, in your obsession to seem "normal", harm your logical argument-making abilities, and which has made you oblivious of the intellectual damages invoked. In other words, let the autism burst forth.

>>6827508
>That normal people generally, or that the people on TV (or whatever persons whose discourse we value) always, don't use logic in their daily arguments, does not imply that one should not attempt to make rigorous arguments
No.

The facts that we only live for a finite amount of time and that in many cases some further qualifications can be implicitly assumed based on context by any rational listener without stating them and that in practical reality accepting statements that have an overwhelming probability of being true almost never results in negative results and that reading autistic rigorous logical arguments let alone listening to them is boring and results in negative utility for most people very much do imply that one should not attempt to make rigorous arguments in all situations.

I understand that /sci/ is not the real world and has different standards of etiquette but whenever anyone makes quantitative claims relating to intelligence they are impossible to prove rigorously and contributing to a thread relating to that type of discussion implicitly accepts that such discussion is not completely fruitless and as such it is quite irrational to insist on rigorous logic in such a post.

tl:dr ive been studying real analysis for the last 5 hours so if you think you are going to out sperg me in logic you are wrong

>>6826868
I'd consider Newton maybe, but definitely not Tesla.

>>6827522
>negative utility
>utility