Who's the greatest scientist of all times?

[Anonymous No.10776213]

And why is it John von Neumann?

[Anonymous No.10776220]

Not a scientist.

[Anonymous No.10776221]

>>10776213
he was a smart guy.

[Anonymous No.10776266]

>>10776220
elaborate

[Anonymous No.10776274]

Math Lord of his time, who invented the essential pc architecture, besides Harvard.

[Anonymous No.10776275]

>>10776213
It's unironically because of his eidetic memory. I knew a girl with this talent.https://youtu.be/wSltXth9Tzs

E.M means you can connect ideas much better and your brain literally works better.

[Anonymous No.10776276]

>>10776275
https://discord.gg/sJpcEqV

[Anonymous No.10776283]

>>10776213
It was probably Einstein honestly. People jerk off Von Neumann and he was indeed a genius but people who jerk off his intelligence on the basis of rumors they've heard about his memory and intellect don't know that according to Wigner he actually couldn't multiply a 5 digit number by a 5 digit number, Theodore Von Karman could though and many of the Martians had incredible abilities besides Von Neumann. In qualitative terms I also don't think he ever had an insight as powerful as Einstein did.

He also had a hand in an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics most would probably regard as kooky, Wigner-VN or "consciousness causes collapse", I don't know if he actually believed it though. He certainly believed that Pascal had a point by the end of his life but he was under heavy medication.

He was human like the rest of us in the end.

[Anonymous No.10776293]

>>10776283
I grow suspicious about einstein's achievements in light of some of the more suspicious facts about his conduct academic failings also who he chose to associate with
not saying I know 100% but I'm a little perturbed

[Anonymous No.10776298]

>>10776293
Einstein was the real thing. The /pol/ guys who'll try to convince you otherwise have just swallowed memes. If you look into it you can clearly see he beat Hilbert to the punch. Do a little googling my dude.

[Anonymous No.10776314]

>>10776298
yeah it's that frustrating thing about /pol/ it's hard to pick apart the real revelations from their bullshit
I tried fact checking a couple of their quotes once and met a 30% rate of questionable attribution

[Anonymous No.10776322]

>>10776314
I still think it's sensible to treat nobel prizes and other awards with a tinge of suspicion of politics

[Anonymous No.10776345]

>>10776314
If you think there are any "real revelations" to be found on pol, then you are a massive brainlet. Sorry to tell you

[Anonymous No.10776400]

>>10776345
I have never been on 4chan's pol
other sites I do use, mostly because they aren't filled with edgy teenagers

[Anonymous No.10776413]

Surely Newton deserves a mention?

[Anonymous No.10776503]

>>10776413
>Surely Newton deserves a mention?
Well, pic related is known to make shit up, but he did have this to say about Newton: "Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss, these three, are in a class by themselves among the great mathematicians, and it is not for ordinary mortals to attempt to range them in order of merit."

[Anonymous No.10776596]

>>10776283
this is completely false

Von Neumann had incredible cognitive abilities

", "one had the impression of a perfect instrument whose gears were machined to mesh accurately to a thousandth of an inch"

Wigner said that by the way about von neumann

[Anonymous No.10776602]

>>10776283
you literally have no idea what you are talking about

Hans Bethe: " "I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann's does not indicate a species superior to that of man".

Eugene Wigner , "one had the impression of a perfect instrument whose gears were machined to mesh accurately to a thousandth of an inch." and also said "only he was fully awake"

Paul Halmos " "von Neumann's speed was awe-inspiring"

Israel Halperin ""Keeping up with him was ... impossible. The feeling was you were on a tricycle chasing a racing car."

Edward Teller said "he could never keep up with him"

Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim " "fastest mind I ever met"

Jacob Bronowski ""He was the cleverest man I ever knew, without exception. He was a genius."

George Polya " "Johnny was the only student I was ever afraid of. If in the course of a lecture I stated an unsolved problem, the chances were he'd come to me at the end of the lecture with the complete solution scribbled on a slip of paper."

Jean Diudonne " "may have been the last representative of a once-flourishing and numerous group, the great mathematicians who were equally at home in pure and applied mathematics and who throughout their careers maintained a steady production in both directions"

Peter Lax "most scintillating intellect of this century"

[Anonymous No.10776609]

why are we forgetting about this man people

[Anonymous No.10776621]

>>10776609
most overrated mathematician of all time

he had exceptional ability in a sort of romantic pre-gromov sense

but he never really made big advances in mathematics. Alot of what he did was rediscovering things, albeit in creative ways

the lack of a formal mathematical education meant he had many gaps in his thinking

[Anonymous No.10776627]

the official tier list

[Anonymous No.10776645]

>>10776627
cringe and redditpilled

[Anonymous No.10776665]

>>10776602
>arguing Von neumann is more genius than Einstein by listing praise from other scholars
... We are talking about Einstein here
Don't you think like There's like literally thousands of Praise to Einstein

[Anonymous No.10776668]

Claude Shannon

[Anonymous No.10776669]

>>10776283
>according to Wigner he actually couldn't multiply a 5 digit number by a 5 digit number
(citation needed)

[Anonymous No.10776676]

Where the fuck is Nikola Tesla?

[Anonymous No.10776687]

A sign of autism is needing to order things

[Anonymous No.10776689]

>>10776596
>>10776602
>>10776669
"I have a story against him, if you want to hear it. I once told him that I just read, to my amazement, that somebody could multiply two 5-digit figures in his head. He said, "That's wonderful. I'll try it also. " I gave him two 5-digit figures. He went to the corner, as he always did when he wanted to think hard, looked up, and mumbled. He did that for about five minutes, and then he came back with a product. I said, "Wonderful, congratulations." He said, "Is it correct? " I said, "No, but to get any result is wonderful." It is very difficult, almost impossible, to multiply two 5-digit figures in your head. After all, for what purpose was paper discovered?"
http://archive.li/rh7uG

Whereas we know for a fact that people have attested to Majorana, Von Karman, and Erdos to name a few being able to do multiplications from 3 digit x 3 digit to 5 digit x 5 digit. Majorana in particular was considered by Fermi as being the greatest mind he had personally encountered.

In quantative, measurable terms you can pretty definitely identify the limits of his intellect in at least the dimension of arithmetic. Even Von Neumann's own grandfather by his own admission had greater abilities here (Norman Macrae's biography is the source for that).

And much of the Von Neumann hype can be traced back to Wigner, who himself said: "Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement.", I think actually, he said this in the very same dialogue that contains the "perfect instrument" claims and for some reason people stop reading after that.

Rather than deify the guy, you should have been looking for quantiative ways to compare him to his contemporaries, rather than simply opinions. He was finite, limited, and in the end, massively flawed.

[Anonymous No.10776759]

Mathematics is too collaborative to think of it like a competition between individuals.

Take both von Neumann and Einstein, for instance. The former was advised by David Hilbert, who was at the forefront of early 20th century mathematics, and one of the greatest mathematicians to ever live. Einstein, on the other hand, was a student of one of Hilbert's closest friends, Hermann Minkowski (who would tragically die of appendicitis at age 40, but was also enormously insightful in that time in the areas of number theory and convex geometry, for example), and it was Minkowski who would later help Einstein with the mathematics of special relativity, by formulating what's now called Minkowski Space. Hilbert himself would almost succeed in scooping Einstein in his general theory of relativity, and, like a lot of cutting edge discoveries in science, they both collaborated and made similar independent breakthroughs roughly at the same time. Really it doesn't much matter who came first, and by that time, both of them were already world famous mathematicians or physicists (Einstein won his Nobel not for relativity, but for the photoelectric effect).

By turning math into a competition over penis size, you'd be missing out on a rich, collaborative culture. Real mathematicians aren't threatened by their massive cocks, they are turned on by them: in actual practice, it's more like a circle jerk than a measurement contest.

[Anonymous No.10776846]

>>10776689
>to multiply two 5-digit figures in your head. After all, for what purpose was paper discovered?"
but 5x5 digits is fucking nothing
i remember discussing this article on another thread. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160301/
as you can see on the graph, you barely need 1-2 days of intensive practice

>Rather than deify the guy, you should have been looking for quantiative ways to compare him to his contemporaries, rather than simply opinions. He was finite, limited, and in the end, massively flawed.
my interests are also to do with, if he does have some notable mental abilities at least, whether or not they are attainable for normal people. i think associative memory can be trained, there is some resources suggesting that.

[Anonymous No.10776857]

>>10776846
>but 5x5 digits is fucking nothing
And he couldn't do it. Not helping your case.

>as you can see on the graph, you barely need 1-2 days of intensive practice
Where did I ever deny that these abilities are trainable? But Majorana, Von Karman, and Erdos didn't intensively train in particular. In fact Von Karman was discouraged from doing Maths by his father.

People who deify Von Neumann based on his supposed unlimited mental abilities are being ridiculous, he was a genius but not for that, he was a genius for his set theory, his answer to a Hilbert problem, his work in QM and Nuclear Weapons and so on. But if you want to compare these achievements to Einsteins they come up very short against General Relativity.

[Anonymous No.10776876]

Other mathematicians were stunned by von Neumann's ability to instantaneously perform complex operations in his head.[185] As a six-year-old, he could divide two eight-digit numbers in his head and converse in Ancient Greek.[186] When he was sent at the age of 15 to study advanced calculus under analyst Gábor Szegő, Szegő was so astounded with the boy's talent in mathematics that he was brought to tears on their first meeting.[24]

[Anonymous No.10776882]

>>10776857
he didn't care about doing simple 5x5 multiplicatin because he was literally doing full math problems in his head

Halmos recounts a story told by Nicholas Metropolis, concerning the speed of von Neumann's calculations, when somebody asked von Neumann to solve the famous fly puzzle:[198]

Two bicyclists start 20 miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, southbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, northbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained.

The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles.

When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the geometric series."[18]

[Anonymous No.10776883]

>>10776668
based

[Anonymous No.10776886]

One of his remarkable abilities was his power of absolute recall. As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how A Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes.[200]

[Anonymous No.10776888]

"It seems fair to say that if the influence of a scientist is interpreted broadly enough to include impact on fields beyond science proper, then John von Neumann was probably the most influential mathematician who ever lived," wrote Miklós Rédei in John von Neumann: Selected Letters.[202] James Glimm wrote: "he is regarded as one of the giants of modern mathematics".[203] The mathematician Jean Dieudonné said that von Neumann "may have been the last representative of a once-flourishing and numerous group, the great mathematicians who were equally at home in pure and applied mathematics and who throughout their careers maintained a steady production in both directions",[3] while Peter Lax described him as possessing the "most scintillating intellect of this century".[204] In the foreword of Miklós Rédei's Selected Letters, Peter Lax wrote, "To gain a measure of von Neumann's achievements, consider that had he lived a normal span of years, he would certainly have been a recipient of a Nobel Prize in economics. And if there were Nobel Prizes in computer science and mathematics, he would have been honored by these, too. So the writer of these letters should be thought of as a triple Nobel laureate or, possibly, a 3 12-fold winner, for his work in physics, in particular, quantum mechanics".[205]

[Anonymous No.10776889]

>>10776882
>he didn't care about doing simple 5x5 multiplicatin because he was literally doing full math problems in his head
Others did both. And apparently he did care enough to try it.

"All I did was sum the geometric series" and also according to Halmos Von Neumann had a big of an ego. It's entirely possible that he figured out the trick and claimed otherwise to impress the impressionable.

[Anonymous No.10776894]

>>10776889
Von Neumann probably did not care to be able to solve 5x5 multiplication the same way Grothendieck didn't care that 27 was a prime number...

when you reach an advanced level of math, sometimes these concrete details don't mean much

[Anonymous No.10776899]

>>10776882
It's also funny to me that you're very impressed by his summing of the geometric series, something he could do according to a second-hand account, and yet you deride as trivial something he couldn't do according to a first hand account from one of his oldest and longest friends.

[Anonymous No.10776901]

>>10776899
A persistent misconception of mathematical talent - one that you see on tv shows and films all the time - is that it expresses as the ability to quickly juggle numbers in one's head. It's a bit like judging a present-day writer by how quickly she sharpens her quills.

[Anonymous No.10776904]

>>10776894
Except I can say definitively otherwise because in the story it comes out necessarily that he cared enough to try and according to Norman Macrae he admired his grandfather's calculations and tried to imitate them without success by his own admission.

So we know for a fact that he did care.

[Anonymous No.10776907]

>>10776904
Grothendieck is often considered to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century and he thought 57 was a prime number

[Anonymous No.10776908]

For this little slip, 57 is lovingly called the “Grothendieck Prime”. It serves as a reminder that, despite an unfortunate public misconception, mathematicians are far more concerned with abstract structure than they are with arithmetic and numbers.

[Anonymous No.10776909]

>>10776901
I agree, your deification of VN is based on rumours of his ability to juggle numbers. I can show you definitively he was good, but not outstanding in this regard.

Like I said, the proper measure of a mathematician or physicist, as he did a little of both, is their achievements. I don't think that he ever developed an insight as penetrating or significant as GR, maybe not even SR, I think as a mathematician he didn't develop a result as outstanding as Godel did. In fact Von Neumann was apparently shocked by the incompleteness theorem. I also don't think he was the equal of Hilbert to begin with either.

[Anonymous No.10776916]

>>10776909
oh i agree......there has been a history of human calculators that have done amazing arithmetic feats, but turned out to be mediocre mathematicains


i think Von Neumann's mastery of mathematics comes from what Ulam has said

Stan Ulam, who knew von Neumann well, described his mastery of mathematics this way: "Most mathematicians know one method. For example, Norbert Wiener had mastered Fourier transforms. Some mathematicians have mastered two methods and might really impress someone who knows only one of them. John von Neumann had mastered three methods." He went on to explain that the three methods were:

A facility with the symbolic manipulation of linear operators;
An intuitive feeling for the logical structure of any new mathematical theory;
An intuitive feeling for the combinatorial superstructure of new theories.[116]

[Anonymous No.10776920]

>>10776916
those 3 skills to me are more crucial for a top mathematician then pure arithmetic thinking

I am sorry that i misread what you were saying, i actually agree with what you said

[Anonymous No.10776923]

>>10776909
Von Neumann would tell you himself that Hilbert was the best mathematician of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.10776925]

General Relativity is an amazing feat by Einstein,but hasn't there been some revisionism on the priority question in terms of GR

many say Mileva Maric was equally responsible for the development of GR with Einstein?

[Anonymous No.10776927]

>>10776925
Many are delusional, many more are politically motivated and probable anti-semites.

[Anonymous No.10776933]

>>10776927
didn't Maric play a role, she was a mathematician if i recall

[Anonymous No.10776937]

>>10776627
Yo where the fuck my bro Helmholtz at

[Anonymous No.10776990]

>von neumann

[Anonymous No.10777099]

>>10776759
>his general theory of relativity, and, like a lot of cutting edge discoveries in science, they both collaborated and made similar independent breakthroughs roughly at the same time. Really it doesn't much matter who came first, and by that time, both of them were already world famous mathematicians or physicists (Einstein won his Nobel not for relativity
Hilbert only would of came up with GR because Einstein told him about the field equation problems

the physical interpretation of GR is all EInstein

[Anonymous No.10777164]

>>10777099
Ah, I believe that. Einstein was almost certainly the more original thinker here. Hilbert was a definitely one of the greats among mathematicians, though.

The anti-Semites on /pol/ who try to cast Einstein as a plagiarist can fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10777320]

>>10777164
yeag I followed up on that once, biggest proponent is some guy called christopher jon bjerkness
The bad history page from reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/b5bcur/christopher_jon_bjerknes_4_albert_einstein_the/

[Anonymous No.10777455]

>>10777164
Einstein without Riemann, Lorenz and Poincare wouldn't be what he was. He was a great physicist but certainly too overrated. Also I'm surprised no one has even mentioned Niels Henrik Abel here.

[Anonymous No.10777473]

>>10776933
there is absolutely no substantial evidence she contributed to any of his theories, its almost certainly folklore and politically motivated hearsay

[Anonymous No.10777809]

>>10776857
>And he couldn't do it. Not helping your case.
i wasnt trying to argue that neumann is some ultra-genius anon. i thought what you were pointing out was cool

>>10776916
>feeling for the combinatorial superstructure of new theories
what does this mean? just how you can combine different aspects of the base theory to see new easy results?

[Anonymous No.10778578]

>>10776627
Whoever made this is mentally ill

[Anonymous No.10778586]

>>10776213
This is an unclear question because science is divided into fields.

Saying science as a whole is ludicrous because Einstein was a Genius but his contributions mostly affected physics and maybe a little Influence in some other areas but it's the fact he specialized in physics.
Who was the greatest scientist of (some field)? That's what should've been asked

[Anonymous No.10778675]

>>10776759
>Mathematics is too collaborative

Newton did a lot of shit on his own.

[Anonymous No.10779349]

>>10778675
Oh sure, and in our time Yitang Zhang is another (lesser) example of someone working in isolation on a single problem.

That said, Newton was _heavily_ inspired by the works of Fermat, Descartes, and Galileo (IIRC). You know, "standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that.

That said, I think that mathematics moves somewhat faster these days, and it'd be harder to do what Newton did over the time he took to do it, without being scooped. Even people like Wiles and Perelman are part of the larger mathematical community.

[Anonymous No.10779438]

Isaac Newton gained his theories and insight by studying under the Dogon tribe in West Africa during his early years

people forget to mention that

[Anonymous No.10779509]

>>10779438
>people forget to mention that
Because it never happened, like the rest of your schitzo delusions.

[Anonymous No.10779551]

>>10776689
>It is very difficult, almost impossible, to multiply two 5-digit figures in your head.
10000*10000=100000000
Easy

[Anonymous No.10779590]

>>10776857
>e was a genius but not for that, he was a genius for his set theory (etc....)
Fucking this, what is astounding about neumann is the shear volume of work he put out in myriad different disciplines all to the same incredibly high standard. None of his contemporaries can boast the same. I think this more than anything speaks to the constant references to his speed by fellow scholars.

[Anonymous No.10779707]

As sicence is by definition a demoracy of what is observed by multiple people Shoppenhauer is the only one who truly understood what the world is and its uselessness in my opinion.
iIs not an easy ot happy postition to take but its nontheless the most truthfull and coradius position to take in regards of livings in this world

[Anonymous No.10779718]

heard a theory by that edward dutton youtuber that premature birth might be over represented among geiuses he mentioned that newton and einstein were both born prematurely amongst others
He thought it might be related to compensatory development of the brain after the standard pathways were damaged

[Anonymous No.10779976]

>>10776627
>Bach
>Mozart
>Shakespeare
>Goethe
Fuck off liberal arts nigger

[Anonymous No.10781085]

>>10779976
you'll grow up someday champ

gonna have to second claude shannon

[Anonymous No.10781399]

me

/thread

[Anonymous No.10781412]

>>10776283
>He also had a hand in an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics most would probably regard as kooky, Wigner-VN or "consciousness causes collapse",

Only one that can describe superposition without contradiction.
Other interpretations have a problem:

A particle is in superpostion.
Anothe particle observes it.
Howver, the wavefunction will not collapse until the observing particle is also observed, the superpositon remains if the information in the oberving particle is derstroyed.

The problem is, then, what is the final observer that causes the collapse?

[Anonymous No.10781593]

>>10781085
>discover aspects about the nature of the universe
>put long words on a page that English majors pretend to like
B-BUT THEY'RE BOTH GENIUSES

[Anonymous No.10782163]

>>10776627
Joyce should definitely be there, maybe Pynchon too

[Anonymous No.10782209]

>>10781593
Your IQ is no higher than 120
Get off this board

[Anonymous No.10782223]

>>10776213
It's hard to pick a GOAT. The mathematicians that have had the greatest personal impact on me are probably Paul Halmos, David Hilbert, and Michael Atiyah. I also really like Erdos, Frank Ramsey, and Terry Tao, but mostly because a lot of the shit they've worked on relates to what I'm interested in, whereas with Halmos, Hilbert, and Atiyah it's the way they view math sociological and expository sense that interests me. Chomsky and Hilary Putnam are also pretty based.

[Anonymous No.10782240]

>>10776298
(((Einstein)))

[Anonymous No.10782247]

J Maxwell.

[Anonymous No.10782261]

>>10776676
Tesla said Einstein was wrong. Einstein took longer to admit it

[Anonymous No.10782279]

>>10779551
holy crap

[Anonymous No.10782290]

>>10776676
Nikola tesla wasn't all that great. He invented one type of current and one motor, basically.

His idea of "wireless transmitted power" was based on wrong theories on energy propagation. He refused to accept Maxwell's equations because of arrogance, and instead insisted on flawed theories.

He was a great engineer, but too overhyped.

[Anonymous No.10782302]

>>10782290
People call Tesla either a retard or an underappreciated genius. He's neither, he's an example of how someone with immense natural talent (His grades in Uni before he became a gambler were astronomical) can end up becoming a crank in a vacuum. If he were educated as a conventional physics student he probably would have been better placed to speak on these matters. But then again he probably wouldn't have been the great engineer he was either.

[Anonymous No.10782307]

>>10782302
agreed

[Anonymous No.10782316]

people overrate white boys so much here

Newton stole his theories from ancient egypt

https://africanbloodsiblings.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/the-allegory-of-isaac-newton/

[Anonymous No.10782320]

What I want to inform you of is this. Once in Undergraduate Cosmology, my “liberal” Professor stood before us mocking the Ancient Kemetians, my ancestors, for believing that a woman was the sky and a man was the earth. Clearly this Occidental was in over her head.

But this brainwashing, at this intellectual level was convincing. For any student of Physics knows of the pivotal role that “Sir” Isaac Newton plays, and we emulate his “genius” believing that from a fallen apple he deduces “gravity” thus deriving the basis of most all of our knowledge of the physical universe.

[Anonymous No.10782323]

Amazing, no?

Classic Occidental Revisionism.

I’ll repeat my African Blood Siblings–“How do you know if a White man is lying?”

“If his mouth is moving.”

Woe to this world that Newton himself wrote:

the Egyptians concealed mysteries that were above the capacity of the herd’, such as ‘the knowledge that the earth orbited the sun and not vice-versa’…

[Anonymous No.10782330]

Woe further that he wrote:

It was the most ancient opinion that the planets revolved about the sun, that the earth, as one of the planets, described an annual course about the sun, while by diurnal motion it turned on its axis, and that the sun remained at rest

[Anonymous No.10782334]

And imagine that Kepler, another pivotal person in Astrophysics, admits, for his planetary laws, that he was:

stealing the golden vessels of the Egyptians

I can not suffer to write much further on this topic. I sat during my Undergraduate education, pondering why there was no African presence in the entire science, hoping to personally become that difference, but lo and behold, when you think that you can hide from the Occidental’s evil by pursuing a splendid ‘scientific’ career, you are shown your ignorance.

You can’t hide from evil in Europe’s America. Africans–you must do for your self!

HOTEP!

[Anonymous No.10782375]

>>10782334
3/10

[Anonymous No.10782447]

I'm a Maxwell guy myself.

[Anonymous No.10782569]

>Who's the greatest scientist of all times?
(You) the greatest scientist of all times!

[Anonymous No.10782602]

>>10781593
>belittling Claude Shannon's genius
>doing so on a digital computer

[Anonymous No.10782646]

>>10782375
how is it 3/10 those are literally newton's quotes

[Anonymous No.10782754]

>>10776676
>t. popsci reader who doesn't realize Tesla is irrelevant to the world of science

He was an Engineer anon. I'm sure he was real smart, but he doesn't get very far, so to speak, in comparison to someone like David Hilbert or Gottfried Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.10782792]

I'm surprised that only a few people have mentioned someone more recent. Remarkable people from recent times might include John Horton Conway and his spectacularly talented student, Simon Norton. Simon's results at the IMO were incredible and he did work on the Monster group and Monstrous Moonshine.

[Anonymous No.10782826]

>>10776213
I have to throw Roger Bacon into the mix. The man redefined the scientific method, which is the basis of all scientific research today. Yes, many men boast greater and grander achievements than him, but everything they did, they did with his method or a derivative thereof.

[Anonymous No.10782832]

>>10782602
Read the reply thread retard

[Anonymous No.10782842]

>>10782832
Oh man. I actually mistook this
>put long words on a page that English majors pretend to like
to be a reference to Shannon's examples of English language words of varying length in his Mathematical Theory of Communication paper. Didn't know you were talking about Joyce, kek

[Anonymous No.10782859]

>>10779590
Yeah, he is like those Euler types who do a myriad of tiny farts over this and that. All the while some other people, ones like Fourier or Godel, do actual breakthrougts spearheading singular topics.