What did this fraud accomplish?

[Anonymous No.11419089]

[Anonymous No.11419137]

He made some random seething student/ unemployed mathematician post a thread on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.11419154]

>>11419089
btfo trump in a manifesto

[Anonymous No.11419356]

>>11419154
You mean he embarrassed himself?

[Anonymous No.11419359]

>>11419137
You're projecting.

[Anonymous No.11419360]

OP stop posting these threads everyday it's fuckin sad man.

[Anonymous No.11419370]

>>11419360
You certainly proved me wrong here.

[Anonymous No.11419388]

>>11419089
Nothing. He hijacks others' research, and that's all he has to his name.

You should watch the videos where he's talking about how he's going to solve that fluid millennium problem. He sounds like a schizo.

[Anonymous No.11419420]

>>11419089
He looks smart.
Probably WAY smarter than op

[Anonymous No.11419504]

more than what you have done, at least so far

[Anonymous No.11419520]

>>11419420
this. OP is just a dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.11419588]

>>11419089
Solving Erdős discrepancy problem

[Anonymous No.11419680]

>>11419588
So is that what he is known for?

[Anonymous No.11419688]

>>11419680
No, but it makes him credible, unlike a faggot like Christopher Langan

[Anonymous No.11419689]

He went on Stephen Colbert (LOL) and said that
[math]\lim \inf_{n \to \infty}( p_{n+1} - p_n ) \leq 6[/math]
Too bad they deleted all the videos on youtube of this embarrassing interview (what was he even thinking going on Colbert?) and you can only find it, afaik, on archive.

[Anonymous No.11419691]

>>11419689
http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/kw3fj0/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-welcome-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/6wtwlg

[Anonymous No.11419720]

>>11419089
In mathematics? No idea. I do know he somehow accomplished making you very upset.

[Anonymous No.11420105]

>>11419720
>I do know he somehow accomplished making you very upset.
Let's give him another Fields medal.

[Anonymous No.11420124]

>>11419089
Green-Tao and proof of the Collatz almost everywhere? Exactly why is he a fraud?

[Anonymous No.11420166]

>>11420124
There's a reason it's not called tao-green. He's just good at stealing credit for other people's work and doing nothing at all, like all chinks.

[Anonymous No.11420175]

>>11420166
>there's a reason why it's not called tao-green
unless you have actual evidence for the contribution on this one theorem was more green than tao, this is pedantic.
>"hurr durr, why isn't it Fulkerson-Ford instead of Ford-Fulkerson?"

[Anonymous No.11420270]

>>11419588
Nah, Erdos gave him the solution when he was tutoring him so he could kickstart his career.

[Anonymous No.11420291]

>>11419089
Why so angry?

[Anonymous No.11420315]

op's just mad tao, along with most of the highly educated/talented academic and professional community thinks trump is a stupid dumb-dumb
(1)

[Anonymous No.11420316]

>>11420315
(2)

Most high IQ people voted for Hillary. Only rural and suburban retards voted for dumpf

[Anonymous No.11420320]

>>11419089
OP how troubling is it four you to know your penis won't grow bigger than a noodle?

[Anonymous No.11420359]

>>11420124
>Collatz a.e.
Literally no one gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.11420393]

Tao vs Mochizuki

who would win

[Anonymous No.11420395]

>>11419089
He wrote unreadable textbooks

[Anonymous No.11420414]

>>11419089
more than you.

[Anonymous No.11420644]

is OP Indian or something?

[Anonymous No.11420940]

>>11420315
>>11420316

[Anonymous No.11421812]

>>11420940
Do you have that stratified by race?

[Anonymous No.11422058]

>>11420393
On who's the most fraud?

[Anonymous No.11422071]

>>11421812
What are you implying you racist bigot? Race is a social construct!

[Anonymous No.11422106]

>>11422071
A social construct yes, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

[Anonymous No.11422109]

>>11422106
Reported to bernie AND yang. say goodbye to your UBI, bigot!

[Anonymous No.11422120]

>>11422109
lmao, bring a statistic on smart white people and voting next time.

[Anonymous No.11422134]

>>11420940
OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.11422136]

>>11420316
It has nothing to do with IQ, democrats just happen to offer better resources to academics. If republicans keep all of their core except they started giving more money to colleges, all academics would vote for them.

[Anonymous No.11422165]

>>11422134
That's just a made up excuse because he didn't want to admit republicans are no longer merely bible-thumpers. No experiments were made to support this hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11422184]

>>11422165
No, it's literally just verbal IQ, and nothing changed. The headline "smart people no longer identify as Democrats" is not from the author of the paper, it's some /pol/tards "free interpretation" of it.

[Anonymous No.11422189]

>>11422184
Except the part where republicans are now smarter than democrats is actually verified and actually has supporting evidence.
Grasping hard I see.

[Anonymous No.11422199]

>>11422189
If there was supporting evidence, you'd have posted it by now, instead of posting a fake news graph with 2 bars where one bar is 3 times as big as the other, but the difference between the bars is only ~5%

[Anonymous No.11422206]

>>11422199
The supporting evidence was posted by yourself. I know you're clinically retarded (that's what being a libtard does to you) but you could at least, you know, TRY or something. I know it's really hard for people in your condition but come on.

[Anonymous No.11422300]

>>11419154
This was so cringe.

[Anonymous No.11422325]

>>11419154
>I anticipate there will be any number of “tu quoque” responses, asserting for instance that Hillary Clinton is also unfit to be the US president. I personally do not believe that to be the case (and certainly not to the extent that Trump exhibits), but in any event such an assertion has no logical bearing on the qualification of Trump for the presidency. As such, any comments that are purely of this “tu quoque” nature, and which do not directly address the validity or epistemological status of Proposition 1, will be deleted as off-topic.

[Anonymous No.11422352]

>>11422325
Why are mathematicians so cringey?

[Anonymous No.11422360]

>>11420316
Don't forget

[Anonymous No.11422367]

>>11422134
where were you going with this post?

[Anonymous No.11422465]

>>11420124
>proof of the Collatz almost everywhere
He doesn't prove that the orbits reach 1 almost everywhere, read the paper. The result is much weaker than that, and basically useless

[Anonymous No.11422498]

>>11420166

It is convention that in multi-authored math papers authors are are listed alphabetically.

[Anonymous No.11422555]

>>11420316
/pol/ copypasta and everyone falls for it

[Anonymous No.11422625]

>>11422498
Yes, but people traditionally refer to results coming from many people based on the relative importance of the contribution from each author, irrespective of the paper's author listing.

[Anonymous No.11423221]

>>11419089
>What did this fraud accomplish?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao

I dunno OP. Let's see your wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.11423252]

>>11423221
>known for
>bunch of shit he has never even touched but wants to
Wikipedia is a meme.

[Anonymous No.11423291]

>>11419089
Being a child prodigy.

People assume developing early means you'll be groundbreaking; it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11423343]

>>11423252
Wikipedia truly is a meme.

>Scientific racism is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

>Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, with political scientists and historians widely describing the phenomenon as unprecedented in modern American politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump

>Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Whatever fad academia says is true is "scientific", all else is bad and reprehensible even if it's true. Wikipedia is written by redditors and herd following people of this kind

[Anonymous No.11423382]

>>11423291
This. Just how many child prodigies have been propped up in the past 2 decades alone, and where are they now?

[Anonymous No.11424258]

>>11423382
Barnett published you idiot.

[Anonymous No.11424268]

>>11419360
Inb4 Tao is OP

[Anonymous No.11425153]

>>11423343
>>Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, with political scientists and historians widely describing the phenomenon as unprecedented in modern American politics.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump

Enough to dismiss anything you say as retarded.

You can like Trump all you want, but if you don't acknowledge that he legitemately spouts bullshit on the regular, you are beyond anything even resembling rational thought.

[Anonymous No.11425204]

>>11425153
I am aware that he talks bullshit all the time, but that wikipedia page is written in a way that seems to assume that the reader is left-leaning. The article basically invalidates Trump's election on the grounds that "political scientists and historians" consider orange man bad

[Anonymous No.11425227]

>>11425204

so you admit that the article is factually true, you are just unhappy that the facts are not very flattering for your political stance

got it

[Anonymous No.11425250]

How come people don't understand that Trump is playing a character?

Honestly you're worse than people who think wrestling is real.

[Anonymous No.11425252]

>>11425227
You can say something bad about every single politician in the first paragraphs about their corresponding wikipedia pages. But only Trump gets it, because his political stance is not very flattering to the midwit marxist ideologues that dominate academia

[Anonymous No.11425340]

>>11425252
>You can say something bad about every single politician in the first paragraphs about their corresponding wikipedia pages.

Something bad? If it is probably the most defining thing of a presidency it is well worth mentioning in the first paragraph.

Also: you might wanna stop this "everything is basically the same" bullshit.
Pic related. There are definitely different levels to being incompetent.

[Anonymous No.11425403]

>>11425340
It's all in the lens you use to look at things. Obama caused political chaos in the middle east and allowed ISIS to gain momentum and end up killing countless people. But no one cares about any of that because he is half black and smiles.

[Anonymous No.11425562]

>>11422325

[Anonymous No.11425625]

>>11422199
>where one bar is 3 times as big as the other, but the difference between the bars is only ~5%
I'm a libtard commie but this is a bad argument. IQ is a degree scale, not an absolute, so only relative comparisons matter. 102 and 97 IQ are not 5% different any more than 1 degree celsius and 2 degrees celsius are 100% apart. We could easily set the median IQ at 0 and then this argument couldn't be made.

[Anonymous No.11425632]

>>11423343
>>Scientific racism is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority
That's true, though. Justifying racial discrimination or inferiority relies on normative claims. Normative claims are inherently non-scientific.

[Anonymous No.11425644]

>>11425632
Sure, but that doesn't make it "pseudoscience" to acknowledge that different races have different characteristics, for instance different IQ distributions

[Anonymous No.11425646]

>>11425403
He does have a nice smile though

[Anonymous No.11425654]

>>11425644
Sure. It's also not pseudoscience to claim that you believe lower IQ is a sign of inferiority or that it justifies racial discrimination. It becomes pseudoscience if you claim that those value judgments are scientifically supported.

[Anonymous No.11425692]

>>11425403
>Obama caused political chaos in the middle east and allowed ISIS to gain momentum and end up killing countless people.

Did he though? Or was it a joint decision made by multiple people most of which were probably military officials?

That's the thing with politics nowadays, you can't really blame a single person for something because most of the time they aren't even powerful enough to do what they want (and that includes the US president).

I don't really blame Trump for anything he did as a political action because I don't really know if he was even free to do something else.

But I certainly blame him for being embarrassing and talking nonsense half of the time - because that's on him personally.

[Anonymous No.11425778]

>>11424258
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.11425788]

>>11425654
Yes and no. It depends on the context of the claim: it wouldn't be pseudoscience to explain through peer-reviewed literature that humans are naturally inclined toward in-group preferences associated with, say, positive indicators of modern success most associated with the group they identify as, should sources for these claims exist. This would qualify as scientific support for these value judgements ("it's genetics", for instance, or "it is highly correlated with success").

[Anonymous No.11425812]

>>11425788
It's impossible to publish anything associating bad characteristics to certain races. "Peer review" is only a gatekeeping mechanism when it comes to sensitive subjects like this.

Also you are fucking bluepilled if you think peer review is what separates legitimate research from pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11425825]

>>11425812
>strawman
>also man of straw
Wow!
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11425842]

>>11425825
How about you go back to r*ddit

[Anonymous No.11425881]

>>11425788
That just shifts the value judgment from "It's good to discriminate against low IQ races" to "Natural in-group preferences ought to be considered correct."

[Anonymous No.11425896]

>>11425881
The point wasn't to argue that value judgement X is scientifically correct, but that there can be scientifically validated value judgements.

[Anonymous No.11426319]

>>11420316
Where's the IQ of Trump vs. Hillary voters on that chart?

[Anonymous No.11426328]

>>11425825

[Anonymous No.11426610]

>>11423343
(((fact checkers)))

[Anonymous No.11426659]

he has done literally nothing of value. seriously i dare you shills to tell me something he has done that doesn't boil down to:
>doing some arbitrary type of math 5 years early than average
>touching up other people's solutions
>making marginal progress towards the solution of a problem when the actual proof is decades away and might not use any of his accomplishments

[Anonymous No.11427114]

>>11419089

>posting the same thread everyday
>samefagging and talking to himself about Tao

lol seething academic failure Trump supporter BTFO'd here >>/sci/thread/11384471 is still at it I see.

[Anonymous No.11427766]

>>11427114
Get a grip schizo.

[Anonymous No.11429610]

>>11419356
Hilary and the Dems are cucks, but so is Trump and all of his MIGApede followers.

[Anonymous No.11429614]

>>11419356
Hilary and the Dems are cucks, but so is Trump and all of his MIGApede followers.

>>11420316
You're a partisan faggot, a loser, and probably a pedophile tranny. Partisan politics is for retards, regardless of whether you're on the left or the right.