[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 89 KB, 481x600, Maxwell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4432907 No.4432907 [Reply] [Original]

Maxwell > Einstein > Faraday > Newton

deal with it faggots

>> No.4432917

>>4432907
Lol, nope. Maxwell tried to disprove relativity.

>> No.4432929

>>4432917
Jacob Barnett succeeded.

Jacob Barnett wins at everything and made physics into a flaccid pencil of a science.

>> No.4432931

hahaha OP, you must be a Scot

>> No.4432941

Can we compare the intelligence of a Chess master to a Scientist?

And say;

Kasparov > Einstein
Fischer > Newton

etc?

>> No.4432945
File: 5 KB, 126x126, 1303181073229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4432945

>>4432941
>chess
>rigid study of natural phenomena

negatory

>> No.4432949

>>4432945

>>rigid study of natural phenomena

seems easier than chess lol

>> No.4432960

>>4432941
1/10

Chess is for aspie robots, which is why computers are, in fact, better at it.

>> No.4433015
File: 10 KB, 220x286, Erwin_Schrödinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4433015

except this guy is miles ahead of maxwell.

>> No.4433027

>>4432960

and computers are better at many areas of math than humans, what's your point

>> No.4433035

These guys are losers, The Greeks had discovered magnetite far before any of these people were born

>> No.4433038

>>4432907

> Euler>Jon Von Neumann>Godel>Ramanuaj>Emmy Noether>John Nash>All

>> No.4433044

>>4433027
No. Computation <span class="math">\neq[/spoiler] math

>> No.4433046

>>4432907

Einstein > Planck > Boltzmann > Maxwell = Mach

>> No.4433050

>>4433046
>Planck
Stop. Planck was overrated as fuck.

>> No.4433052

Michelson > Morley

Deal with it faggots.

>> No.4433054

>>4433027
>implying computers can intuitively derive mathematics

>> No.4433057

Two Nobel prizes > one Nobel Prize
Therefore, Marie Curie > Albert Einstein

>inb4 chauvinist pigs try to disagree

>> No.4433095

>>4433027
>>4433044

computation is math lol

math isn't just making proofs...

4x4= 16 is math

Denial sucks

>> No.4433099

>>4433095
Computation is a tool of math. What you're saying is equivalent to saying hammers are construction.

>> No.4433100

>>4433054

>poor reading comprehension

said some areas of math, i.e computation, graphing, calculus, algebra, etc...

they can solve 1000 equations with 1000 unknowns in a split second, good luck catching up

>inb4 defining math to only the branches that humans can do better

>> No.4433110

>>4433100
Stepping through a known algorithm is not math. I can follow the directions on the back of a box of mac and cheese in order to (poorly) make myself dinner, that doesn't make me a chef.

>> No.4433115

>>4433057

>Emmy Noether and Hypatia = God Tier Female Scientists

>> No.4433120

>>4433099

counting, calculation, algebra, measurement, computation, pattern recognition, geometry, are all subfields of Mathematics.

Mathematics is a large subject, formal proof writing is one subsection of it. Computation is another aspect.

Your analogy is flawed.

Building a house is one aspect of Construction, building a bridge is another. You are denying the subsections of mathematics that computers trump humans.

>> No.4433126

>>4433110

it is math, it might not be impressive or challenging, but it is a very important part of math.

if you can't apply formulas and properties in the right situation you won't get very far in math.

your chef analogy is flawed.
Just because something is trivial doesn't mean it isn't important and part of the greater picture.

>> No.4433132

"I know about these historical figures and am going to rank them by what I find is more beneficial to science."

At what point in that thought did you decide to post this garbage?

>> No.4433136

x^2 = 4
x = sqrt(4)
x = 2

this is math, yes it's easy, yes computers are better than humans at some areas of math

deal with it.

>> No.4433137

>>4433120
>>4433126

Computers perform computations, they don't create computational theory. Humans tell computers what to compute; humans are performing the math, not the computers.

Performing computations is not mathematics; studying computational theory in order to make computers perform computations faster is mathematics.

>> No.4433148

>>4433038

NO, NO, NO!

Gauss>Euler>Riemann>Lagrange>Newton>Laplace>Von Neumann>Hilbert>Ramanujan>all

>> No.4433149
File: 110 KB, 440x500, 1324526635040.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4433149

ITT: People that don't know what math is. Stay classy, /sci/.

>> No.4433153

>>4433136
Your math is wrong, btw. So fucking dumb you can't even do trivial shit, let alone talk about what math actually is.

>> No.4433154

>>4433137

>Performing computations is not mathematics

But this is false. Computation is a form of mathematics.
Just because humans suck at it doesn't mean it isn't math.

There's applied math and theoretical math.
computers can do statistical analysis and computation and pattern recognition very well, all of these are subsections of applied math.

math isn't just theoretical.

>> No.4433157

>>4433153

+/- 2

that isn't the point,
its just a trivial example lol

anything computational is math, 1+1 = 2 is math

>> No.4433163

the only proper argument vs computers doing math is that they aren't actually aware of anything they do, they are just following laws of physics

its like saying: A river solves the Navier-Stokes equation each time it flows....

well it obeys it but doesn't do it or solve it...
computation is a part of math, but only when a human does it

a computer doing computation is just an object following laws of physics

computation itself depends on the observer

>> No.4433170

the fact that not a single person in this thread has mentioned cauchy proves to me that this board is full of 13 year old "prodigies" that will soon discover they know absolutely nothing about math

>> No.4433187

>>4433154
Funny that you mention applied math, because that is what I do. I'm a grad student working in computational math, and no one will argue that computers do math. Really all you've done is show your hand and prove that you really don't know anything; humans are FAR superior to computers at pattern recognition, and the fact that you would even mention that displays your total lack of understanding of what computers actually do.

Computation is extremely important in mathematics, but devising computations and performing computations are not the same thing.

>> No.4433188

>>4433170

The fact that you mentioned another mathematician to put on a pedestal for no other reason to put him on a pedestal demonstrates that you're probably aren't going to matter in long run with math or any of the hard sciences.

...but hey, at least you contributed and showed those 13 years olds what's-what.

>> No.4433217

>>4433188
the reason I did is because the discoveries of cauchy stomped the majority of the people mentioned here. he isnt even some obscure scientist either, tons of mathematical theorems are named after him

>> No.4433222

>>4433149

>I got the joke
>foreveralone.jpg

>> No.4433228

>>4433057
>>4433057
Curie may have been important, but not because of the Nobel prizes.

>> No.4433250

>>4433187

Nothing you said matters and that you're a grad student is even sadder.

If a human thinks and does 1+1 = 2, that is math.
If a computer does it, it isn't.

Nothing a computer does is math, even if it uniquely proved new theorems, it wouldn't be math.
Refer to: >>4433163


Computation is math, as long as a human does it, understands it and is aware of it.

>> No.4433255
File: 27 KB, 272x389, J313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4433255

By IQ (Great scientists only)
Newton > Barnett > Hawking > Einstein > Faraday ... Darwin > Maxwell

>> No.4433257

>>4433250

This could also be applied to chess. A computer doesn't know its playing chess, it doesn't understand anything because it isn't aware of anything. It's just obeying laws of physics.

If a river happened to hit your chess board 20 times, making check mate, we wouldn't say the river knows chess or is doing chess....It isn't doing chess at all, it's just following the cause-and-effect and the laws of nature.

A computer does the same thing, except with a very high probability of winning every time, while a river has basically probability 0.00000000000000000000000001

>> No.4433266

>>4433257
You cannot make these claims for sure, unless you can conclusively demonstrate that our brains are not just more complex computers.

and you cannot use consciousness to aid you because we do not know what constitutes consciousness.

>> No.4433282

>>4433266
Fucking right on, brother.

>> No.4433308

>>4433266

doesn't matter how or what constitutes consciousness, we have it, machines and rivers dont

end of story

>> No.4433315

>>4433257
That analogy is terrible. The computer has been programmed in such a way that it will only make legal chess moves.

>> No.4433320

>>4433266

brains are more complex than computers and rivers

complexity is irrelevant.
brains facilitate awareness and intention.

Computers can't "do chess" because they dunno wtf is going on, everything they do is unintentional and accidental.

Computers can't do math for the same reason.

>> No.4433324

>>4433308

No, I have it. You don't. You're just programmed to try to end the argument with an unsubstantiated claim when someone points it out.

>> No.4433333

>>4433315

>The computer has been programmed in such a way that it will only make legal chess moves.

that still doesn't mean the computer intends to do chess anymore than it intends to fire electrons in a certain pattern based on an algorithm...

it doesn't intend to do anything, and is not aware of anything it does...it isn't playing chess at all, it is just firing electrons

chess happens at the conscious level and only humans understand it

the fact that a computer was programmed means nothing

>> No.4433338

>>4433320

Neither do humans. Many people who've passed the limits part of the usual calculus curriculum will still argue that 0.9999999... != 1.

>> No.4433343

>>4433320
>>4433338

if a human does 1+1 = 2 and is aware of whats going on, he is doing math

if a computer does the most complex calculation imaginable and proves the hardest theorem ever, it still isn't doing any math, its just firing electrons in a pre-determined pattern and isn't aware of any higher level output it created

humans are aware of the higher level outputs they make, what they mean, and imply...even if on some basic level their physiology is just running a subconscious computation

>> No.4433438

>>4433343
Oh you know that computers don't have consciousness but humans do do you?

Can you prove that any human has consciousness? You only ASSUME that other human beings have it because you think you have it and say "well I don't see why they wouldn't be like me"

The point being that we have NO WAY WHATSOEVER to measure consciousness. You are just assuming that we have it and that other things don't. But you don't know what constitutes it, so you cannot rule out the possibility that a pebble on the floor is conscious.

>> No.4433446

>>4433343
As long as you think that a human's behavior is reducible to fundamental physics, and thus a human mind is a computer.

>> No.4433457

>>4433438

Not this stupid fucking argument again.

>> No.4433479

>>4433457
If you think it's stupid it is because you misunderstand.

The problem is that you are arguing the side that you think is correct. I am not arguing about what I think is correct at all!
In fact, if I were I probably would be inclined to agree with you.
But what I am arguing for is what we can KNOW.

What I think is right and what you think is right is not the point.. the point is that you DO NOT FUCKING KNOW so stop acting like you do.

One very probably explanation for consciousness is that it is an emergent property of complex systems.
Under this idea then all things have some degree of consciousness. For things like computers and rocks it is negligible but it would still be there.

Can you prove that idea wrong? I didn't think so.
There are other possibilities as well, and there are ones that support what you say..
But I'll say it again..
we don't KNOW!!

>> No.4433484

>>4433479

> The problem is that you are arguing the side that you think is correct. I am not arguing about what I think is correct at all!

That's why it's fucking stupid.

You're saying NOTHING.

>> No.4433490

>>4433484
Another anon here. It is quite right sometimes to call someone out on their bullshit.

If you claimed to have a grand unified theory without a basis in evidence, then we would call you out on your shit. You cannot pull shit out of your ass and expect to not get called on it.

>> No.4433504

>>4433490

> that a pebble on the floor is conscious.
Well, that's all I needed to read before I called his argument retarded.

>> No.4433510

>>4433479
Another anon here

Why don't you just reword your side so it is expressed more clearly. It should require nothing more than common sense to have the intuition needed to word your side of the argument in a way your audience can actually understand.

Otherwise you are just full of jibberish to other people, even if it would make sense if otherwise explained

Just get to the point and leave out the BS and loose ended ideas

>> No.4433518

>>4433510
I was just trolling :P

>> No.4433535

This is fucking hilarious.

None of these scientists would waste their time like this.

You all fail.

>> No.4433549

>>4433510
The point is simple, it should be obvious from what I wrote.. but people like him:
>>4433504
never understand it.
I always love to screw with them, even if I agree with their ideas, because they just go around saying X and Y are true.


He claims to know for certain beyond any possible doubt that it is absolutely impossible for consciousness to exist in any other form than he thinks it does.

My claim is that he is wrong to say that. Not that what he is saying is wrong, because we simply don't know

>> No.4434657

>implying axons aren't "just firing" electrons and neuroreceptors all the fucking time; and in fact, less precisely and with a greater margin of error than a computer
>implying consciousness is real at all, and all our actions aren't determinant on our neural "programming"- just like a fucking computer but with more abstraction

>> No.4434665

>plebs ranking geniuses

isn't that just pathetic

>> No.4434672

>>4433046
Planck didn't even believe in quantum mechanics and spent the most of his life trying to disprove it.

Planck is shit tier.