/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6947925]

Von Neumann published a groundbreaking definition of ordinals (transitive sets well-ordered by inclusion) when he was 19.

He also loved driving but drove really bad and recklessly. He would frequently read while driving.

Why haven't they made a movie about this guy yet?

[Anonymous No.6947942]

He's far, doesn't fall within the bounds of Hollywood good looks and most people are unable to write about mathematicians. It's difficult to find the right actors to convey the odd and complicated neuroses of mathematicians, physicists, etc.

Russell Crowe is one of the few actors capable of thoroughly ingesting the complicated nature of a mathematician and properly channeling it through the art form of acting. Cumberbatch is supposedly really good as Turing (haven't had the chance to see the movie), but my point still stands that they are generally difficult individuals to emulate.

Also, like I said: His physical appearance is not well suited for a Hollywood movie. Eliminating that facet from him by hiring a thin actor to play him would essentially liquidate a vital part of the character. His intense mathematical ferocity and creativity was equally matched by his large physical structure. He commanded a presence and ushered respect. The man was a phenom. His fucking teacher bawled upon realizing his genius.

[Anonymous No.6947945]

>>6947942
Excuse me, not far; meant to say fat. Sorry for the typographic error. Hopefully, the correct word was inferred from the context.

[THE GOD MACHINE No.6947959]

>>6947925
>He also loved driving but drove really bad and recklessly. He would frequently read while driving
literally me

[Anonymous No.6947960]

We don't need any more mystical genius cult worshipping pop math. This shit distracts from math enough as it is, not to mention breeding insecurity and self-loathing among millions of talented young people.

[Anonymous No.6947966]

There is no point sharing legendary mathematicians with the masses, they won't understand them anyway.

>>6947942
Cumbunch was shit as Turing.

[Anonymous No.6948128]

I find your point of him developing ordinal analysis and not to forget his contributions to functional analysis, a very fruitful setup for making a classic Hollywood blockbuster

[Anonymous No.6948470]

They made shit movies on:

Feynman
Turing
Nash

Not sure why they couldn't make a shit movie on Von Nuemann

[Anonymous No.6948575]

>>6947966
100% This

[Anonymous No.6948618]

>>6948128
a classic Hollywood blockbuster about analysis

[Anonymous No.6948659]

>>6947925
His eyes always creeps me out.

captcha: discovered uchregai

[Anonymous No.6949189]

>>6947942
I would've said get Bob Hoskins to play him, but RIP in peace.

[Anonymous No.6949249]

>>6947966
>I knew Turing personally and he was nothing like this
skeleton detected

[Anonymous No.6949730]

>>6949249
ayyy lmao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_supercentenarians

[Anonymous No.6949739]

>>6947925
>Why haven't they made a movie about this guy yet?
because he was a racist.

[Anonymous No.6950327]

>>6949739
>imminently problematic by all modern legal standards
/thread

[Anonymous No.6950338]

>>6949739
I doubt he was a violent racist psychopath he probably just wanted to stick to his own. In liberal fairly lala land is that a crime?

[Anonymous No.6950351]

>>6950338
yes, all historical artifacts and ideas must be judged using present standards.

[Anonymous No.6950651]

>>6949739
>>6950338

Captcha: walk

[Anonymous No.6950664]

>>6950651
When/Where

[Anonymous No.6950696]

>>6948618
>what is sarcasm

[Anonymous No.6950845]

~99% Ready

[Anonymous No.6950886]

>>6947925
>Why haven't they made a movie about this guy yet?
I'd go see it. He's much more interesting than that geek Hawking.