[ 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: 186 KB, 500x473, sup nibba.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9642157 No.9642157 [Reply] [Original]

>all the math greats did their best work in their early 20s and most burned out by 30
>"your brain isn't developed until you're 25"


just what the fuck did they originally mean by this

>> No.9642163

Children have the best brain for mathematics.
Their only limitation is a short experience, so they peak when their brains are still child-like but have had time to go through all the material.

>> No.9642172

>>9642163
What I've gathered from this is that my suspicion (that the establishment meme-system has decided to promote what are essentially partial or total lies, misleading us utterly and sabotaging our lives, in order to put the kibosh on premarital sex and partying) is more or less correct.

>> No.9642175

the brain is like a bread that you bake and then shovel straight into the fucking garbage

>> No.9642195

>>9642157
That isnt mostly true for most fields.

>> No.9642221

>>9642163
>Children have the best brain for mathematics
children eat their boogers and do all kinds of stupid shit. they do not have the best brains.
the "best brain" for anything is the brain that has studied and understood the subject matter, no matter the age (ok maybe under 75).

>> No.9642225

>>9642195
Most fields are bullshit make-work.

>> No.9642249

>>9642221
Thanks, ⋆You⋆Are⋆Valid⋆, but memes and social progress don't get results.

>> No.9642257

>>9642163
I too like to make shit up and pass it off as fact.

>> No.9642293

>>9642157
"Developed"

No longer evolving and adapting and innovating

>> No.9642302

>>9642157
>>all the math greats did their best work in their early 20s and most burned out by 30

[citation needed]

>> No.9642317

>>9642157
>all the math greats did their best work in their early 20s and most burned out by 30
I'll just leave this here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Green_(mathematician)

>> No.9642327

>>9642317
>one guy == all guys

Math, everyone!

>> No.9642330
File: 212 KB, 792x1024, Evariste_galois.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9642330

Just a reminder that if you don't make a significant contribution by 20 your life is basically worthless

>> No.9642332

If you don't publish something groundbreaking early on, you'll never get the opportunities to do so later in life by lack of notability and connections. A student or fresh graduate gets support and isn't expected to have a long list of accomplishments, but older people do, and they'll get dismissed and ignored for not having so. That means that a lot of talent gets buried.

>> No.9642338

>>9642327
>>one guy == all guys
That is not my claim. My Claim was that NOT ALL math greats did their best work in their twenties.
OP claimed that ALL math greats did their best work in their twenties. I simply demonstrated that his claim was false by using a counter-example, and proof by counter-example is mathematics you mongoloid.

>> No.9642343

>>9642338
>being this autistic
When people say "all" they often actually mean "almost all"

>> No.9642358

>>9642332
Does your statement apply to Gauss, Poincaré, Ramanujan, and the rest of the great mathematicians from before 1970 ?

>> No.9642363

>>9642330
>couldn't write for shit, publications rejected for lacking rigour
>couldn't take constructive criticism
>got jailed and then shot in a duel
He had good ideas, but he was a failure as a mathematician because of lacking publications and death before he could solidify his ideas.

>> No.9642366

>>9642343
If one attempts to formalize "almost all" it is no different from "some", which is equivalent to "not all". Therefore, if OP meant to say "almost all" instead of "all" in the strict sense, then my claim that "not all math greats did their best work in their twenties" is no different from his claim that "[almost] all math greats did their best work in their twenties." So my claim would still be correct in this case.

>> No.9642398

>>9642157
You equate "developed" (not changing) with the cognitive optimum, there's your error.

>> No.9642411

>>9642302
>>9642327
>>9642157
Fields medal (the greatest prize in math) is age restricted. Up to 40yo. Unlike Nobel which isn't age restricted. So in order to get the Fields, mathematicians have to achieve success sooner, in earlier young age.

>> No.9642629

>>9642327
>>9642343
>accuses someone of not being rigorous enough
>calls him autistic when met with a rigorous explanation why it isn't true
you're a waste of oxygen

>> No.9642855

>>9642175
The future's bright, the futures shite

>> No.9642891

>>9642411
The age restriction on the Fields Medal has nothing to do with productive age of mathematicians. If there were no good mathematicians past 30 the age cap would be pointless.
The Fields Medal is deliberately restricted to younger mathematicians because old fucks would win everything otherwise. Scroll through the list of Abel prize winners sometime and see how many under 30s you spot.

>> No.9642894

>>9642363
>because of lacking publications and death before he could solidify his ideas.

this is what's wrong with academia.

>> No.9643264

>>9642398
the current consensus does that
perhaps when it turns 25 we'll be able to shoot it in the back of the head and get a new one

>> No.9643285

>>9643264
i'm not bitter because i was lied to or anything