Are successful/famous mathematicians more talented than their colleagues, or they just simply got lucky...

hey JIDF, stop trying to compare that talmudic bongo player to Schrodinger

sounds like you're upset that your designated race is not the most intellectually superior :(

>so be prepared for the shitstorm any time you ask a question about inherent talent, ability, intellect, and academic success.

what about working in a team? Rarely see papers with just one author. Projects like polymath - not that familiar with it - might indicate quantity can have some quality on its own?

super math god tao himself said that just because someone is super smart, it doesnt mean you shouldnt bother

it's just sci people have an user-induced super ego about their 140 IQs from random online websites, so they get really butthurt when they are forced to face reality by reading about truly gifted individuals with real achievements.

The schrodinger eauation derivation is on Wikipedia. Don't know why Veeky Forums keeps trying to wrap up science in mystical woo. You know you guys are no different to the religious people, Veeky Forums pretty much worships science putting people like von Neumann and Gauss on a pedestal to be worshipped as an untouchable, un-replicable god.

neumann had a >1-in-1-billion intelligence combined with a perfectly eiditic memory

i think he is the definition of untouchable

What is it with this autistic worship of von Neumann?

“I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Max Planck (Nobel Prize 1918), von Laue (Nobel Prize 1914) and Heisenberg (Nobel Prize 1932). Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as John von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed me.
… But 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. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of von Neumann’s brilliance, he never produced anything as original.
–Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize Physics 1963)

neumann also died early and became obsessed pretty early on in his life with russia, nukes, and potential war, so keep that in mind as well

a lot of his efforts went into single-handedly saving america from early russian domination

never forget that if neumann had solely focused on advancing humanity with creative ideas, we would likely all be dead or speaking russian

he was the one who single handedly pushed america into action against the USSR, and was pivotal in achieving long range ICBM nuclear weapons.

>OP's question is generalized so that it does not revolve about any personality in particular. He is just asking wether success is so inherent in genius that it can be easily predicted by simply spotting a genius kid, or is success a matter of being right there at the right time and simply happening to have the correct perspective to solve a problem, in other words, unpredictable.

>HURR DURR tier glorification of single personalities that misses the point of the OP by such a long shot that if you were to read these responses without knowing what OP was asking beforehand, you'd think that this is one of the daily IQ glorification threads,

Well fucking done, you are all retarded. 10/10. A for effort.

It is simple.

When you are a retarded useless piece of shit first year physics major who knows you will never achieve anything in life, you talk about other's achievements because you don't have any of your own to brag about.

JIDF pls go

>brainlet: OP didnt ask for real examples, dont remind me i'm not as smart as i wish i was
>OP: Are there any counter examples? Guys with great expectation living up to their potential regarding their impact?
>brainlet blames original person who posted about neumann when other angry brainlets are the ones who derailed the thread

congratulations on showing everyone you're a complete retard

>he was the one who single handedly pushed america into action against the USSR

Where are you getting this shit from? Teller was arguing for thermonuclear armament of the US as a deterrent to the Soviet Union before the war was over. Stop worshiping this man, it's truly pathetic.

Also Einstein had already discovered special and general relativity by the time he was 36.

everytime you see a post on Veeky Forums praising the murderous kike bastard or the talmudic bongo player as being super-humans when all they did their entire life was picking low hanging fruits and murdering innocents, you can rest assured 20 sheckels have been added to his account

Asking for examples does not mean the discussions should revolve around those examples, because that was not the purpose of the question.

Now look at this piece of shit.
>neumann also died early and became obsessed pretty early on in his life with russia, nukes, and potential war, so keep that in mind as well

Oh yeah, what neumann thought at every second is REALLY useful for OP's discussion.

>never forget that if neumann had solely focused on advancing humanity with creative ideas

Oh yeah! Lets focus on a 'WHAT IF!'. Yeah, WHAT IF you people knew reading comprehension. That would be an amazing world to live in!.

>he was the one who single handedly pushed america into action against the USSR

OOOH. More glorification of single personalities!

Yeah, totally relevant!

This. Replace "Neumann" with "Jesus" and nothing changes. The OP was Veeky Forums but the responses are Church-tier
>"Nemann was infallible"
>"Neumann was above all men"
>"Neumann integrated for our sins"
Also this. Why not learn the fucking material rather than taking one look at it, deciding that "only a god could understand it" and worshipping it?

Politics go in .

Not here. Don't go in this board.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#mutual_assured_destruction

>He modified the ENIAC by making it programmable and then wrote programs for it to do the H-bomb calculations verifying that the Teller-Ulam design was feasible and to develop it further.

>Through the Atomic Energy Commission, he promoted the development of a compact H-bomb that would fit in an ICBM.

>He personally interceded to speed up the production of lithium-6 and tritium needed for the compact bombs.

>He caused several separate missile projects to be started, because he felt that competition combined with collaboration got the best results.

>Von Neumann's assessment that the Soviets had a lead in missile technology, considered pessimistic at the time, was soon proven correct in the Sputnik crisis.

>Von Neumann entered government service (Manhattan Project) primarily because he felt that, if freedom and civilization were to survive, it would have to be because the US would triumph over totalitarianism from Nazism, Fascism and Soviet Communism.

>He was quoted in 1950 remarking, "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

are you even trying?

i'll leave when JIDF leaves, kike

>Feynman had a low IQ and did not contribute to anything, he was jusy a good lecturer

Right....

Most successful/famous mathematician were child prodigy, eg. Paul erdos, John Von Neumann, Terrence Tao, etc.

i have never seen someone so butthurt over a savior of humanity. its unreal

are you this mad about your own limitations?

why does john von neumanns godlike talent bother you so much?

why does your anus clench so hard and your face turn so red when people mention an infinitely superior person to you in every way?

is it because his innocent eyes and child-like smile has all the the grace and celestial beauty of a cherub?

>pic related

I don't care about anything you are saying.

I don't mind if he is great or not great, that is not my point.

My point is that you derailed what could have been a nice discussion into a circle jerk of who has the yu-gi-science cards with the most stats.

The kid with the von neumann cards is now fighting with the kid with the feynman card and I'm sure there are other morons glorifying some other retard.

STOP DERAILING THREADS.

>straw man
>ad hominem
>believing JvN is not god incarnate

also jesus was not the smartest being on the planet, thus jesus was inferior to john von neumann

This.
This thread is autistic as fuck.

KILL YOURSELF NIGGER

> Feynman had a low IQ and did not contribute to anything, he was jusy a good lecturer

Yeah okay user, keep telling yourself that shit.

>calling a kike a nigger

kill yourself

who derailed this thread? lets review

1st post JvN as example for OPs question
2nd post, buttmad brainlet derail
3rd post buttmad brainlet derail
4th post buttmad brainlet derail
5th post asking why so mad about JvN and giving further examples pertinent to OPs questions.
6th post about feynmann and other geniuses
7th post reply to buttmad brainlet
8th post buttmad brainlet derail
9th post reply to buttmad brainlet
10th post buttmad brainlet derail
11th post reply to buttmad brainlet
12th post genuine question
13th post reply to genuine question
14th post complaint about JvN receiving so much praise
15th post justification for JvN praise
16th post complaint about JvN receiving so much praise
17th post justification for JvN praise
18th post buttmad brainlet derail
19th post buttmad brainlet derail
20th post buttmad brainlet derail
21st post reply to buttmad brainlet
22nd post question about sources
23rd post buttmad brainlet derail
24th post buttmad brainlet derail
25th post buttmad brainlet derail
26th post attempt to remove brainlets
27th post reply to question about sources
28th post buttmad brainlet
29th post reply to buttmad brainlet
30th post genuine post
31st post reply to buttmad brainlet
32nd post buttmad brainlet derail
etc

Who derailed the thread again?

Hey guys could you keep it down a little in here please. We are trying to have an actual discussion in another thread

>Feynman had a low IQ and did not contribute to anything, he was jusy a good lecturer

> One of the pioneers path integrals
> invents feynman diagrams to describe them
> wins Nobel prize for his work
> didn't contribute to anything.

fucking lol
nice post user

nice post

>The basic idea of the path integral formulation can be traced back to Norbert Wiener
>a drawing with arrows is a groundbreaking physics
>jews awarding jews

he knew how to play bongos i'll give you that

If you say that drawing arrows isn't a valid contribution, then you could write off everything Newton, or any physicist or mathematician, did as just writing symbols on paper. Drawing a feynman diagram allows you to drastically simplify the problems and calculations in QED.

lol fackin brainlet halal lahal

Take your pedophile cartoons back to weeaboo degenerate.

Originally I was wondering about Andrew Wiles and how his colleagues at Oxford measure up to him. Let's say he never proves FLT, would he be held in such high regards? In hindsight it is pretty easy to say he was always bright and ahead of his classmates etc.

also

>John von Neumann
>Edward Teller
>Eugene Wigner
>Leo Szilar
>Hungarian-born American scientists
>juggling with nationalities anytime

just

I'll just leave this book here and highly recommend it if you want to some vague but suggestive answers to your questions. Ono describes his own journey from high school dropout to leading number theorist in parallel with his mathematician father and Ramanujan

Please go

what about William Sidis?
His IQ was so high that he got top score on every single IQ-test he took one who supposedly could calculate up to 275 iq and he got 275 so we can assume it was 275+

i didnt mention him because there is too much uncertainty around him

he was obviously highly intelligent, but it was too long ago to really know how intelligent

the problem with IQ tests that try to test in the "profound genius" range is that there arent enough profound geniuses who have taken the test.

they can test accurately up to around 160 but thats because there are enough people within these ranges to make an accurate bellcurve and everything

for one, you'd need someone with an IQ around 250 to make an IQ test that is accurate for around 275, but then you'd also need a bunch of people with IQs over 200 to take the test and even people with IQs around 300 to make it accurate.

if he did have an IQ that high, all they could say is that it is immeasurable, and beyond 200 or so, because that's the extreme upper limit of estimated IQs.

really what we'd need is to get all the super geniuses (IQ 170+) to take the same test, and assuming barely anyone got 100% it could be used to make an accurate estimation of their true IQ's, even into the 200s.

but there just arent enough people with IQs that high