Can one be a great mathematician through hard work?

Can one be a great mathematician through hard work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#Eyesight_deterioration
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no, only through no work at all.

>Can one be a great [spoiler]anything[/spoiler] through hard work?

With no natural talent, no. The greats work hard and are great at what they do. We normal people have to struggle down here.

There isn't too much natural talent.
It's called practice. Most mathematicians would agree it's more about practice and less about how "gifted" you were in the beginning. Natural talent only takes you so far.

They may, but there aren't that many Pascals or Eulers that exist. Everyone works hard, but some clearly accomplish more than others.

I also bet that pascal and euler worked a thousand times harder and more efficient than those "others."
Of course he may not be considered one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. That's setting yourself up for failure anyways. Small, realistic goals. A "great" mathematician seems perfectly attainable.

Natural talent plays a huge role like in everything in life.

School math, yes, you can nail better than 99% of your peers without great talent with just pure practise and calculation routine but the mosttalented people will be better than you no matter how hard you prac with very little practise.

Marcus Carlsen is a good example of an ultiamte talent. He became world grand master at the age of 13yo, having probably 10% of the practise hours than many of the top players in the world

No. There's a 16 year old on the Veeky Forums discord that already finished the undergrad math courses and is taking grad level courses and is doing research

no talent retards can't compete with that.

Hard work essentially does nothing. No amount of effort will turn you into a Guass or Mozart. If you didn't win the genetic lottery, you might as well off yourself if you're considering academia. Just be an engineer.

this depresses me

though most of the post is memeing, there's some truth to it. you can still do great things with hard work and interest in your topic.

Professor told me once (paraphrasing)
>a disproportionate amount of discoveries are made by gifted scientists, but given that gifted scientists are in the minority, that still leaves most discoveries being made by the larger pool of average scientists.

You're a retard. You do just fine if you if you finishe your studies in regular time.

The point is that if you don't work very hard in your half 10s and early 20s you won't likely change habits later in life.

Simple as that you fucking retards.

The brain recovers from stroke. You won't have problems doing any king of math.

youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

I recommend to anyone at any age who wants to do math to start from scratch to study from books like Naive set theory - Halmos.

You don't jump from 1+1=2 do quantum mechanics. Books allow you to understand everything ever published if you choose them carefully and you progress steadily.

>he thinks anyone can be the next von Neumann or euler if they just hit the books hard enough from a young age
retard

keep memeing away

Keep telling yourself bed time stories kiddo

tao is not euler but he is a good mathematician

You fucking slob hideous pile of human garbage. You don't need to become Euler but you can become a notable mathematician nonetheless with hard work:

>Even among mathematicians, who tend to be single-minded and highly devoted to their work, Grothendieck was an extreme case. "Grothendieck was working on the foundations of algebraic geometry seven days a week, twelve hours a day, for ten years," noted his IHES colleague David Ruelle.

ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf

How many hours a day are you studying you aborted fetus?

>Euler's eyesight worsened throughout his mathematical career. In 1738, three years after nearly expiring from fever, he became almost blind in his right eye, but Euler rather blamed the painstaking work on cartography he performed for the St. Petersburg Academy for his condition. Euler's vision in that eye worsened throughout his stay in Germany, to the extent that Frederick referred to him as "Cyclops". Euler later developed a cataract in his left eye, which was discovered in 1766. Just a few weeks after its discovery, he was rendered almost totally blind. However, his condition appeared to have little effect on his productivity, as he compensated for it with his mental calculation skills and exceptional memory. For example, Euler could repeat the Aeneid of Virgil from beginning to end without hesitation, and for every page in the edition he could indicate which line was the first and which the last. With the aid of his scribes, Euler's productivity on many areas of study actually increased. He produced on average, one mathematical paper every week in the year 1775.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#Eyesight_deterioration

Sure you have the same commitment!

>if you're really ridiculously good at something you'll devote every waking hour of your life to it
You don't say.

What I'm saying is that nobody puts all that effort. One in a million is going to *devote every waking hour* to math for ten years. Do it and tell me you haven't put to shame the 99,99% of mathematicians.

Friendo there is a reason autists who develop all of their time to math are rare and it's because doing so requires innate gifts and aptitude for math that are lacking in everyone else

Euler and Grothendieck weren't autistic. Their passion for math is what brought about their achievements. They didn't simply conjure up their results they had to devote large portions of their lives to acquire them. It's easy to look back and say how amazing they were at math, true, but it ignores the hardship they endured.

Then just do everyone a favour and blow your brains out like the waste of flesh that you are if you're just going to sit around and mope instead of doing something with your fucking life.

>Waaah I'm not Superman Waaah

What the fuck have you actually done today apart from watch porn and jerk off?

Maybe you're content with being a fucking moron but don't try to drag everyone else down with you.

For every Bach there's a Beethoven, and for every Beethoven there's a Mozart, and for every Mozart there's a Mehul. For every Mehul there's a Weber, and scho on down the list until we reach you.

Take Joyce, perhaps the greatest writer of the 20th century. He is still a hack compared to Goethe, Shakespeare, and Dante.

OP, I don't think it's wise to start comparing yourself to Euler or Godel, just as no academic philosopher would compare himself to Kant or Plato.

Berkeley, Kierkegaard, Russell, Neetchee, Xenophon, and scho on are just little babies when we turn our gaze at Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Hegel, Kant... Even so, they achieve great things.

Unless you are an arch-mediocrity, you can still contribute something to your field. Put aside your ego, you should be in this because you value truth, not because you want to show off.

Please don't fall for trolls that obvious. It's embarrassing.

To other people, what the greats accomplished required hard work, while in the minds of the greats themselves, what they were doing was simply enjoying their obsession.