>there are kids going to Harvard to study mathematics who learned fucking analysis and abstract algebra and category theory and shit when they were 12
How do you even compete? What's the point of even attempting to learn this if you have no chance of contributing and you will always get BTFO by "prodigies" for the rest of your life?
Other urls found in this thread:
terrytao.wordpress.com
quantamagazine.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
I killed myself years ago
Good news for you and everyone else who is depressed by this, although your overall achievement may not match these prodigies, there are enough branches and subfields of math so that you may always find a niche of research for you to work on.
Ehh, by the time they're in their mid 20's things have essentially balanced out and they're no more special than the students who didn't have the same options when they were 12.
And what said is completely right. Generally the feeling of competition disappears by the time you get to grad school. Everyone wants to do something different, and if you and another person have the same goals, you'll probably become best friends.
Any pro tips?
just read this, as written by your very own pic related
terrytao.wordpress.com
>How do you even compete?
I don't. I come from a small country that is never in spotlight and not once has a single important mathematician come out of this little piece of land. I didn't even know I wanted to especialize in pure mathematics until I was fucking 17. At this point who cares. Where I am studying at I am already the top student.
I will be the king of my little hill and no one will ever take that from me. I will study the topics I like for the sake of it and if something cool ever comes out then maybe I wil expand my kindgom. If not then that is fine, a king only needs one castle.
So literally I don't give a shit and from my perspective, I don't think I would trade my childhood for a childhood of forced mathematical training, as much as it would benefit where I am now. It is you eurocucks and americucks who have to compete with the top, never having any kind of even local notoriety because not graduating uni at the age of 16 is already a dishonor. Kek. But me? I'll be fucking great. It doesn't even hurt me that I probably won't be the one to crack one of the "big" problems. I don't do mathematics for other people, I do it for my own pleasure and just like I don't have to be a fit pornstar to feel good about sex, I don't have to be a top world mathematician to feel good about math.
> I come from a small country
>especialize
>you eurocucks and americucks
>I I I me me me I I I I I me me me me
Esentially what suggested. I used to have high aspirations but then as time went on I figured out that there's no way any of that is happening so I kept lowering them more and more until I specialized in a tiny but important™ part of my field that the big dogs don't care about. If you can't eat the meat, go for the bones. I'm the boneman.
>>I I I me me me I I I I I me me me me
Well, OP asked directly for our opinion. My opinion.
If you want I can google someone else's opinion on the matter and then write that in second person, you absolute autist.
Do a contribution to any field requires hard work, more than intelligence.
Just work hard and steadily.
You never know when you might have an eureka moment.
quantamagazine.org
Protip: normies can't tell. If you work in pure mathematics they assume you're the smartest person on earth (especially women do this). I've been exploiting this for YEARS. [spoiler] I'm actually mediocre [/spoiler]
Lol @ at all those uncomfortable mathfags at the beginning, disappointed they didn't make the headway. Always wondered what that'd look like.
Why do people pursue math? What makes you go "wow I really want to learn this stuff"?
>DUDE PURE LMAO
Literally the academic equivalent of "just be yourself".
brainlet
they're just one person
there's room in the world for more than 1 person
>Be born too smart for business or the humanities so have to do STEM
>Not a monkey so don't want to do manual labor like labs and other "practical" assignments
>Not a brainlet so don't want to do group projects with potential brainlets
>The only degrees that satisfies all those qualities is a degree in pure mathematics
It is not like we have another choice. Academia is fucking gay. Every other faggot ass STEM degree has some kind of laboratories and some even have the nerve to make a "final semester group project". Holy fuck.
I don't want none of that shit.
And then when you graduate no doors have been closed. Jobs in finance, engineering, technology, education, academia, etc. are all open for people with an education in mathematics.
No math degree is complete without statistics and probability theory and literally every line of business needs someone who knows those subjects.
There is no industry where you cannot get a job at and you can achieve that wihout ever, EVER doing anything more than to draw up some pretty symbols on a piece of paper.
It is the absolute alpha no-nonsense degree of academia. And the only one for STEM. Degrees in other areas like the humanities and business get away with this, but obviously their careers are severely limited.
But why do anything if those geniuses would do it better if only they bothered?
You're telling me to not be deppressed for not living in a mansion since I can always live in a shitty shack.
I'm serious. Medfags want to make money and feel better than everybody else. Pharm fags for the same reason but they couldn't get into med school. Ecologists like being hippies. What's the reason to study math? And if you're just doing it for fun, is it because your parents are well off enough to support you?
(You)
>What's the reason to study math?
Because studying math makes you look smart, and there are people who like making themselves look smart, at the expense of doing something that is actually enjoyable or provides a practical benefit.
tl;dr autism + egotism
Thank you, that was a pretty thorough answer. I'm a biofag so it's a completely different setup. The only math I've taken is applied calculus. I enjoy learning about things that I can visualize or apply to other things. Is it like that in the higher math courses? Or does it stay kinda dry?
>Is it like that in the higher math courses? Or does it stay kinda dry?
Everything in math can be visualized very easily. This should be obvious from the fact that even the most abstract part of mathematics, its foundations as given by category theory, are represented by a bunch of diagrams. It doesn't get more visual than that.
absolutely this, too much brainlets and too much fags
You don't worry about it.
Just do math because you like doing it. Stop caring about try to achieve Tao and Mochizuki status and just be the best you can.
What's the point of learning to walk when countless others learned it before me?
>be me
>20 yo
>can't even do a simple logarithm question
;_;
Not everyone can be perfect like me. Don't worry.
You think that's bad? I don't even know how to read or write!
> just bee urself :)
>he's comparing an everyday task like walking to an arduous effort to study a field requiring significant mental prowess
I'm not here to convince you of anything, I do not care about you
>an arduous effort to study a field requiring significant mental prowess
Brain
Let.
Way more Is and less mes To Be Honest
>using a terry tau pic when james maynard is the real hero of prime gaps
pleb
>posting weeb shit as a counterargument
Castrate yourself
>itt plebs who don't know how to live an enlightened life
sad.
All fields require more hard work than intelligence
>But why do anything if those geniuses would do it better if only they bothered?
The thing is: they don't bother, and it all comes down to that.
Greatness is not about potential, but about action. Feynman had an IQ of 124. Christopher Langan has a far higher IQ, yet he has not accomplished a fraction of what Feynman has. Guess who's the most known of the two?
How many of these people actually make contributions rather than just showing everyone how smart they are and how much stuff they know?
>I'm the boneman.
kek
i mean, you could make the same argument about anyone who excercises and isnt a WR holder or athlete
>Christopher Langan
Are there really a significant number of kids running around at Ivy leagues that learned complex analysis and category theory at age 12? Seems like that would be pretty fucking rare.
just be yourself is amazing advice if you're not an idiot. in that case, you're fucked either way
stop
there's a shitload of work that needs to be done in math
if you don't like math then fuck off
otherwise fucking go study you brainlet
the only way to suck and not do shit is to be lazy
Look up at the uberman schedule.
Say 20 hours of mathematics a day for 365 days.
That's 7300 hours.
Do that for decades.
You're bound to get results.
Mathematics requires a lot of mental stamina.
It's not like anyone can put the effort for even a few hours a day.
>I wish I was an autistic nerd virgin too
if you don't have like competitive IMO background going into maths you're so omg fucked
early on these guys get picked up by the faculty, getting more or less individual mode of studying, while the rest (i'm talking 95% of students) gets bunched up as "lol, no talent" and shitted out a few years later with a degree and superficial knowledge of maths
at this point your options are:
a) grabbing one of these guy and forcing him to mentor / tutor you, while working your ass through problem books for like semester or summer (Putnam and Beyond, for example)
b) saying fuck this shit and going applied / cs / bioinf whatever, turning mathematical models into code, tweaking them here and there
I like maths, and I care about them, that's why I don't want to be dead weight, user, I don't want people to waste their time and money on me, I don't want to be a cancer.
No matter how much I work, and how much I study, I'll always suck immensely.
This post pretty much sums it up, especially when you read the other posts that read like a fedora tippers musing on academia
>heh those brainlets could never keep up with someone as euphorically magnificent as me
Being a math prodigy doesn't guarantee you'll make a significant contribution to mathematics.
And vice versa for less-gifted student.
Check past IMO winners.
I like the "feel good about sex" line
I know Iranians who put e before sp.
>No matter how much I work, and how much I study, I'll always suck immensely.
with that mindset, sure
work hard faggot
What? He's smart as fuck. Anyone can see that
The goal isn't to compete. It's to survive.
I agree, but hasn't the idea of being in the business field just to make a lot of money crossed your mind?
A lot of people work hard, it's not a guarantee of anything.
It would definitely be uncommon, even among the kids who like math. Most kids who love math when they're young usually go into contest math type stuff and just solve problems from elementary geometry and number theory. Very few will actually begin doing modern math like analysis, algebra, or topology at a young age. A kid would need to be mentored by a successful mathematician, since basically no one outside of math would actually know what math to teach them.
stop fucking around and go work hard
you clearly don't
See Those problem books and IMO problems have nothing to do with modern math. You don't need an individual study method either. Just look up the chicago math bibliography and pick up some books. Learn analysis, algebra, and topology and onward. This stuff is so abstract and different from the problems involved in the IMO even IMO winners never manage to make any contributions.
my STEM degree has a final project that spans three semesters lol
I'm 25 getting a CS degree, I'm also a musician,
I've gotten offers from people solely for the
fact that I'm good with people, have an eye for aesthetics, and know how to program.
It's okay to be a well-rounded individual.
The demand is so high, who the fuck cares how old you are as long as you can do it.
I love how Veeky Forums can actually counter this type of questions desu.
Veeky Forums is a really smart board, and actually knows their shit and what is he capable of.
Also OP, you know that some great mathematicians didn't study at Harvard as an undergraduate, right? You just posted one.
I AM an autistic nerd virgin, but I don't have the brain.
First world problems right there, at least you are not blind like me!
Pic probably unrelated.
But most people that work hard don't think about what to do, they simply do, and that's stupid as fuck. If you work hard and do so much as little thinking about how you can improve your result, you are going to go far
> Work hard and you'll be just as good as Tao, or Gauss, or whoever you want! :)
If it were that easy there'd be a lot more people at the top.
And if tao hadnt worked his ass off, he wouldn't be there you absolute faggot
Your logic demeans those who did just rely on assbusting like Feynman, Seaborg/etc.
If you want to commit hari kari, just do it already, the world is plagued by your complaining and doing nothing. My research professor is a total brainlet, but he still pumps out decent papers because he's a fucking boss.
tl;Dr
>quit being inaction less, as that's the only route to guaranteed failure, everything else is just conjecture
youtu.be
Look at the boards.
He's a worthless retard.
Do this
only for one year instead of whining.
Chances are you won't.
Not even accomplished mathematicians do that much.
Why are you whining then?
You don't need to be a "prodigy" to get riches and fame.
You can still get to become world class in your field if you work your ass off.
It's more about how curious subject is for you. Bigger the curiosity, bigger the mental stamina. Hard work without interest leads to nothing. Intelligence is a very strange thing, being good at solving problems and puzzles, doesn't relate to your potential to make something new, good example would be Feynman.
Good posts
OP don't be discouraged by other people's natural talent. That doesn't mean you can't hold your own in the field that you cherish and certainly doesn't disqualify you from being a source of innovation, assuming you work hard enough.
> Just work hard bro! It's what Tao did!
Yeah, but an hour of his thinking time is probably worth 5-10 of mine. I already work hard and see no result, and working "smart" means nothing by itself. I can't work 5 to 10 times more than someone who already works his ass off in a smart and effective manner.
My mind is like a fog I barely have any control over. My logic is not demeaning to those who worked hard, I'm just saying that neither me nor my time are worth as much, and being at their level is, as I see it now, the only way I'd feel deserving of anything and satisfied with myself (sad truth is that probably not even then would I be happy, but it's my only chance).
Überman schedule is a meme. It'd be far more effective to take amphetamines, but I'm worried about the long term consequences.
Without doubt, a lot of people will come here and say you are delusional, or autistic or whatever. But I just want to say I completely agree with what you said.
This.
Don't be afraid to be yourself OP.
You're effort matters.
Work hard and you will succeed.
False. I used to know plenty of IMO medalists, all of them gave up on maths after finishing BSc and moved into theoretical computer science (algorithms mostly). Two of them (both silver medalists in their final year + several honorable mentions before) told me honestly that they struggled with the amount of theory one needs to master before even starting doing some interesting stuff. On the other hand in algorithms you can start to track serious and satisfying problems out of the scratch.
I'm a perfect example of a mediocre guy comparing to them in terms of problem solving skills. In my final year of high school I managed to made it to national finals (and therefore I was exempted from entrance exams for uni), and as I said these guys were both in top 6 in national competition, and then got silver medals at IMO. However, I don't have any problem with putting a lot of effort to get deep into theory and have a rather good work ethics. Now I'm about to graduate from my MSc programme in pure mathematics and have already some easily publishable results in my research project that I started working on about half a year ago. Two of my letter of recommendation writers have told me that I'm overpreparred for a PhD in pure math and recommended me top10 schools in US (however, I'm not sure if I'll make it in - I have average grades from my 2 first years of BSc when I struggled with depression, ironically, exactly because of feeling mediocre comparing to these IMO guys). So by hard work you can definitely make it to a top pure math phd programme.
When it comes to PhD (and later) it seems to me that not being autistic (but still hardworking!) give you good odds of getting some top results. I mean, just remember to not being overly concentrated on one project - but to track a couple of problems. My supervisor told me about plenty of his genius peers that worked for months and years on one problem and got no results. Research in math is a perfect example of Black Swan.
>pharmcfags couldn't get into med school
No, I did it becuase I'm 24 making 110k a year, with no debt or obligations. I don't have to work 100hours a week for the "respect" you get from being a doctor.
And anyway thinking of getting stem phd after I retire
> In my final year of high school I managed to made it to national finals (and therefore I was exempted from entrance exams for uni)
> have already some easily publishable results in my research project that I started working on about half a year ago.
> Two of my letter of recommendation writers have told me that I'm overpreparred for a PhD in pure math and recommended me top10 schools in US
I want you to be perfectly honest with yourself and answer me these three questions:
1) Do you really think ANYONE of your undergrad peers could have done what you did?
2) Did any of those peers work harder than you and still got worse results? (Whether in grades or career wise)
3) Don't you feel you're simply better than at least some of them?
I really doubt it was just hard work, user.
Also
> When it comes to PhD (and later) it seems to me that not being autistic (but still hardworking!) give you good odds of getting some top results.
> it seems to me
> good odds
> some top results
reading a post like this, which not only deliberately misses the point of what it's responding to but also doesn't even fucking read the post it is responding to, is infuriating
I'm sorry user, no sarcasm, I really tried to understand. I want to understand. I want convince myself, I don't want to have any doubts ever again.
I still don't see why I'm wrong, I don't do this with ill-intent (at least I'm not aware).
any math professor will tell you that research math is pretty unrelated to competition math
his post said that he is finishing a master's, in which case it is not too surprising that he has publishable results and is overprepared for a PhD
the point of his post was that he was never an outstanding individual, but by following the tracks laid out for him, he was able to end up doing something pretty cool.
if you're worried about never being "the most smartest" person with "the most important discovery," welcome to the reality for all of us. if you're lucky, you'll stumble into that extraordinary greatness like everyone who found it previously did. i'll redirect you to Miley Cyrus' hit song "The Climb" and hope that clears up what the meaning of life should be for you.
>How do you even compete?
You don't.
That's like dreaming to be in the NBA when you're 5'2.
It's genetic. You can't win, so move on.
Thanks user.
>Sports Comparison
Fuck off, unlike the NBA you can actually carve a niche for yourself because those "prodigies" and "geniuses" are going to be too busy with popular meme theories and research.
I am here to save you OP.
These kids usually burn out in their early 20s and don't achieve anything grand. I'm doing a PhD in theoretical physics(QCD) - when I started my undergrad, I was less than average amongst the other theory students; they'd learned more maths, more programming and more physics in their early teens than me and found solutions to the problem sheets much quicker than me.
Fast forward 4 years: out of a group of 20-30 during undergrad, about 10 were these child genius types. The majority of them dropped out of the theory course around quantum field theory/gauge theories. Of those of us who went onto a PhD in the field(8), only a couple were from the "child genius" group.
Being early out the gate isn't everything - these guys usually don't have the social skills or humility to float in academia.
Just realised I'm () almost perfectly echoing this guy
For 1) + 2) it is very hard to compare user. I was always going my own ways. At the end of my fifth semester, after an oral exam of differential geometry, I asked my current supervisor for some papers to read (e.g. I wasn't the best student in his class), since I wanted to start working on something more interesting than exercise sheets. Then I read more and more, later he asked pretty well-known friend of his to host me for a week at his university. That way I got a super cool research project from that professor, that was actually approachable for a fresh first year master's student which on the other hand was pretty interesting and not completely trivial. However, you should not imagine that I had developed some new theory or something - I just carefully read some papers and generalized their results. There was a little trickery, but mostly I built everything upon already existing results. For sure I am lucky to have such a supervisor - he could not give me any project himself or never contacted with his friend. I am also pretty lucky that the topic of my research project is pretty active, so I can publish my results. But I think that hard work is a main factor.
Basically the main difference between me and my peers is that I always concentrated more on my stuff than classes - usually they did plenty of them more than I did. However, I had some kind of plan for myself and knew what interests me at pretty early stage.
I don't know how does it look like at your university - unfortunately at mine work ethic was a kind of taboo. Everyone seemed to not work at all, signalizing that they owe everything to their intelligence and also deriding those who worked hard. That was the main reason for that depression. However, now I see that it really doesn't matter, one needs just to do his job and don't look at others. I remember how I used to feel during my undergraduate years and really empathize with some posters here.
meant to answer
For 3) - surely I am better than guys doing some financial mathematics or something. But I also have peers doing some crazy algebraic geometry and stuff. I can't compare apples to oranges.
This user get the gist.
If you're not solving something related to
>popular meme theories
then why work on it at all?
I think you give good advice.
But ... QCD is a field with imho ugly subfields. Strange states that will not be experimentally relevant in your lifetime, at least the will not have application, or convoluted numerical tasks, all leading to results nobody but older generation of Post-docs could honestly care about. You'll be cruising around to two conferences a year, with fat bald dudes and ugly women. What's the point? OP wants glory. People are doing QFT since the 30's, and there are a million people. Going into it with the expectation of glory is going into algebraic geometry. 10.000 other academics do it, fuck that.
>Hey, user, how do you become a famous mathematician?
>>You just gotta work your ass off, bro!
>Okay, cool. So why aren't you a famous mathematician?
>>I-I-I guess I just didn't work hard enough!!! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!!!
Literally worse than religitards.
>Hey, user, how do you become a famous mathematician?
>>You just gotta work your ass off, bro!
No one having already graduate education completed would say you that. Here is your problem.
I know that everyone imagines himself being Tao or Perelman up to some point. But honestly being a specialist in your own field, who regularly publishes solid articles in his field is also pretty comfy.
>carving a niche in something no one gives a fuck about that one of these geniuses could prove if it mattered in a quarter the time as you and will more likely prove you wrong
yeah good luck with that.
You don't. That's the point. They're competing with other wunderkinds and shit, why would you want to compete with that? Try your best, and aim for something you know you can accomplish. They'll be doing their thing, and you your thing. Show them support, and if they're not cunts they'll show you support as well.
>These kids usually burn out in their early 20s and don't achieve anything grand.
[citation needed]
OP is talking about the people who get PhDs around the age you got your bachelor's.