ITT we inflate our self esteems by posting examples of smart people being brainlets
>[on Monty Hall problem] Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).
Other urls found in this thread:
terrytao.wordpress.com
terrytao.wordpress.com
businessinsider.com.au
twitter.com
I don't think Erdos knew shit about probability theory, so why is that surprising?
is that real?
>In a mathematical conversation, someone suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime number. “You mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck suggested, “All right, take 57.”
>I don't think Erdos knew shit about probability theory
>what is random graph theory?
The Grothendieck prime is legendary. This is not brainlet at all, I have never seen a mathematician not at one point make an arithmetic mistake.
>Non mathematician reads the Monty Hall problem
Jesus fucking Christ it all depends on the previous history of the show, if the host is kiting or not.
Since being douchy on a live show is good for rating but bad for getting new participants Its better to keep door since rating is the most difficult to replace
Kiting = devious
but wasn't grothendieck also notoriously bad at arithmetic?
>being convinced by a computer simulation
this is the real brainlet behavior
That's actually more combinatorics than probability theory.
>not doing a couple of computations whenever you are in doubt about a topic
Confirmed for never gonna make it.
He failed a math exam too (sauce his journal)
Apparently Gauss assumed that every continuous function is differentiable
>kiting
nope
jokes on you drumpf has gone full neocon
He's right though. You have a giant clown for a president.
Does not matter. I suspect one of the most brilliant mathematicians to solve a high school problem (or at least get it when explained to him), if he was into prob. theory or not.
This I don't believe.
Where is the mistake?
This is why autismathicians will never be valued by society
not a mathfag but didnt euler have problems proving something regarding imaginary numbers or some shit?
Well, it is a semiprime, so at least he was close.
>Why is that surprising?
I failed calc 1 twice and have only taken one statistics class and I thought the monty hall problem was quite obvious. So obvious I'm calling bullshit on that quote in the OP
more than just erdös didn't get it:
>Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).
Geniuses get a lot wrong too. You mainly don't hear about it. Think of all the embarrassing stupid crap you get wrong in math while alone. Stuff no one else sees or knows about. If people saw your snowflakes they'd probably think you're a retard.
As others stated Alex G. got his "prime" number wrong & failed a math test with arithmetic. Yet he is considered one of the best mathematicians of recent times
Kek at the censorship
>being too arrogant to use good tools because they were invented in a different field to your own
Social scientist-tier
Jokes aside. It's actually somewhat important to humanize these giants, they're surely incredibly smarter than us but still flawed.
Newton spent most of his life working on alchemy
I should have said 'every continuous function is differentiable apart from at isolated points'. You can find it in various text books where they discuss the Weierstrass function
> What is the probabilistic method?
