What the hell is witten doing in this picture?

superstring theory. literally the only explanation that has any weight in describing all the forces and particles

His main accomplishment (which is to say, the thing he got his Fields medal for) so far is to show that all the different string theories are actually equivalent to each other under dualities.

that seems kind of easy, anyone could of accomplished that

Nice time

I don't get why there are people who suck at English this bad when it's their first language.
>could of
No you dumb nigger. It's could've. Could HAVE. Fucking take some remedial English courses at whatever shitty Uni or CC you go to, because you have no business doing math or sciences.

>could of
This annoys me as well.

>
>>history major
>He already knew more math and physics than most people before college. The history major was just for fun. He realized he would never get a chance to study history later in life, and since he was already near the top of the math and physics game he figured there would be no risk. I know a professor who worked with his father and he majored in classics, yet he knows more math and physics than anyone else in the department.
Not hard to know more maths and physics than all the people in a classics department :^l

What's wrong with could of? It's just a reanalysis of arbitrary phonetic material. The same kind of thing has happened countless times historically to no negative effect.

One makes grammatical sense, the other doesn't.

Why can't you understand that people like him are building the language of the future. It is like you speak the language of vulgar Latin while I and those other people are already making Middle French. To you "could of" don't work because you keep thinking in terms of the old; you have the wrong perspective. It will take some years for this linguistic frontier where all the innovation takes place becomes acknowledged and fully incorporated into our daily lives. But it will.

And you know language has some rules and so on but you gotta admit that most of them aren't even real rules. They are literally a social construct. But language wants to be free. It evolves, raptures and diversifies and so on and so on.

Imagine if language wouldn't do this? We wouldn't be able to construct our thoughts and views into words. We wouldn't be able to handle new phenomena. We would be stuck in the present and past. But the future is waiting for us.

You are like the Homo erectus of language, you don't last with this attitude. Why not admit your wrong and bow to us language pioneers shaping the world ahead of us, huh?

"could of" comes from dumbasses who listen to "could've" spoken fast and think it's could of. It's not handling new phenomena it's just stupidity.

>The history major was just for fun

No. He actually seemed to have wanted to go into politics. He also had socialist leanings and old school socialism at that.

But then he realised that he was told a lie and there was no freedom in the US.

So he accepted that and veered towards a sheltered career in theoretical physics.

>he doesn't know about could've

We mustn't question the ways in which language changes. Could of could very well revolutionize the way we speak. Perhaps it opens us paths we could of not have imagined.

You sound like someone who thinks Ebonics is a language

Oh wow. I knew his father was also a physicist so I thought he was raised up as that being his end goal.

what is it with brainlets and prescriptivism?

>You sound like someone who thinks Ebonics is a language
Well guess what? It is.
Heck, maybe we'll speak in emoij in the future what do you know? All I know, because the present is where we are, is that you take the wrong perspective and the future will swallow you a-whole.

The people with prestige will prevent you from climbing the dominance hierarchy because you don't speak avant-garde language.

>he doesn't know about could've'th'st

I enjoyed this. Nice one.

It's a dialect you baby.

How does have make "grammatical sense" over of? Of is just being reanalyzed as an auxiliary, it's arbitrary.

You're parodying a view that doesn't exist. The point is that the form of a word is arbitrary and there's no reason why of couldn't be an auxiliary verb in addition to being a preposition. Common usage implies that in some dialects that's the case, and there's nothing good or bad about that, it's just arbitrary.

Pedantics like you who revolve their whole life around feeling intellectually superior for correcting grammar mistakes are the worst, and usually brainlets to boot.

He's signalling his superior phenotype in public, must be Ashkenazi mating season.

its what women crave