So when it comes to Von Neumann we are indeed dealing with an unparalleled intellect. He was smarter and more gifted than Einstein, or Newton, or Gauss or Euler.
We can also say that he was working in subjects that demanded much more brilliance than the ones where Shakespeare, Mozart, Bach and Michelangelo made their achievements (perhaps Neumann could do what they did if he put his mind to it, only he did not had the interest).
This is the most shining example of human intelligence ever.
Other urls found in this thread:
books.google.com.br
books.google.com.br
books.google.com.br
thenewcalculus.weebly.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
75% of the stories about Neumann are probably made up hagiographic bullshit
he recited 20 straight minutes from a book he once read 20 years prior in a different language purely from memory? he memorized entire phone books for fun? pfft yeah whatever, I'll believe it when I see it.
I kind of disagree with you. He presumably had outstanding working memory and 'raw IQ' in the very sense of IQ Veeky Forums worships. Nonetheless, his vision of things wasn't as deep as Einstein's. Continuing the topic of 'deep thinking' I'd mention Grothendieck and Galois whom I personally like more than VN, Gauss, Euler. This intelligence is rather different, Grothendude failed his Trig exam which probably never happen to VN
>The goys have proven the following theorem…
The heroes of humanity are of two kinds: the ones who are just like all of us, but very much more so, and the ones who, apparently, have an extra-human spark. We can all run, and some of us can run the mile in less than 4 minutes; but there is nothing that most of us can do that compares with the creation of the Great G-minor Fugue. Von Neumann's greatness was the human kind. We can all think clearly, more or less, some of the time, but von Neumann's clarity of thought was orders of magnitude greater than that of most of us, all the time. Both Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann were great men, and their names will live after them, but for different reasons. Wiener saw things deeply but intuitively; von Neumann saw things clearly and logically. What made von Neumann great? Was it the extraordinary rapidity with which he could understand and think and the unusual memory that retained everything he could understand and think and the unusual memory that retained everything he had once thought through? No. These qualities, however impressive they might have been, are ephemeral; they will have no more effect on the mathematics and the mathematicians of the future than the prowess of an athlete of a hundred years ago has on the sport of today. The "axiomatic method" is sometimes mentioned as the secret of von Neumann's success. In his hands it was not pedantry but perception; he got to the root of the matter by concentrating on the basic properties (axioms) from which all else follows. The method, at the same time, revealed to him the steps to follow to get from the foundations to the applications. He knew his own strengths and he admired, perhaps envied, people who had the complementary qualities, the flashes of irrational intuition that sometimes change the direction of scientific progress. For von Neumann it seemed to be impossible to be unclear in thought or in expression. His insights were illuminating and his statements were precise.
P R Halmos
is important to know that all of those memorization-achievements were due to training, and most of the reciting needed to follow the chain of verses or lines. They could not simply pick a page at random and start reciting: they needed to start at some point and move from there forward.
In all of history, nobody has ever seen something as great as some gossips about Neumann state. So, what is easier to believe: that this is one case in all the history of humanity or that the stories were grossly exaggerated?
Here, look at this book about Neumann: the author is clearly saying that there was a lot of legend about Neumann’s capacities:
And here (here is the central piece of my argumentation) you can see that he selected some books and subjects to “learn by hearth”, to memorize them, and later used the time-invested-knowledge to baffle his friends:
and:
So he was actually doing what all the people who work their own memories do: he was training and selecting specific texts to learn.
About his "supreme memory" that could "remember every single book he read from top to cover", see this bio about him, page 8:
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand von Neumann. His genius is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of his accomplishments will go over a typical person's head. There’s also his nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his personality- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. His fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these theories, to realise that they’re not just mathematical- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike von Neumann truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the genius in von Neumann's existential catchphrase “Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as von Neumann’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.
8/10 pasta saved as a .txt and I will be sure to deploy it in situations where it is called for, and not.
So you agree with this:
>We can also say that he was working in subjects that demanded much more brilliance than the ones where Shakespeare, Mozart, Bach and Michelangelo made their achievements (perhaps Neumann could do what they did if he put his mind to it, only he did not had the interest).
“Yevgeny Vassilyitch, I hope——”
“Ah, Anna Sergyevna, let us speak the truth. It's all over with me. I'm under the wheel. So it turns out that it was useless to think of the future. Death's an old joke, but it comes fresh to every one. So far I'm not afraid ... but there, senselessness is coming, and then it's all up!——” he waved his hand feebly. “Well, what had I to say to you ... I loved you! there was no sense in that even before, and less than ever now. Love is a form, and my own form is already breaking up. Better say how lovely you are! And now here you stand, so beautiful ...”
Anna Sergyevna gave an involuntary shudder.
“Never mind, don't be uneasy.... Sit down there.... Don't come close to me; you know, my illness is catching.”
Anna Sergyevna swiftly crossed the room, and sat down in the armchair near the sofa on which Bazarov was lying.
“Noble-hearted!” he whispered. “Oh, how near, and how young, and fresh, and pure ... in this loathsome room!... Well, good-bye! live long, that's the best of all, and make the most of it while there is time. You see what a hideous spectacle; the worm half-crushed, but writhing still. And, you see, I thought too: I'd break down so many things, I wouldn't die, why should I! there were problems to solve, and I was a giant! And now all the problem for the giant is how to die decently, though that makes no difference to any one either.... Never mind; I'm not going to turn tail.”
Bazarov was silent, and began feeling with his hand for the glass. Anna Sergyevna gave him some drink, not taking off her glove, and drawing her breath timorously.