How can one become math genius? are they born or made?

>see it
>get it
>adjective

Found the genius, guys.

then go study what articles are you utter idiot en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)

...

I don't believe that, I believe there are certain things one can be born into.

Mathematics isn't one of them.

There is no evolutionary/genetic aspect to it. maybe memory? which could be useful?
but not really a deal breaker.

IQ would only help on tests really.

terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/

That's a jew

They are born.

That's what happens when you let the jew murder the entire top third of your population's bell curve

>needing articles
i sometimes forget to use them when i switch to brainlet languages like english

I bet you always get articles and tenses wrong you dumb slav

im not slav. well its hard to speak languages perfectly when you can speak 5 and are often switching inbetween them. how many you know? 1?

I suppose the first thing we have to do is really define what we mean by a "genius" as that could be arbitrary. I think most people; however, would agree that Von Neumann is a genius (inb4 muh overrated). Can we really reach the level of Von Neumann? The man contributed not only to every field of mathematics except number theory and topology but also achieved major praise outside of math for his work in CS and Econ.

Probably going to be a meme at this point but 10,000 hours will make you really, really good, but there are just people who are outliers who are a step above us.

Don't let it stop you from trying to tackle what you can in your respective field, but I think there are just some people who surpass what most humans are capable of.

Mostly, geniuses are born. But if you are autistic enough, you can be average and become one.

See Grothendieck.
He was slightly above average, but still managed to create more than people several SDs above him solely through autism.

Grothendieck was an undeniable genius. Him not being "fast" doesn't change that.
I find that article funny. He knows full well that he's smarter than almost anyone surrounding him, but he doesn't want to come off as an arrogant fuck, so he says things like "just try real hard brah!" and "just bee urself!", completely avoiding the fact that people like him absolutely dominate over almost everyone else at whatever they do.

kill yourself you dirty anglo

Don't get me wrong, we can never be Terry Tao and Von Neumann, they have years of internalized knowledge, started young and never stopped and they have their own unique perspectives, also they didn't really expand into other studies.

But that's not to say you can't do mathematical research and become a genius at it, but as a general rule of thumb:

If you're in your mid 20's and never really mastered a skill, it is very unlikely that you would get at anything, you simply don't know how to learn.

If you did master something then its safe to say the individual knows how to learn and practice effectively and would excel.

>how can one become math genius?
That's a question for neuroscientists and psychologists

Grothendieck himself has literally said that he met people who had an awfuly easier time than him learning mathematics and that he had at times stumbled upon subjects that he never thought he would be able to learn.
He was a genius? Yes. A born one? Hardly.
If it weren't for his work ethic, he probably would be regarded as "the smart kid" but all he would he able to do would be shit like saying long, complicated words and doing quick maths or something, which would definitely impress people, but not mean much from a practical standpoint.

>im not slav
A slav you fucking idiot. I speak 4 languages fag, and if you speak the other languages like you do English I'm not impressed

10 years, 12 hours work per day to rebuild algebraic geometry.

hahahahhaha look at you user

Gauss conjectured the prime number theorem when he was 15 or 16.

That's enough proof for me that Terry is wrong.

where the hell is he wrong? you do not need to be a genius to make stark contributions to math.

Both. Talent and skill.

the prime number theorem is really important though

1% talent, 99% hard work

I had this exact shit, never really knew what it means to learn, took me until I was like 17 to actually stop and think about math, but I didn't knew about pure math (shit student in shit country) so I had to rely on intuitionism, making visual models for everything, which is why when I found about good pure math books I went deep into my foundations, I'm 20 now, and you are right, even if I know what learning is now I'm probably a brainlet since it took me so long.

I don't think so, Newton started very late

I think it's a combination of these factors (no order)

(1) Getting interested in math at a relatively early age (you just can't become a math genius if you start getting into math at 50s)
(2) Dedicating free time to math, uni is not enough. I think making math problems your own problem is something all important math contributors have in common.
(3) Being recognized by others. A lot of teachers rejected Ramanujan until Hardy, for example. Academics need to take you seriously if you want your papers to be read.

Also, elementary/middle/high school math, olympic math, undergrad math and "mathematician math" are VERY different from one another, so you have to define what you consider 'genius' to be.

I bet everyone here can name examples of people that were considered the best in school math but turned out to be idiots when they got through college. Most schools tend to send the kids with best grades to math olympiads where they get BTFO by autistic children. How many IMO gold medals can you name that have made important contributions to math, for example? Most of the time it's because they can't get through college rigorousness.

So,

Having good grades at school =/= winning medals at olympiads =/= creating and contributing to math.

(please don't think about TerryTao while reading this)

Grothendieck also worked over 12 hours a day.
He gave up on civilization to live like an hermit on the mountains in the middle of nowhere for a really good reason.

lmao very very wrong

My brother was pushed hard academically by my dad at a very young age, meanwhile I just fucked around and smoked weed.

He's miles ahead of me in everything :^(

you can feel sad or get to reading, start some ultra autistic 10 hours a day of study regime and in a few years you will be great

Yeah, but he was Newton.

How to succeed at litterally any academic subject

1. be passionate about it
2. be self-critical, trying to see whatever you can improve

A corollary of (2.) is you shouldn't be here but studying instead.

Its a good question.

Let me start by saying that IQ is nonsense. Its what we use because we dont have anything more rigorous.

Theres clearly factors to genius that rarely get mentioned. Like psychological factors. Humans are plagued with having an irrational psychology. Geniuses must have some way to tame or ignore or otherwise put off their irrational psychology. You cant well make scientific discoveries if youre depressed or anxious or something.

We also have to define genius. Which no one can agree on. Some things I consider necessary to be essential to geniuses are: the ability to take in garbled or mysterious information and translate it into something palatable, the ability to describe complexity in the simplest terms reasonable and the ability to teach others.

What do you notice about single subject savants? They are able to work tirelessly without distraction in their field. What did einstein and newton and a bunch of scientists and mathematicians say? They all say its about passion, interest, curiosity and hard work.

Finally, what is the brain? The brain is a logic machine. It takes in information, applies logical processes and outputs an answer. Some things to notice: for the logical processes to work right, you must have a wide range of knowledge. So theres another factor of a genius: lots of knowledge. Also, the brain is rational but the mind is not. Like I said, I believe psychology plays a major role.

If what Im saying is true then a genius could be anybody without brain damage. You. Me. Anyone as long as our brains are under the right conditions.

With the exception of few single subject savants, notice that geniuses are talented in a variety of fields. Because their brains are in good conditions and can process info from any field

How to succeed without passion? I'm not gay.

Most of these "geniuses" come from wealthy families with private tutors and took college level courses earlier. Whenever you already taken real analysis, abstract algebra, algebraic topology and differential geometry in 12th grade and are applying for universities for a BS in Math, someone will label you as a genius vs recognizing how privileged your family is.

Don't buy into the hype about age. There are serious mathematical geniuses that were late bloomers due to coming from poor families and lack of resources (like Newton), war and whatever else.

Git good. Dont argue with people here about what it means to be a genius or if you are too old to start.

Read:
>Picture related.
Or this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain#Scientific_studies
And you'll notice that it is largely genetic (born with).

If you just git gud at a young age people will consider you a genius

Either be:
>Celtic
>Germanic
>Slavic
>Sinodontic East Asian
That's how.

gitting good at a young age usually means you started earlier because you have helicopter parents/wealthier family background. Don't mistake earlier start to being a genius. Newton started way later than most and surpassed his peers. If you initially compared Newton as a young lad (farmer boy life path) to one of his peers in terms of their math knowledge, you'd mistake his peer as being smarter than Newton. But once Newton started you'd see his true intellect. Knowledge/Early Resources != genius

Nah man, you can git gud even if you're poor, just have to have the right attitude
If wasn't a such a little shit disturber I'd be a really niqqa rn

i agree, but it isn't uncommon to see poor peeps start later, hence they can become "late bloomer". they wouldn't had been a late bloomer if they had the same resources as privileged kids. peeps be thinking kids geniuses cuz they take classes early n junk. newton had latent talent, and like i said if you looked at him initially and compared him to a peer, youd think the peer was vastly more intelligent than newton just cuz they studied math earlier. once newton got to cambridge as a young adult, he surpassed everyone. a true genius is like that.

>Witten
>Inferior because he started older
Mhm...

Yeah but its not like Newton just randomly went to university one day like "let me try this out just for fun". He showed potential for this sort of thing throughout his entire life. I would argue that Newton started gittin gud at a young age.

witten and newton both had natural time. in newton's case he was already doing insane things at a young age despite his lack of education and poor marks in school. he already showed signs of his genius, he just didn't have the education others had, but still was smarter than them. once he go to cambridge he was able to more than make up for it. but you are right, it was already very clear early in newton's life he was a genius

>insane things

Whoa dude, gnarly!

IQ probably comes into it but mainly made. All the great thinkers of the past were either rich or sponsored and could spend ALL their free time researching their subject

They can be made.
At great cost. Especially if one has no aptitude and alot of will. However they can be made.

>.>"

Holy shit, France.