Do you need to be super smart to contribute to the world of mathematics?

do whatever the fuck you want, you don't have to be half as good as the rest of those fucks to actually get nowhere as well

>>7851678
I don't consider myself overly smart, but I enjoyed university math, those were my favorite classes 2bh (double major math & geology (yeah I know right wtf)).
Don't know about actually contributing though, I was never anywhere near the cutting edge.

Really I'm pretty sure I'm too stupid to actually contribute anything really groundbreaking or new in science (except geology but that doesn't really count cause I can just go map some rock no one has bothered to map and call it a contribution. Fuck geology).

I say just go for it OP. Just because you aren't naturally talented, that doesn't mean you can't. Just means you gotta spend a lot of time with it.

I have just a little bit of talent with math, but I take advantage of that and study my ass off and everyone thinks it just becomes super easy for me.

What matters is your study hours and how you spend free time, not how innately good you are.

Yeah. Anyone can learn high-level level math to be honest, just need hard work and motivation. But there is a difference between contributing and merely learning.

If you want to contribute best way is to learn to look at something u have learned that is basic but in a different way. That is where most Mathematical anaylsis is based these days

>>7851678
I go to a low-tier state university and this one professor I had said we're basically here to cater to all the genius kids. Keep in mind most of the ppl here are getting their degrees to teach high school math. Another professor said he was considered a below-average mathematician, but he still managed to write a shit ton of papers.

>>7851710
Keb'd :D

I wouldn't say I have any real talent for mathematics as such, but I love doing maths and problem solving.

I write computer graphics software and make a pretty good living out of it.

If you are happy doing mathematics why bother about anyone else?.

Richard Feynman admittedly scored a 125 on an IQ test. Clearly Intelligent, but not some supernatural genius by any means. If you're passionate about maths and keep challenging yourself, I don't see any reason why you couldn't become exceedingly proficient in said field

>>7854961
Hell, 125, with what, 70 year old norms? So closer to 110-115, Most of this board probably has a higher IQ than him. Just goes to show, really, that IQ is a demographers tool, and has far too high of a false negative rate to describe individuals.

>>7851710
Ironically, this post is correct

>>7853895
>I go to a low-tier state university and this one professor I had said we're basically here to cater to all the genius kids

In what respect? Elaborate on this.

>>7854961

One of the guys that discovered DNA had an IQ of 124 if I remember correctly.