Was he an alien /sci/?

You mean, like da Vinci?

File: iTb0WxNlN6AHz.jpg (1MB, 1280x1921px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1921px

He was a balding kike manlet. I bet he didn't even get any pussy.

File: pol neumann.jpg (187KB, 669x319px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 669x319px

He was quite literally /pol/ incarnate

1/2

In contrast Johnny borrowed (we must not say plagiarized) anything from anybody, with great courtesy and aplomb. His mind was not as original as Leibniz’s or Newton’s or Einstein’s, but he seized other people’s original (though fluffy) ideas and quickly changed them in expanded detail into a form where they could be useful for scholarship and for mankind. He rightfully deemed that this was clever people’s duty and their fun, so he was not worried that he was not credited with all his due by the general public or the newspapers (the latter he held in what sometimes seemed Prussian disdain). One of the professional ways in which he wrung more than twenty-four hours’ work out of a twenty-four-hour day was to get the boring research on some projects done by collaborators whom he enthused by gasping that they were famously expanding their own original ideas

>>8749984

2/2

The great glory from Einstein’s dreaminess, which can also be called his closer touch with the cosmos, was that he had marvelous flashes of irrational intuition that changed the direction of scientific progress; Johnny amiably envied these because Johnny could never be irrational himself.

“For Von Neumann,” said his assistant Paul Halmos, “it seems impossible to be unclear in his thought expression.” Although “we can all think clearly, more or less, some of the time, Von Neumann’s clarity of thought was orders of magnitude greater than that of most of us, all the time.” Halmos was probably thinking of Einstein when he likened some scientists to the creator of the Great G-Minor Fugue, while adding in his next sentence that by contrast “Von Neumann’s greatness was of the human kind”.

A big advantage to mere humans is that one can one can develop them from nursery on. Among the several million babies born this month, it is plausible that there will not have been any Einsteins or creators of the great G-minor Fugue. But it is genetically almost certain that there will have been some who could become capable of thinking in the towering level of Johnny’s concentration, intellect and mind.

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=pmPaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=von+neumann+johnny+envied+this+because+he+could+never+be+irrational+himself&source=bl&ots=xst7kJLVSj&sig=Gyin1ROfYLEqWRvhCta36pTq1zk&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit2KuG3c7RAhVLkZAKHaxNDHkQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=von%20neumann%20johnny%20envied%20this%20because%20he%20could%20never%20be%20irrational%20himself&f=false

>>8749981
do you know what yiddish means

>>8750004
>he thinks that /pol/ is white nordic males to begin with

heh, nice one kid

>>8749984
>>8749986
Stop it, moron.

>>8749959
Unbelieveably high logical IQ, poor creativity. Extraordinary, but not that much of a god if you think about it.

>>8750184

why?

People need to see the truth.

I wonder why posts like these:

>>8749984
>>8749986

leave people mad (>>8750184
), but not the endless posts like the OP.

>>8749959
Yes. He openly admitted to being a Martian.

>>8749959
he was the hyper-autist.
He was the paragon of 4chan.

>>8749959
gtfo
>>>/b/

File: 1479794290205.jpg (75KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x800px

>>8750344
>>8750350
The author's style is passive aggressive.
That part summarized implies that Neumann was too smart for being original.
Does this make any sense?
Then he goes on about glorifying Einstein in a poetical analogy.
Let's analyze this fragment:
>Among the several million babies born this month, [[it is plausible that]] there will not have been any Einsteins or creators of the great G-minor Fugue. But [[it is genetically almost certain]] that there will have been some who could become capable of thinking in the towering level of Johnny’s concentration, intellect and mind.
A brainlet of the highest rank.
He is embarrassing and he's patently making things up.
This is /sci/, not /lit/; please let's keep to the facts.

>>8750466

But Einstein was greater than Neumann, even if the author of the book has a poetic style or something.

>>8750470
>But Einstein was greater than Neumann, even if the author of the book has a poetic style or something.
In your pop-sci fantasy.

>>8750466
>That part summarized implies that Neumann was too smart for being original.

No. It implies that, even if one is extremely smart in the most crude sense (great memory and ability to readily understand new concepts), still there is something more, something we usually call creativity, than isn’t simply connected to high intelligence.

The author is saying that Neumann was not only very bright, but also creative. He never says that Von Neumann is not a creative individual. Yet he was creative in a more “normal” way. He could deal with problems that did not had a previous solution and solve them, yet he didn’t had the same exuberance of creativity that Einstein had.

There is also an analogy with Bach, which kind of means that Bach’s creativity in his area of activity (music) was more outstanding than Neumann’s in his (mathematics).

The author also points out that Neumann usually worked by collaborating with colleagues that were doing research on their own. That means that he used his great intelligence to clean up paths that other people have started, maybe because he himself was not that fertile in making his own roads (he was most comfortable helping others to construct their roads), yet, when someone pointed to him: “Here is a new path to walk, but we need to cut the grass and take out the rocks and etc.”, Neumann was unmatched in doing the more practical mental calculations and reasoning’s.

>>8750473
>In your pop-sci fantasy.


I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jansci [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed me.

... But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jansci's brilliance, he never produced anything as original.

Eugene P. Wigner,

>>8750473
>In your pop-sci fantasy.

Several rankings of greatest mathematicians here:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Greatest+mathematician+ever

Neumann is not in the top five in any list.

But Einstein is generally put together with Newton as the greatest physicist of all time.

There is no comparison: Einstein was the greater man.

>>8749972
>zombie season