>you aren't as smart as von Neumann What is the point

>>8852163
I want to kill myself

Why do I even try? I can't even learn 1+1

File: neumannlet.jpg (167KB, 490x639px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 490x639px

>>8852446
well, do as von neumann says: you don't understand anything in math, you just get used to it

Hilbert wasn't nearly as smart as Von Neumann, still did more tho.

>>8852473
>Hilbert wasn't nearly as smart as Von Neumann, still did more tho.
> Although other mathematicians such as Hermann Weyl and Norbert Wiener had already studied particular Hilbert spaces in great detail, often from a physically motivated point of view, von Neumann gave the first complete and axiomatic treatment of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space
Hilbert BTFO.

>>8852901
as usual von neumann, the uncreative genius, shines in refining the inventions and discoveries of others.

>>8852163

You do it for the fun of it, not for greatness

>>8852163
Why do you keep making these threads?

he was closely beaten to formulating bell's theorem. bell himself had no other major accomplishments.

>>8852949
he was "close but no cigar" to a lot of things. perhaps because he lacked that creative genius.
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2003/12/john-von-neumanns-100th-birthday/

>>8852163

Well. he was smart but he's no Gauss.

File: 2380266276_570418b291_z.jpg (64KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x333px

>>8852929
>as usual von neumann, the uncreative genius, shines in refining the inventions and discoveries of others.
That's what every mathematician does.
Wiles proved Fermat's thanks to the works of Taniyama, Shimura and Ribet.
Perel'man proved Poincaré's thanks to the work of Thurston.
Terence Tao to his own admission makes a living by applying work A on field B and admires deep thinkers on which his work is based on.
Nonetheless, Von Neumann has made quite original contributions as you can read from his Wikipedia page.

File: index.jpg (8KB, 184x273px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x273px

This is the modern definition of ordinals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number#Von_Neumann_definition_of_ordinals.
>Levy (1979, p. 52) attributes the idea to unpublished work of Zermelo in 1916 and several papers by von Neumann the 1920s.
>By the age of 19, von Neumann had published two major mathematical papers, the second of which gave the modern definition of ordinal numbers, which superseded Georg Cantor's definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

>>8853100
Yes... but in the case of janos neumann, this is more true than in other cases. there is nothing really, that could be said to be really _his_.

>>8852970
Kek

>There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.
As quoted in John Von Neumann : The Scientific Genius Who Pioneered the Modern Computer, Game Theory, Nuclear Deterrence and Much More (1992) by Norman Macrae, p. 379
/sci completely and unequivocally BTFO

File: disdain_for_plebs.jpg (309KB, 600x607px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 600x607px

>>8853156
>Yes... but in the case of janos neumann, this is more true than in other cases. there is nothing really, that could be said to be really _his_.
I gave you an example here
>>8853106
you nefarious brainlet.
Spend some times learning mathematics instead of making up things.

>>8852970
>Well. he was smart but he's no Gauss.
Von Neumann and Gauss were two different persons indeed.