Are there any scientists or mathematicians alive today who will

>>8897995
Steven Hawkings is as big as Einstein, the problem is discoveries made now are not so fundamental as they were before.

File: download-1-1.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>8897995
>OP hasn't heard of Bill Nye the contemporary genius of our new generation
Fucking brainlet.

>>8897999
300 years from now, literally no one will know who he is except astrophysicists. He's known for radiation from black holes and books that will long be out of print.

>>8897995
No math revolutions on par with calculus will ever occur again, because all of the fundamentals have been discovered. But there is still plenty of room for filling out details.

>>8898010
>math revolutions on par with calculus will ever occur again
>He hasn't even learned Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory yet

>>8897995
Yeah I am here

Too fucking lazy do anything though

>>8898020
IUT takes decades of study in AlgGeo and schemes to even understand Memezuki's prerequisite p-adic analysis papers to understand, and it's applications are only proving ABC and Spiro, which are niche to Diophantine Equations.

I'm a certified math genius on par with any of the greats, but I lack the drive to realize my potential.

>>8898067
Hire someone to kidnap you and cut off parts of your body if you don't come up with solutions to the biggest problems in enough time.

>>8898007
>300 years from now

science will be lost
history will be lost

as the remnants of humanity descend into a new dark age

they'll be burning witches again in no time

Me, I solved the Grand Unified Theorem yesterday, solved the Standard Model a couple of hours ago, proved the Riemann Hypothesis while I was having a wank, proved that N != NP while I was cumming and found the solution for the Navier-Stokes equation while I was regretting myself for having masturbating.

>>8898094
spooge encrustation will not prevent papers from being plagiarized at the patent office

File: zarathustra.jpg (254KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 500x750px

>>8898086
This

Musk is our generation's Tesla. Just saiyan.
Bezos is his Edison.

File: laughing wombs.jpg (596KB, 1500x1143px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1500x1143px

>>8898058
>it's applications are only proving ABC and Spiro
it's as if you don't even know why he was doing IUT to begin with...

>>8897995
Mochizuki

>>8897995

You're noticing a pattern in the frequency of renown scientific geniuses. I'd say this is in part because of how the fields of mathematics and physics have progressed to a point of complexity such that the most effective and productive ways to develop them further are group/community based. There's a trend in history for us to eliminate people for claiming some truth about the world that is denied for some irrational reason, e.g. geocentricism vs heliocentrism, irrational numbers, etc. That's no longer as much of a problem. So the majority of work in mathematics and physics isn't done by individuals locked away in isolation anymore. Therefore we don't see instances of lone genius anymore. There's an interesting article about this. Just google the age of scientific genius.

Grothendieck is probably the last mathematician who will be remembered as a singular revolutionary genius

The closest you're gonna get is Noam Chomsky. 100% serious here.

>>8898010
>he unironically thinks all but details of mathematics has been discovered and understood
What's it like to be a brainlet?

>>8898675
>There's a trend in history for us to eliminate people for claiming some truth about the world that is denied for some irrational reason, e.g. geocentricism vs heliocentrism, irrational numbers, etc. That's no longer as much of a problem. So the majority of work in mathematics and physics isn't done by individuals locked away in isolation anymore.
What fucking planet do you live on?

Witten

>>8898007
In computational mathematics it feels that there aren't even adequate "fundamentals" yet. CS being so bad is problably a consequence of this.

>>8898684
He is definitely gonna be remembered.
Hawking too.
Witten if string theory is proven correct.

>>8898875
What is not fundamental about linear algebra and statistics?

Mathematics still has tons of big problems. And Perelman will probably be highly regarded for what he's already done, and he'd hate it. Besides that, the bounded prime gaps conjecture seems like a big discovery, but I don't know if Yitang Zhang will be well remembered. Also, just look at any of the Clay Millennium Problems for things that will get people's names in the history books.

>>8898684
Literally has his name used in a widely studied concept, of course he'll be remembered.

>>8898002
bill nye is a libtard sellout

>>8899081
Yeah, but I figured some /pol/tards might get mad at me saying that.

>>8897999
>>8898007
>>8898010

>Nobody will ever live up to old great scientists because everything except the details has been discovered!
>There's plenty of things left to invent because not everything has been discovered and capitalism is not dead!

/sci/, everyone.

File: serveimage(3).jpg (8KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x293px

Grigori Perelman. He already proved the Poincaré Conjecture and now he's working on Navier-Stokes. If anything he'll be remembered for his eccentricity.

>>8898684
Not a /pol/tard myself but he is not a scientist, a thinker yes.

>>8899239

I would be considered a /pol/ tard and Chomsky will definitely be remembered as long as anybody else contemporaneous with him.

>>8897995
you know what is cool? that from now on, the history is very well documented. Documented, as never before. The future generations will have virtually infinite amount of sources to get the information from. Wow, this is amazing right? But wait, how will these poor souls know, what information is real, and which is made up and which is real?
I don't know, we have these kinds of problem already, and with time, it's only to get worse. But what is fascinating is, that they will have everything. Imagine, we knew today, what were people thinking two thousands years ago. but I hope, there will not be another "bible situation" or something regarding our fiction. Funny. Humanity is very interesting.
To answer your question, no, nobody's name will last for such a long time, not even name of the most important of us. It's not possible. Their names will be unknown to common folk, but it will be possible to retrieve information about them at will, although, mentioned problem will come up, as with time, truth becomes fuzzier. I can only hope that humanity will progress and it will not devolve, as we can see some are trying to achieve so. Remember, always do the right thing.
Godspeed, emperor

Literally no normies have heard of the poeple being suggested, people who are surface level interested in STEM subjects have heard of the people OP is referring to

>>8897999
Hawkings' discoveries are not nearly as fundamental or groundbreaking as Einstein's were.

>>8898002
Cuz my sex junk
Is so oh oh oh
Much more than
Either or or or

>>8899360
He is a scientist, his work on linguistics is rather rigorous, and helps describe natural phenomena and theoretical frameworks that go beyond just his field, even.

>Why were so many of the best minds concentrated in one 300 year period?
you know we are still in that period right?

>>8899533

His work in linguistics was decades ago and has been pretty much completely BTFO by more recent findings. His legacy will be as a crank and a fucktard.

>>8897995
Funny thing is that immortalizing someone doesn't exempt them from fading out of the spotlight.

>>8898067
I doubt it. This belief that if you have a natural gift for abstract thinking makes you on par with geniuses however the only reason you're unheard of is because you simply can't be bothered to make yourself known is like me saying that I already cured cancer and an pretty much an immortal but I just can't be bothered to share it with anyone else.

>>8899552
[Citation needed]

>>8899539
No, we're entering a dark ages because IP laws and corruption of the scientific process is very rampant.

What about Alan Turing? I mean he created the first computer.

>>8899552
>has been pretty much completely BTFO by more recent findings

Gonna need a source on that, bub

>>8900511
>>8899594
There's some backwater amazonian language that is missing recursion, which he posits is "universal" in all grammar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language

Why is /sci/ incapable of understanding the low hanging fruit concept?
The only problems left are the ones that past """geniuses""" couldn't solve.

I'm just waiting for a to intelligent to blow everything the fuck out. This world is too impure.

>>8898071
>>>/co/

>>8897995
Remember that great breakthoughs are not always met with popularity.
Remeber Faraday...

>>8897995
Me.

Aubrey de grey

Get it?

>>8899059
They seems to be insuficient to solve many problems in CS. They are fundamental, but they are not enough.

That depends if people decide to appreciate real scientific genius again. Right now, the right doesn't give a fuck and the left deifies scientists to the point where there's very little division of ability, so I don't see it happening any time soon. In terms of someone Einstein level, I'd vote Nima Arkani-Hamed

>>8901228
What problems can't they solve?
Inquisitive, not interrogative.

>>8899069
Yitang Zhang will always be remembered by me, not because I care about prime gaps but because he was a calculus lecturer at a community college and solved an international open research problem by himself

>>8901231
nice bait

>>8897995
It's hard to compare mathematicians today to old school polymaths like that, because back then there was such a broad scope of shit to develop, whereas nowadays people usually specialize in very specific niche areas.

>>8899493
Because past geniuses were mentioned in school
Normies at least know hawking though

>>8901177
kek

File: humble_fruitpicker.jpg (61KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 460x288px

>>8897995
>immortalising low hanging fruit pickers

See this is the problem.

>>8901250
P=/=NP, for instance?
And if P=NP, how to find algorithms that solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time.
And a lot of proprieties of algorithms in general doesn't seem to have a good way to be studied. For instance, a general theory to relate structural proprieties from algorithms and meta-heuristics with their performance with problems with other certain structural proprieties.
And there is a lack of more elegant methods in AI as a whole.

>>8898875
Can you elaborate on that? The fundamental theory of computer science seems well-developed enough. Of course, that doesn't mean there are no open questions left.

>>8900566
Not necessarily. The past geniuses didn't have access to the data and information that today's do. So there are fresh problems to be solved.

So basically the only way to become GOAT is to build a Large Hadron Collider the size of... the fucking milky way (diameter)

this way there will be finally enough geV to reach the energy that was present during the first 0.0000000000000 seconds of the universe.

So yeah, think about that.

>>8901701
>>8901685

Our analyze of algorithms is still very superficial, for instance. Meta-heuristics are worse. If you take a handbook of meta-heuristics for instance most of the methods aren't much different from "common sense", and most relevant results about them are empirical (a bunch os researches tried X and Y meta-heuristic to see what deals better with some problem in practice).
Sure, there's the No Free Lunch Theorem that says in certain cases all meta-heuristics will have the same average performance - but this is over the set of all possible instances of a problem. It would be much more interesting results about generalizations of meta-heuristics structural proprieties in relation with the structural proprieties of the instances of the problems, etc. And other things that could help reduce the "empirical" aspect of all this.
I don't know how this could be done - but if someone developed a way to better analyze this kind of thing, and specially was able to use this to develop new more efficient algorithms in general, I honestly think it could be comparable with the development of calculus.

>>8901989
A complement: also, even if we can with the techniques of today solve a lot of problems, many times it's "hard". And there may be a better way to do it. People could solve integrals before the fundamental theorem of calculus, but some were very nasty, and now are almost trivial. I imagine advances in the way we deal with many problems of CS that we already can solve can also be made, and it also probably would help reduce the empiricist tendencies of many researches.

>>8899611
That's not true. Babbage did that. Turing just made it practical.

>>8901989
It sounds like you are talking about AI more than computer science. On that topic, I can't say much in depth.

>Our analyze of algorithms is still very superficial, for instance.
How so?

>Meta-heuristics are worse.
Sure, by definition. If there is a strong theory behind something, it's no longer a heuristic, after all.

>A complement: also, even if we can with the techniques of today solve a lot of problems, many times it's "hard".
Don't confuse limitations of present-day *techniques* with that of the existing *theory*.

>>8902152
I consider AI applied computer science. At least the part about optimization and other operation research problems.

>How so?

While we can analyze the space and time for algorithms, theres no clear way to study it's structures of "why" a certain set of algorithms have such propeties. And so there's no (good and precise) way to generate new algorithms, or to determinate what's the 'best' possible algorithm for a variety of problems.

>Sure, by definition. If there is a strong theory behind something, it's no longer a heuristic, after all.

The behavior of all meta-heuristics I know is precise in some level of abstraction (even if in the 'low level' the details change)- and so there could be a proper theory about it. Perhaps then it would stop being considered meta-heuristics, but that's just semantics.

>Don't confuse limitations of present-day *techniques* with that of the existing *theory*.

Yes, but frequently better techniques comes with development of the theory.