Holy Crap, how smart was Grothendieck

Doesn't anyone think Grothendieck is like the complete opposite of Von Neumann in a way

both were geniuses, but different kinds

Von Neumann was a technical wizard, meaning he would be able to master the technicalities of math, can probably think of problems and equations faster than Grothendieck etc.


but Grothendieck had a greater view of the generalization of math, he saw the whole picture

>>9060120
dont know, im no mathematician.

>>9060120
>>9060124
Here's a plausible explanation: Grothendieck had enormously high verbal intelligence (hence the proclivity for abstraction) but his quantitative thinking was disproportionally low (although still much higher than the average brainlet). (One thing you should know about Grothendieck is that he wrote great prose. Most mathematicians cannot write anything to save their lives.)

I don't think he was just being modest when he said, about himself:
"I've had the chance...to meet quite a number of people, both among my "elders" and among young people in my general age group, who were much more brilliant, much more "gifted" than I was. I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if at play, new ideas, juggling them as if familiar with them from the cradle - while for myself I felt clumsy. even oafish, wandering painfully up a arduous track, like a dumb ox faced with an amorphous mountain of things that I had to learn ( so I was assured), things I felt incapable of understanding the essentials or following through to the end. Indeed, there was little about me that identified the kind of bright student who wins at prestigious competitions or assimilates, almost by sleight of hand, the most forbidding subjects."

>>9060151
id also say he had amazing abstract thinking

>>9060171
edit: interesting i didn't know verbal intellect is linked to abstraction

>>9060151
>you can have high verbal intelligence and abstraction but somehow you can have low quantitative thinking at the same time

You don't have high verbal intelligence.

>>9060175
It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Words are themselves abstractions of concrete objects and phenomena. High verbal intelligence = being very good at manipulating abstractions.

>>9060179
Verbal and quantitative reasoning use different neurological systems. Look it up before you open your mouth like a moron.

>>9060189
Ashkenazi Jews tend to also have super high verbal iq

hence people like Grothendieck and Einstein

>>9060189
>>9060179
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/18/4909

>>9060189
Oh so you believe that just because some unrigorous science said so huh?

File: da18-Djn_400x400.jpg (11KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x240px

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Grothendieck.html

>>9060201
As opposed to what, pulling shit out of my ass?
Why are you on this board brainlet?

File: super retard look at this.jpg (427KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1920x1080px

>>9060198
Different words activate different parts of the brain, but it is due to specialization, and they are all necessarily verbal. Mathematicians might be activating more syntactical parts of the brain, but you can replicate that with any language. It is still verbal intelligence.

>>9060217
>>9060201
>>9060189

The whole insight of the IQ test, is that different types of intelligence are greatly correlated. Practically everyone who is good at math is also good at verbal intelligence stuff.

You should be highly skeptical of anyone who tries to say someone has high math or verbal skills, but a low value in the other. When you go out and objectively measure those two skills, they almost always come together.

File: photo (1).jpg (40KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 601x601px

>>9060224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional

Please shut the fuck up.

>>9060222
Let's just say that you really don't know what you're talking about. Psychometric results also corroborate the distinction between quantitative (numerate+spatial) and verbal intelligence.

>>9060224
Here's something you don't know: the higher your IQ, the lower the correlations between the different factors.

>>9060224
I concur with (>>9060226)

Another good article to read: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lpf/the_truth_about_mathematical_ability/

>>9060235
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lv3/is_scott_alexander_bad_at_math/

I see you are also a fan.

>>9060224

i don't believe that's always the case

>>9060237
Indeed. It warms my heart there are other reasonable anons here.

>>9060240

> I dont believe its always the case that every case has low variance

Why do people who dont understand stats even talk.

>>9060226
>>9060235

Stay wrong fags

>>9060231

Thanks buddy, I didnt know that.

>>9060224
Do you even know what correlation means, dumb-ass? Just because there is something that mediates between all the different aspects of intelligence that does not mean that they covary identically.

>>9060247

>Just because there is something that mediates between all the different aspects of intelligence that does not mean that they covary identically.

So what?

>>9060247
>does not mean that they covary identically
Yes, it does, kek what a fucking retard

>>9060249
So being lopsided on one aspect of intelligence or another is not at all unexpected. Especially when you consider this >>9060231

>>9060231
Not true, intelligence is convergent. Non-intelligence is divergent.

>>9060253
>>9060265
>hurr durr
PSA: this is a pity reply.
find better bait next time

>>9060270
Ahahahaha

>>9060262
I was being charitable, and assuming you had some statistical insight I didnt have, but now Im not so sure.

I mean maybe you are saying that everyone is good at math, but bad at language. Then I guess it would be "lopsided", but then its just a matter of scaling, not that there is a diversity of math and reading scores.

>>9060280
>maybe you are saying that everyone is good at math, but bad at language.
The fuck? On what planet would anything I said be construed as such? You're not being charitable. You're retarded.

>>9060285
Are you the guy on this pic? >>9060226

>>9060288
No.

>>9060285
Calm down, gentleman.

>>9060151
>tfw Verbal IQ is literally 153
>Performance is 105
>great memory and arithmetic skills but shit at puzzles, chess, and every "smart person" thing ever
>forever a brainlet
s-still got that category theory am I right h-hehe

File: You_3ace5c_2337479.jpg (85KB, 440x615px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 440x615px

>>9060270
What the fuck

>>9060296
What did your overall IQ come out to be

File: b72.jpg (89KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x534px

>>9060296
>verbal IQ 153

>>9060309
what did he mean by that.
>>9060303
about 135, don't ask me how it works.

>>9060319
Dude, your IQ is shit, this score is fake. Can't you see that? The fact that you are this gullible about it implies you probably has lower IQ than what would require you to understand how it works.

>>9060151
So Grothendieck is pretty much the guy who would be able to point himself in the right direction time and time again, but would require a relatively longer amount of time to polish his thoughts on a subject because he couldn't juggle too many moving parts at once.

File: 1460276045247.jpg (266KB, 968x354px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 968x354px

>>9060319
>153 verbal IQ points
>135 IQ, Physics bach level
>can't do fucking shit

>>9060319
Thanks.

>>9060325
>>9060319
>don't ask me how it works
what do you think I meant by that?

>>9060340
yep, those are my scores. what's your point?

>>9060356
He's a butthurt shitposter. You'd best ignore him.

>>9060296
How are your arithmetic skills could if you have an average performance IQ? I have a profile just like you, above average performance iq but genius verbal iq. Right now I do combinatorics (order theory and algorithms) and I'm having a blast.
>>9060334
This is exactly how my research is, desu. It's so accurate it's scary.

>>9060362
How are your arithmetic skills could if you have an average performance IQ?

>>9060362
I don't know, but I'm pretty good at calculations. not a prodigy or anything, just better than most.
I'm also really good at some things (number theory, languages, computer sciences, group theory, philosophy) and absolute retarded dogshit at others (physics, chemistry, anything calculus)
It's a pain since I live in a country where the most prestigious thing one can be is an engineer.

>>9060385
You could make a decent engineer, not the best though. Obviously, your strengths play towards a more theoretical role. Ofc, don't take my advice for verbatim.

>>9060385
Calculus is different from the rest of math, it is not well taught, but I'm sure you can dominate it quite easily if you put in the extra amount of time. Can I make a guess? You haven't evaluated the proofs, you probably haven't seen the fundamental theorem of algebra and you hated complex numbers, correct? Physics undergrad here. Things are easier than people think.

>>9060385
You're an undergrad, you haven't seriously studied any of the things you claim to be good at.

Apparently he was the first person to realise that 57 is a prime.

>>9060432
also, he admitted he failed a math exam in arithmetic. he probably would have done poorly on the standard GRE math section. I could see that hurting him getting into a modern day math PhD program.

>>9060437

Yes, one of the greatest mathematicians would have done poorly on the GRE. Its not like the GRE is made to measure exactly that.

The things brainlets tell themselves.

File: no.gif (422KB, 500x255px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 500x255px

>>9060120
>no one will ever call you an alien sent down from heaven to advance our civilization
>in a nice way

>>9060462
GRE has a lot of high school math. The exact kind he probably failed at. You're probably thinking of the subject test. I mean the basic one

>>9060483

You are retarded.

>>9060486
He admitted he failed a math exam because he isn't good with arthimetic. That's what the standard GRE's math section includes. Stupid HS math. He would have probably done badly on that, since that the exact sort of material he failed at.

>>9060151
>>9060334
This is literally me 100%, holy shit. WTF I love Grothendieck now!

>>9060483
I disagree only because you can study for the GRE quant, that's what I did and I got a 166.

>>9060508
Alex could have studied for the arthemtic test he failed. He failed it anyways

>>9060511
I still disagree, his score would not be high but he should be at least able to make a 160+. They give you a calculator, I used that a lot.

>>9060515
He said he was fairly bad at arthimetic. He said he pretty much failed those kind of exams. I doubt he would have been as successful as you think. His teachers thought he didn't even have talent in math cause he failed at some basics and didn't show aptitude at the low level

>>9060403
Yep. Still have to put a name on said things though.
Like when you were a kid, some people would say they were better at geometry than at arithmetic, no one would go "lol pleb don't even know grothendieck lmao"

>>9060400
nah, I get complex numbers, it's actually one of the things I understand best.
but I graduated high school three years ago and I still don't know why the area under the curve of a continuous function equals the difference of the values of the antiderivative. I literally still don't know. I have read proofs and I understood why they worked, but I don't see why it's true.

>>9060462
God I hate stupid shits like you.

>>9060597
>I still don't know why the area under the curve of a continuous function equals the difference of the values of the antiderivative
How is that possible after three years ? You take the function F that maps x to the area under the curve of your function f between a fixed point a and x and you just need to prove that F is an antiderivative of f. But the curve of f between two close points x and x+h "looks like" a rectangle of base h and height f(x), and hence the rate of change of F between these two points is "roughly" f(x) (and the continuity of f gives you everything you need to make this handwaving into a rigorous argument).

why do people worship grothendieck

i see it all the time on /sci

>>9062188
Because people think he made revolutionary contribution to mathematics and was very smart

File: 17800033_307944806291587_7910659860565084976_n.png (84KB, 480x300px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 480x300px

>grothendieck thread turns in IQ shitposting
reeeeeee

>>9062283
>thread on /sci/ turns into IQ shitposting
who'd doubt

>>9062283
There were like 10 IQ posts tops in the whole thread, and they all happened yesterday. And the first sentence in the OP is literally "How smart was Grothendieck". Of course someone's gonna bring up IQ.
God anti IQ crybabies are the worst. Like it or not it's a gr8 predictor or math ability, get over it.

File: JuneHuh_2880x1850-2880x1850.jpg (711KB, 2880x1850px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 2880x1850px

>>9062346
>gr8
fuck off underage

>>9062749
>implying June has a low IQ
>implying that even if he did, one single anecdote is enough to disprove the rest of the data

>>9062827
What book is on the table?

File: 1496088550393.gif (682KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 540x540px

>>9060226
The Typical Autistic Genius. /sci/ denizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional
>Intellectually above average as child, diagnosed with disabilities as Autism, Asperger, OCD, ADHD.
>They thrive on intellectual challenges in their areas of interest and ability.

Strengths:
>Superior vocabulary, Advanced ideas and opinions, High levels of creativity and problem-solving ability, Extremely curious, imaginative, and inquisitive, Wide range of interests not related to school, Penetrating insight into complex issues, Specific talent or consuming interest area, Sophisticated sense of humor
Deficits
>Poor social skills, High sensitivity to criticism, Lack of organizational and study skills, Discrepant verbal and performance skills, Poor performance in one or more academic areas, Difficulty with written expression, Stubborn, opinionated demeanor, High impulsivity