I've asked Tao's fans repeatedly which one of Tao's contributions is significant or revolutionary and they haven't given me anything. All they talk about is prodigy and IQ (which is irrelevant to mathematics).
If we imagine that Tao's contributions never existed then mathematics would be virtually the same with no notable difference. The Green-Tao theorem is not a big deal since multiple proofs of Szemerédi's theorem had already existed.
They basically renamed Szemerédi's theorem to Green-Tao
If we look at modern day mathematicians based on significance I could not rank Tao high
If we imagine that Jean-Pierre Serre, Ngô Bảo Châu, Grigori Perelman, Vladimir Voevodsky, or many other modern day mathematicians had never existed we can see that mathematics would look notably different.
If we imagine that Tao's contributions never existed mathematics is the same with no notable difference....
@itstheChampion88 someone doesnt get the point... why are you attacking him? you have no right to talk shit, and did u contribute anything?(i think not, moron) we get ur point..... asians are not good at math..... lol
What a terrible thing it is that in modern times contributions have lost their significance and IQ and childhood genius are placed above and higher than contributions.
Contributions are what advances mathematics, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are what advances mankind, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are what forever change the world, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are all that matter in reality, not IQ or childhood genius
I don't think Tao is a bad mathematician, but can you blame him for being REALLY REALLY lucky? Mayb he didn't contribute anything really groundbreaking (you are better judge than me here), it's just that the PRESS, and therefore the rest of the world, chose him as the 21st century math flagbearer. The fact that he seems very sociable, and his youth, probably helped a lot (yes, TOO MUCH) his public image.
@itstheChampion88 They may be celebrated but many actually search for press exposure. Good mathematicians usually are not interested in it, and therefore don't get any. But on the otehr side, what about Ed Witten, how do you consider him? For what I hear although being a physicist he's considered one of today's best mathematicians. And he received at least some media coverage too, so how does this apply to your equation? btw sorry for my english.
@Helkost Ed Witten doesn't have nearly as much exposure as say Michio Kaku.
I think Ed Witten is more significant than Tao personally.
The way that I measure the significance of a mathematician is by imagining how mathematics would look if that mathematician's contributions never existed. So Witten is more significant than Tao by far.
If Tao never existed at all then mathematics would be nearly the same. Basically all of Tao's contributions would've been re-discovered without Tao existing
So any other Tao fan or IQ fan have any other argument for me to fuck up?
My IQ is only 159, not that high, but it doesn't bother me much. IQ just seems to measure learning speed and that all.
Mathematicians have to organize volumes of theory, are allowed to use books, pencil, paper, and it is truthfully NOTHING like answering IQ test questions
IQ measures how well you answer IQ test questions using your mind alone
Contributions measure how much you advance mathematics
Since you are not allowed to use pencil or paper on IQ tests, IQ tests have time-limits, and nearly all IQ test questions are nothing like the problems mathematicians face we can easily see that IQ is a completely useless indicator
Basically anyone with an IQ of 120 or higher given limitless time and pencil and paper would be able to correctly answer ANY IQ test question, so IQ becomes useless higher than120 and higher than 150 it's meaningless
@itstheChampion88 The latest study in the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education does not support the (IQ 120) threshold theory. This study is notable because many tests were administered, to a diverse and broad sample of participants. The authors conclude the link between IQ and creativity is negligible. It is only on certain tests, that are more dependent on Gc, or crystallized intelligence (what conventional tests measure), in which the 120 rule applies.
@zadeh79 Interesting study...no link between IQ and creativity now? That makes sense.
An interesting experiment to perform would be comparing the IQ scores of people who follow traditional IQ test rules with the IQ scores of the same people who are allowed to use pencil, paper, and have more time available
Regardless, being an excellent mathematician has to do with making revolutionary contributions, not with having a high IQ
The majority of advances in mathematics have to do with originality, intuition, inventiveness, and many other things that are nothing like IQ test questions.
I guess this explains why nearly 100% of people with the highest recorded IQs are not even close to being the best mathematicians
Julia Robinson - IQ 98, contributed to solving Hilbert's 10th problem, decision and game theory problems
Christopher Langan - IQ 195-210, contributed nothing to mathematics
Well I feel bad for destroying all the Tao fan's arguments. Anyone who has another lame IQ fan argument or any other argument go ahead and propose it to me so I can fuck it and embarrass the fuck out of you.
Being able to answer IQ test questions well does not indicate that you would be a great mathematician.
Contributions not answering IQ test questions are what being an excellent mathematician is about.
The gullible IQ fans here obviously understand little about mathematics
Julia Robinson's IQ was measured as only 98, she was a slow reader and a slow learner, yet she was the main mathematician that solved Hilbert's 10th problem.
WaveOfTrolls demonstrates the gullible nature of IQ fanatics.
Just look up the list of people that actually have the highest recorded (not estimated) IQs and you will find that the majority are not great mathematicians at all.
Being a great mathematician has to do with how much you contribute, and how much you contribute ALONE
From history we can see that the people with the highest measured IQs did not end up being great mathematicians. Why? Because IQ just measures how well you answer IQ test questions. Estimated IQs are useless.
What matters to be a great mathematician is contributions alone, NOT IQ. That faggot WaveOfTrolls is just a gay Chinese supremacist IQ fan. He feels bad that I defeated all his lame arguments.
Its quite obvious that WaveOfTrolls understands little about what being a mathematician is about
In modern times when people talk about mathematical genius they seem to be fixed on medals and IQ.
In the earlier days no one cared at all about IQ or contests when they talked about mathematical genius, but contributions alone.
The Green-Tao theorem doesn't even come from Green or Tao, it comes from the Hungarian mathematician Szemerédi. But Szemerédi's theorem had already been proven by Hillel Furstenberg in 1977 and Timothy Gowers in 2001.
Given Tao's contributions so far, Tao will most likely go down in the history of mathematics as a small figure, unless he contributes much more significant things.
Anyone who wants to argue that Tao would've contributed as much as Euler would have to show that Tao has high inventiveness + high problem-solving ability
Euler proved and disproved countless theorems (like Fermat's Little theorem) + had very intuition and inventiveness (invented graph theory, modern mathematical notation, etc...)
@ff7masta lol Tao is not worthy of jealousy.....someone like say Galios, Abel, John von Neumann, or Grothendieck are worthy of jealousy, even though they are not even the best mathematicians, they are still better than Tao
When I first heard of Tao I thought he must have revolutionized mathematics in some way....but then I looked at his contributions and realized that things have changed in modern times, contributions just aren't valued highly any more like they use to be
@ff7masta yeah I'm mad that contributions have lost their significance and child prodigy has high significance now
I mean if we ranked Tao based on contributions he would be ranked very low. Just look at how all the other excellent mathematicians who've contributed as much or more than Tao are completely ignored like Vladimir Voevodsky who is basically ignored completely simply because he wasn't a child prodigy
The only way I can view Tao highly is if makes more significant contributions...
@itstheChampion88 I think Tao might be very famous now but no one would know him later...until and unless he makes some really good contributions in mathematics.
His good IQ might impress people for now, but its temporary.
Great Scientists are remembered for their contributions, not for being child prodigy or having high IQ.
@ff7masta I've already destroyed and ruined all of Tao fan's arguments...all of their arguments have to do with IQ and child prodigy.
But based on IQ we should expect the people with the highest recorded IQs like Christopher Langan or Kim Ung-yong to be the best mathematicians. Instead they are not even close to being even a mediocre mathematician.
This is because most advances in mathematics have to do with things far outside IQ-style questions invonvling originality and inventiveness
@ff7masta Just look at how super-overrated Tao is...I mean he's celebrated (while Katz is ignored) for doing something as simple as improving Wolff's bound...if Tao wasn't a child prodigy or some other non-prodigy mathematician improved Wolff's bound it wouldn't be viewed as significant at all
All of Tao's contributions are insignificant...
Vladimir Voevodsky announced a proof of the full Bloch-Kato conjectures...if Tao had done the same he would be celebrated greatly but Voevodsky is ignored
Whenever people talk about Tao's "genius" they talk about things that have nothing to do with being a great mathematician like his "childhood genius" or "the medals he won" or "his IQ"
Now that IQ and contests mentality has taken over people don't seem to value contributions as highly as they use to.
It is contributions, and contributions ALONE that determine who is the best mathematician, nothing more, nothing less
Tao's adult IQ is probably around 180 or so, the 230 number comes from the childhood estimates which are usually grossly exaggerated.
I don't understand what's the big deal about this guy Terence Tao...I mean just look at the past great mathematicians then look at Tao...what's so impressive about him?
NONE of Tao's contributions will ever likely find a useful application and all of them are unoriginal, improvements and extensions
My name is Steven.I am 12 years old and have dark blonde hair.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE STARTED READING YOU MAY NOT STOP!!
I was murdered on July 14th with my fathers shotgun and butcher knife.
...If you do not post this on 20 other pages i will come to your house in the middle of the night and kill you with my fathers shotgun and butcher knife..........
.......Yo...u............................................................... have 5 hours to complete this task.
Terence Tao is overrated....what's his contributions? Ben-Tao theorem? Compare that to the contributions of legendary mathematicians like Euler, Gauss, Archimedes, Ramanujan, von Neumann, Jacobi, and others....and it is very small
None of the best modern day mathematicians can compete
BTW IQ is irrelevant to real life, contributions are what matter the very most, IQ matters mostly to racists
@itstheChampion88 Dude of course no one can compete with those greats. You might as well throw in Newton and Einstein while you're at it. But Tao is good for the modern day and something to be proud of and aspire to.
@powpanda no not really what's Tao's contributions? Green-Tao theorem, worked on areas with the Kakeya Problem, sum-product problem, and some other minor things
There's lots of other modern day mathematicians who can compete with Tao in terms of contributions like Manjul Bhargava, Ed Witten, and Grigori Perelman
But Perelman outshines them all with his originality and concise proof of the soul conjecture and proof of the Poincare conjecture
@itstheChampion88 I know Tao also contributed to this compressed sensing field which is all the rage nowadays.
But OK say you are right, why do you think Tao is so much more famous than these other guys ? Is he a better interview or what? From this video it didn't seem that way heh.
But I believe Tao himself admitted that Perelman was the 'most deserving' of all recipients for some award (that he didn't turn up for) - not the field's medal, some other thing.
@powpanda The reason he's more famous is because of the media and winning medals....remember Perelman contributions are much more significant, Manjul Bhargava is the 2nd youngest to be a full professor at Princeton, has contributed a lot and is more impressive than Tao according to Princeton generals, and Edward Witten is both a great physicist and mathematician
@itstheChampion88 perelman only proved like 1 conjecture and he was guided by another mathematician who proposed a way to solve it, and it took him like a decade. you can't compare oranges and apples, dumbass.
@WavesOfTrolls what a fuckin idiot....Tao has been guided by lots of mathematicians like Ben Green and has also gotten lots of help from other mathematicians fool....Perelman's methods were entirely original and other mathematicians spent time using Pereleman's original methods
This guy Tao is the most overrated mathematician ever
@itstheChampion88 Hey man, I think u'd better be aware of the fact that Tao and the other mathematical great figures you mentioned are not living in the same time, there cannot be any comparison among them. If Tao would be thrown to Euler's time, he might have done a much greater job that Euler.
@vurtne1fan lol @ comparing Terence Tao to Euler....Euler makes Terence Tao look like a little subhuman animal and there's no way Terence Tao would've contributed nearly as much as Euler if he lived in the same time with the same resources...remember Euler wrote more than 800 papers and had an innate ability for mathematics that Terence Tao does not come even close to having
Mathematicians today have many more resources than the past mathematicians did and still can't contribute as much
@itstheChampion88 I admit the increasing availbability of various resources that today's mathematicians have, but it's still insufficient to support the comparability between Euler and Tao. You're advised to notice that Euler was standing at the starting point of modern mathematics, which made him much easier to make important discoveries. In contrast, Tao is living in a age when mathematics has been made much more mature than that of Euler's age, it demands much greater effort
@itstheChampion88 I admit the increasing availbability of various resources that today's mathematicians have, but it's still insufficient to support the comparability between Euler and Tao. You're advised to notice that Euler was standing at the starting point of modern mathematics, which made him much easier to make important discoveries. In contrast, Tao is living in a age when mathematics has been made much more mature than that of Euler's age, it demands much greater effort
@vurtne1fan Not really the problems Euler solved were extremely difficult during Euler's time. The only other person I think would've contributed as much (or maybe more) than Euler if they were living in the exact same time, with the exact same education level, and exact health is Ramanujan
Terence Tao seems to be a learning genius not a contributor, he's a super-fast learner, he can learn things from books and in school, but the mark of a true genius is contributions (beyond learning)
@WavesOfTrolls lol you're just in denial that Euler was, is, and always will be a far greater mathematician than Tao ever will be. Euler published nearly 900 books on mathematics.
You're just a gullible idiot who thinks IQ and contests are the only thing that matters
Every single one of Tao's contributions are simply improvements or extensions of things lots of people were already working on....the Green-Tao theorem for instance comes from Szemeredi Theorem...
for one to make even publishable results in math. Let me make an analogy to illustrate this point. You can learn more quikly when you are studying math of elementary school level, while it's very hard to make even tiny progress if you are studying graduate school level math. I am math PhD student, I know it very well=))
@vurtne1fan Euler didn't do things as simple as what's in elementary school. Euler for instance solved the three-body problem which had stumped the great mathematician Isaac Newton, he also invented graph theory, made many different proofs of theorems, advanced physics, and did much more even when he was completely blind.
People always say problems are much harder now during the time period they live.
@WavesOfTrolls lol...IQ and contributions are two separate things, plus Terence Tao's ADULT IQ has never been measured, childhood IQs like that 230 figure is obviously inflated
Childhood IQs are always inaccurate
But IQs are irrelevant to contributions, so it doesn't really matter, I'm 100% certain that Tao would not have contributed as much as Euler regardless of what his IQ may be
Has Tao contributed as much as Poincare? NO. But who's IQ is higher?
@WavesOfTrolls Euler's IQ was never measured but that's irrelevant because contributions are what make a great mathematician not IQ.
Euler's IQ was probably very high as well, Euler proved and disproved many many many theorems, but no one really knows what his IQ was
Basically all the great mathematicians are better than Tao like Johnny Von Neumann, Hilbert, Ramanujan, Euler, Gauss, Poincare, Galois, Abel, Grothendieck, etc...
anyone can score 200 on an IQ test if the person takes a year to complete it
you can't say that Perelman is the most intelligent because he only solved like 1 problem in his career lol and it took him like 10 years and had to live in his mother basement to do that LOL
@WavesOfTrolls Except that IQ is irrelevant to being a great mathematician
What makes a great mathematician is CONTRIBUTIONS not IQ. Having an IQ of 200 or higher simply indicates that you can learn quickly and problem-solve. Historically the people with super high IQs have not been the best mathematicians.
In reality Tao isn't even at the level of someone like Grothendieck yet, but you claim he would've contributed more than Euler?
Euler and Gauss are usually ranked as the #1 or #2
@WavesOfTrolls If you want to show that Tao would've contributed as much as Euler why don't you try to give an actual reason?
IQ is not a reason because we know from history that people with the very highest measured IQs haven't been the best mathematicians. We also know that people with normal or below normal IQs have contributed lots to mathematics.
Euler, the most prolific mathematician had high inventiveness + problem-solving ability
@WavesOfTrolls Here's what would've happened if Tao lived during Euler's time:
- Tao lacks inventiveness, so he wouldn't have invented graph theory, modern mathematical notation, etc...
- Tao lacks intuition for theorems, so he wouldn't have came up with Euler's identity or many of Euler's other theorems
- Tao doesn't have Euler's algorist ability, and during Euler's time much less resources were available, so it would've been harder for Tao to contribute
@WavesOfTrolls On the other hand, here's what probably would happen if Euler lived in modern times:
- Euler would probably invent some new mathematical theory that revolutionizes mathematics
- Euler would probably come up with new exciting theorems that change mathematics
- Since there's many more resources available (like Gauss's books) in modern times Euler would probably solve, improve, and extend many theorems and theories
Euler could've probably proven the Green-Tao theorem without effort
@WavesOfTrolls lol what a fuckin gay Chinese supremacist IQ fan
If IQ is everything, then what about comparing Poincare's IQ to Tao's IQ? Who contributed more?
IQ != Contributions dumb ass, this is proven undeniably by history. What IQ measures is how well you answer IQ test questions. Being able to answer IQ test questions well does mean you would be a great mathematician.
Thanks for proving that in modern times contributions are not viewed highly anymore
@WavesOfTrolls People like you who value IQ as being worth more than everything are destroying mathematics.
Your hypothesis that having a very high IQ makes you the best mathematician can easily be falsified by finding the people with the highest recorded IQ. The people with the highest recorded IQs are not even close to being the best mathematicians.
I would not put Tao above Ngô Bảo Châu, Grigori Perelman, Pierre Deligne, Vladimir Voevodsky, Jean-Pierre Serre, or many other Fields Medalists
@itstheChampion88 solving complex problems, that's what mathematicians and scientists do.
in order to have a high iq, you must solve difficult problems in a limited amount of time, duh.
of course, you can't get an iq of 230 by solving a simple iq test on the internet. the tests they give are way easier and are not made to assess the intelligence of geniuses (iq 140+)
@WavesOfTrolls If it makes you feel better I think Chinese mathematicians like Shiing-Shen Chern and Shing-Tung Yau are far better mathematicians than Tao
Tao is just not a good mathematician in my opinion.
For all the Tao fans, if Tao wasn't a childhood IQ genius, but had the EXACT same contributions, how would he be viewed? He would just be viewed as just another mathematician....isn't this true?
wow good job, they just reduced one of the most beautiful movie soundtracks to junk by putting it on nearly unhearable volume in the background and stopping it short after 30 seconds each time.
to WhoLueYou : it appears you already have a preconcieved notion about people. and that idea, or skillful way of interpreting what is factual doesn't set well with you. Your looking is through a screen, some form of pattern, instead of percieving directly. you're contradicting yourself with the whole race issue. don't be a hypocrite
I have questions for WhoLueYou. If you think it is pointless to discuss racial differences, why do you go on to point out some of these differences? Also, do you not believe in constructivism at all? Do you think that a person's characteristics have no correlation to the environment they were raised in? Also, can you reference where your facts came from?
@LogicalFlawDetector I am doing a PhD in the UK and I will be 25 when I finish it. Many people will indeed finish at 24; I had a year out.
In the UK we typically start university at 18 and graduate 3 years later. Were someone to go straight to PhD ( PhDs are 3 years in the UK ), they would finish it at age 24.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They really should study this guy's brain using fMRI. One thing that bugs me is why he's using his incredible brainpower to study prime numbers and other fields that are, by and large, useless for society. Why not apply his intelligence to advancing society ?
when newton and leibniz discovered calculus back in their time, practical applications for it were very limited. look at calculus now. without it, science/engineering would not be anywhere near where it has progressed. also, if you watch one of his lectures, he talks about how the us gov't depends on prime numbers for things like cryptography. i think this guys up to something...
Advancing society? You mean by eliminating pathetic racists like you. Why are you such a racist? It is counter productive to tell people that blacks are genetically less intelligent on average even if it is true. Why not just view people as individuals and let the race differences take care of themselves. There is no need to discuss it because it creates tention and could discourage a smart black person. There is nothing to be gained by talking about race differences in IQ.
Also I could tell you that women are intellectually inferior to men on average. But there would be nothing gained by saying that. Also average white person has an IQ of 100 whereas the average Ashkenazi Jew has an IQ of 115 - 15 points difference. Despite only being less than 1% of world population, Jews comprise over 30% on Nobel Prize winners. America is effectively owned and controlled by very smart Jewish bankers.
All the evidence - IQ and scientific achievements and wealth - says that Jews are smarter than whites by a big margin. By there is nothing to be gained by talking about it. Just view people as individuals and let the differences take care of themselves. Talking about racial differences only achieves negative results such as hatred and violence and tension. Also how would a racist like you deal with it if you ecountered a black person with a higher IQ than yourself.
Murozman, I was just reading up on Neil Turok. What the hell makes you think he's the "next einstein". That's bullshit. He seems like a really competent physicist, but how the hell does this make him the intellectual heir to einstein ? That distinction goes to Hawking or Witten
Oh I think this guy might be smarter than Witten. My honest opinion is that the smartest guy is Stephen Wolfram. Unlike Tao, Wolfram had no help from teachers or tutors or coaches, and he published an advanced, particle physics paper at the age of 15 and got a PhD at 19 (from Caltech) and became a professor a year later.
You seem to think being a prodigy makes a person smarter. They just have faster intellectual development. People like Maxwell and Einstein(greatest theoretical physicists of the 19th & 20th century respectively) weren't prodigies, not even Newton, Dirac, Hawking or Schrodinger! The greatest geniuses are not usually prodigies(some are). People reach their intellectual peaks at different times, it doesn't mean those that get there faster are brighter.
Most smart people had faster development than their peers. They might not have been prodigies, but they were ahead of their peers to varying degrees. Read Maxwell's biography, he was known as a bright and curious kid. You're also wrong about Dirac, Hawking, and Schrodinger. They were not prodigies, but they were known to be very bright kids, far ahead of their peers. Even Newton was reading astronomy texts as a teenager. The one huge exception is Einstein who was always an unremarkable student.
I did not say those guys were not smart! God! You keep on making straw man fallacies, I said they were not prodigies! Curious and bright yes, but not prodigies! Hawking was described as a good but NOT exceptional student. So, they were all bright, how could they not be?
Smart people are in all races. I western countries they appear really smart since usually people who immigrate to the west are usually well educated and intelligent(and pushy!). Their kids are more likely to be smart as well, thus the illusion of "smart Asians". As for this guy, he's a genius!!!
You're right, murozman, there are smart people in all races, it's just that some races have a higher percentage of smart people than others. Ever heard of a black person winning a fields medal or physics nobel prize?
It's not that black people have a lower percentage of smart people. It's to do with circumstances. In the past they have been poorer and lacked the resources. They are quite capable, a lot is being done to help people in Africa to achieve their fullest by people like Neil Turok(look up nexteinstein). I hope in the future we'll see a lot of black people receiving those awards. By the way Percy Julian(brilliant chemist) did deserve a Nobel prize.
Pretty much all IQ tests that have ever been conducted on whites and blacks in all countries, and at all socioeconomic levels show that blacks lag by a CONSISTENT 15 IQ points.
How anyone could blame black intellectual inferiority on environment ALONE is beyond me.
Genetics plays a far bigger role. Read about the Minnesota transracial adoption studies that showed that even when you test blacks and whites at the same socioeconomic level, whites still lead.
About my worldwide studies comments read my next comment. As for the African-Americans and black Europeans, during slavery, a slave that showed intelligence was quickly killed. Slaves were bred to be stronger(only the strong ones were allowed to reproduce). Intelligence is heritable(but not always), so it's reasonable to expect less of it from this group.Being poor was one of the examples, others include higher levels of religious beliefs(which often discourages 'earthly wisdom').
Murozman, the examples you gave of smart people are not convincing. First of all, Neil Turok is not black. He's a white South African dude. And Percy Julian was an african american probably with some caucasian genes. I want to hear of a fully black person who is extremely smart. Yet to hear of it. I don't like examples of smart african americans because african americans generally have some caucasian heritage, so you can't be too sure whether it's their white genes that are making them smart..
I didn't say Turok is black!!! God! I said he's helping people in Africa to reach their fullest capabilities. You keep on going on about genes, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest "black genes" lead to a lower level of intelligence, only that intelligence is heritable.Also the worldwide studies show a paradox: an African with an IQ of 70 functions normally in society while a European with the same IQ is mentally incapacitated. The validity of IQ testing has long been controversial.
you're a liar. Terence Tao's IQ is not publicly known. How did you find out ? Where on the web is it ? Give me the URL. You have absolutely zero proof..
Oops, I'm sorry, you're right, Tao's IQ was ESTIMATED to be between 220 and 230. I just don't know whether it was the old-style "ratio IQ" or the newer "deviation IQ".
seven fucking minutes and we still didnt hear why he won the Fields Prize !!(i think i read it had something to do with the Goldbach conj),,total fluff. as we've come to expect from the lazy ,dumb, Aussie news media "'your the first ..blah blah.. whats it like??"lets keep it simple for the masses ..as important as Newton and Einstein...give us a break
perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture is more significant than any single result Tao has attained thus far; however, it is very unlikely that perelman is actually 'smarter' than tao.
I really did not want to belittle his achievements, he is without doubt an accomplished mathematician. Tao established himself as a math prodigy after gaining significant fame because of a couple of IMO gold medals in his early ages. I like him because of his support of Perelman . He is teaching a course on Perelman's proof which clarifies Perelman's significant contribution and to some extend an answer to those who wanted to transfer credit (became obvious for me when I read their paper).
I hate how the media does its reports on mathematicians/physicists. It's always focused on how smart the person is, never on who they are, what they've done, and how they think about things. And believe me, I mean no disrespect to Prof. Tao and his work, I'm simply talking about the media.
This is not a documetary program about him or his work. It's just one example of his exposure on media. He got world famous and the media will just consume and reproduce his image again and again like they already did with other scientists like Einstein, Feynman and so on.. That's natural cuz it is human being's basic instinct.
Yeah, but people know what Einstein and Feynman did... or at least what some of their contributions were. Not even close in this case, and the media ought to do better. The paper he did with Ben Green on arithmetic progressions of prime numbers should make it at least a little easier to incorporate a sound-bite or two on some of his work.
@KaoriBlue I think the clip had plenty of that in there, and it's only natural that people are interested by his ability than abstruse mathematical achievements.
Oh wait I forgot that Grothendieck is still alive, so I would have to go with Grothendieck as the best living mathematician.
As for the best living mathematician born after the year 1970 I'm not sure.
Man I wish things would go back to the old days when people were considered mathematical geniuses for their contributions, and not for IQ or prodigy.
itstheChampion88 1 week ago
I've asked Tao's fans repeatedly which one of Tao's contributions is significant or revolutionary and they haven't given me anything. All they talk about is prodigy and IQ (which is irrelevant to mathematics).
If we imagine that Tao's contributions never existed then mathematics would be virtually the same with no notable difference. The Green-Tao theorem is not a big deal since multiple proofs of Szemerédi's theorem had already existed.
They basically renamed Szemerédi's theorem to Green-Tao
itstheChampion88 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
itstheChampion88 3 months ago
If we look at modern day mathematicians based on significance I could not rank Tao high
If we imagine that Jean-Pierre Serre, Ngô Bảo Châu, Grigori Perelman, Vladimir Voevodsky, or many other modern day mathematicians had never existed we can see that mathematics would look notably different.
If we imagine that Tao's contributions never existed mathematics is the same with no notable difference....
None of Tao's contributions are significant.
So what's the big deal with Tao?
itstheChampion88 3 months ago
If we rank Tao based on contributions (like how it use to always be) then Tao wouldn't rank high
Let's look at Tao's contributions:
- Green-Tao theorem, should be called Szemerédi's theorem since it's an extension of the already proven Szemerédi's theorem
- Kakeya conjecture, Katz and Tao simply improved Wolff's bound
- Tao's inequality, a simple consequence of Pinsker's inequality
If a non-prodigy mathematician had the EXACT same contributions he would be viewed as just another mathematician
itstheChampion88 5 months ago
@itstheChampion88 someone doesnt get the point... why are you attacking him? you have no right to talk shit, and did u contribute anything?(i think not, moron) we get ur point..... asians are not good at math..... lol
orsonzg 5 months ago
@orsonzg It's just an ad hominem dumb ass....how would what I am personally be relevant refute any statement I made?
That's like a historian criticizing Columbus and then someone saying "Well you're not an explorer" so stupid
I don't know how it's possible for someone like Tao to be so overrated based on his contributions
that bitch Tao will probably start crying when he reads these comments
itstheChampion88 4 months ago
What a terrible thing it is that in modern times contributions have lost their significance and IQ and childhood genius are placed above and higher than contributions.
Contributions are what advances mathematics, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are what advances mankind, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are what forever change the world, not IQ or childhood genius
Contributions are all that matter in reality, not IQ or childhood genius
It's for contributions ALONE
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
@itstheChampion88 duuude we got your point :).
I don't think Tao is a bad mathematician, but can you blame him for being REALLY REALLY lucky? Mayb he didn't contribute anything really groundbreaking (you are better judge than me here), it's just that the PRESS, and therefore the rest of the world, chose him as the 21st century math flagbearer. The fact that he seems very sociable, and his youth, probably helped a lot (yes, TOO MUCH) his public image.
Helkost 4 months ago
@Helkost All the other mathematicians that make lots of significant revolutionary contributions are completely ignored today
Instead child prodigies and super high IQ geniuses are celebrated
itstheChampion88 4 months ago
@itstheChampion88 They may be celebrated but many actually search for press exposure. Good mathematicians usually are not interested in it, and therefore don't get any. But on the otehr side, what about Ed Witten, how do you consider him? For what I hear although being a physicist he's considered one of today's best mathematicians. And he received at least some media coverage too, so how does this apply to your equation? btw sorry for my english.
Helkost 4 months ago
@Helkost Ed Witten doesn't have nearly as much exposure as say Michio Kaku.
I think Ed Witten is more significant than Tao personally.
The way that I measure the significance of a mathematician is by imagining how mathematics would look if that mathematician's contributions never existed. So Witten is more significant than Tao by far.
If Tao never existed at all then mathematics would be nearly the same. Basically all of Tao's contributions would've been re-discovered without Tao existing
itstheChampion88 4 months ago
@itstheChampion88 Anyway I agree with you that today there's too much obsession in IQs and fast learning and no real focus on depth and substance.
Helkost 4 months ago
So any other Tao fan or IQ fan have any other argument for me to fuck up?
My IQ is only 159, not that high, but it doesn't bother me much. IQ just seems to measure learning speed and that all.
Mathematicians have to organize volumes of theory, are allowed to use books, pencil, paper, and it is truthfully NOTHING like answering IQ test questions
IQ measures how well you answer IQ test questions using your mind alone
Contributions measure how much you advance mathematics
Contributions > IQ
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
Since you are not allowed to use pencil or paper on IQ tests, IQ tests have time-limits, and nearly all IQ test questions are nothing like the problems mathematicians face we can easily see that IQ is a completely useless indicator
Basically anyone with an IQ of 120 or higher given limitless time and pencil and paper would be able to correctly answer ANY IQ test question, so IQ becomes useless higher than120 and higher than 150 it's meaningless
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
@itstheChampion88 The latest study in the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education does not support the (IQ 120) threshold theory. This study is notable because many tests were administered, to a diverse and broad sample of participants. The authors conclude the link between IQ and creativity is negligible. It is only on certain tests, that are more dependent on Gc, or crystallized intelligence (what conventional tests measure), in which the 120 rule applies.
zadeh79 2 months ago
@zadeh79 Interesting study...no link between IQ and creativity now? That makes sense.
An interesting experiment to perform would be comparing the IQ scores of people who follow traditional IQ test rules with the IQ scores of the same people who are allowed to use pencil, paper, and have more time available
Regardless, being an excellent mathematician has to do with making revolutionary contributions, not with having a high IQ
itstheChampion88 3 weeks ago
The majority of advances in mathematics have to do with originality, intuition, inventiveness, and many other things that are nothing like IQ test questions.
I guess this explains why nearly 100% of people with the highest recorded IQs are not even close to being the best mathematicians
Julia Robinson - IQ 98, contributed to solving Hilbert's 10th problem, decision and game theory problems
Christopher Langan - IQ 195-210, contributed nothing to mathematics
So who's the better mathematician?
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
Well I feel bad for destroying all the Tao fan's arguments. Anyone who has another lame IQ fan argument or any other argument go ahead and propose it to me so I can fuck it and embarrass the fuck out of you.
Being able to answer IQ test questions well does not indicate that you would be a great mathematician.
Contributions not answering IQ test questions are what being an excellent mathematician is about.
The gullible IQ fans here obviously understand little about mathematics
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
IQ fanatics and medal fans are ruining mathematics and turning it into something where contributions are insignificant.
Based on Tao's contributions I would not put him above most Field Medalists.
Just look at how someone like Évariste Galois with very few papers revolutionized mathematics with group theory then look at Tao's contributions
WaveOfTrolls is a gullible racist IQ fan
Contributions have lost all their value in modern times, people value childhood genius, IQ, and contests now
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
Terence Tao being celebrated and overrated as a great mathematician in modern times just demonstrates how contributions have lost all their value.
Tao is no where in the field of a legendary mathematician, not even top 50 best mathematicians of all time based on his contributions.
What's Tao's contributions? Green-Tao theorem (not independent, done with Green), Kakeya conjecture (just improved results), Circular law (proved with Vu)
So insignificant and laughable are Tao's contributions
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
Julia Robinson's IQ was measured as only 98, she was a slow reader and a slow learner, yet she was the main mathematician that solved Hilbert's 10th problem.
WaveOfTrolls demonstrates the gullible nature of IQ fanatics.
Just look up the list of people that actually have the highest recorded (not estimated) IQs and you will find that the majority are not great mathematicians at all.
Being a great mathematician has to do with how much you contribute, and how much you contribute ALONE
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
From history we can see that the people with the highest measured IQs did not end up being great mathematicians. Why? Because IQ just measures how well you answer IQ test questions. Estimated IQs are useless.
What matters to be a great mathematician is contributions alone, NOT IQ. That faggot WaveOfTrolls is just a gay Chinese supremacist IQ fan. He feels bad that I defeated all his lame arguments.
Its quite obvious that WaveOfTrolls understands little about what being a mathematician is about
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
In modern times when people talk about mathematical genius they seem to be fixed on medals and IQ.
In the earlier days no one cared at all about IQ or contests when they talked about mathematical genius, but contributions alone.
The Green-Tao theorem doesn't even come from Green or Tao, it comes from the Hungarian mathematician Szemerédi. But Szemerédi's theorem had already been proven by Hillel Furstenberg in 1977 and Timothy Gowers in 2001.
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
Given Tao's contributions so far, Tao will most likely go down in the history of mathematics as a small figure, unless he contributes much more significant things.
Anyone who wants to argue that Tao would've contributed as much as Euler would have to show that Tao has high inventiveness + high problem-solving ability
Euler proved and disproved countless theorems (like Fermat's Little theorem) + had very intuition and inventiveness (invented graph theory, modern mathematical notation, etc...)
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 Sounds like someone is jealous.
ff7masta 7 months ago
@ff7masta lol Tao is not worthy of jealousy.....someone like say Galios, Abel, John von Neumann, or Grothendieck are worthy of jealousy, even though they are not even the best mathematicians, they are still better than Tao
When I first heard of Tao I thought he must have revolutionized mathematics in some way....but then I looked at his contributions and realized that things have changed in modern times, contributions just aren't valued highly any more like they use to be
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 Tao > You.
You jelly bro?
ff7masta 7 months ago
@ff7masta Why would you compare Tao to me for?
False analogy.
Are you upset that I so easily defeated all your arguments?
Why not compare Tao to Galios, Abel, John von Neumann, or Grothendieck?
I know why, because you feel defeated and can only resort to weak arguments
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 lol u mad?
ff7masta 7 months ago
@ff7masta lol he's mad
Kratos0909 7 months ago
@ff7masta mad at what? That Tao is a TERRIBLE mathematician in comparison to the best mathematicians?
LOL!
I bet you probably think Einstein or Pythagoras were the best mathematicians...ROFL
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
@itstheChampion88 lol y u so mad tho?
ff7masta 6 months ago
@ff7masta yeah I'm mad that contributions have lost their significance and child prodigy has high significance now
I mean if we ranked Tao based on contributions he would be ranked very low. Just look at how all the other excellent mathematicians who've contributed as much or more than Tao are completely ignored like Vladimir Voevodsky who is basically ignored completely simply because he wasn't a child prodigy
The only way I can view Tao highly is if makes more significant contributions...
itstheChampion88 5 months ago
@itstheChampion88 I think Tao might be very famous now but no one would know him later...until and unless he makes some really good contributions in mathematics.
His good IQ might impress people for now, but its temporary.
Great Scientists are remembered for their contributions, not for being child prodigy or having high IQ.
ICanPlayWithU 3 weeks ago
@ICanPlayWithU Well I don't even know how he won a Fields Medal, I mean basically all of Tao's contributions are irrelevant.
If I were to choose the best living mathematician I guess I would choose Jean-Pierre Serre.
It's a shame that Jean-Pierre Serre is ignored because he was not a prodigy.
Which living mathematician is better than Jean-Pierre Serre?
itstheChampion88 1 week ago
@ff7masta I've already destroyed and ruined all of Tao fan's arguments...all of their arguments have to do with IQ and child prodigy.
But based on IQ we should expect the people with the highest recorded IQs like Christopher Langan or Kim Ung-yong to be the best mathematicians. Instead they are not even close to being even a mediocre mathematician.
This is because most advances in mathematics have to do with things far outside IQ-style questions invonvling originality and inventiveness
itstheChampion88 5 months ago
@ff7masta Just look at how super-overrated Tao is...I mean he's celebrated (while Katz is ignored) for doing something as simple as improving Wolff's bound...if Tao wasn't a child prodigy or some other non-prodigy mathematician improved Wolff's bound it wouldn't be viewed as significant at all
All of Tao's contributions are insignificant...
Vladimir Voevodsky announced a proof of the full Bloch-Kato conjectures...if Tao had done the same he would be celebrated greatly but Voevodsky is ignored
itstheChampion88 5 months ago
@itstheChampion88 yeah, u mad.
ff7masta 5 months ago
Whenever people talk about Tao's "genius" they talk about things that have nothing to do with being a great mathematician like his "childhood genius" or "the medals he won" or "his IQ"
Now that IQ and contests mentality has taken over people don't seem to value contributions as highly as they use to.
It is contributions, and contributions ALONE that determine who is the best mathematician, nothing more, nothing less
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
Tao's adult IQ is probably around 180 or so, the 230 number comes from the childhood estimates which are usually grossly exaggerated.
I don't understand what's the big deal about this guy Terence Tao...I mean just look at the past great mathematicians then look at Tao...what's so impressive about him?
NONE of Tao's contributions will ever likely find a useful application and all of them are unoriginal, improvements and extensions
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My name is Steven.I am 12 years old and have dark blonde hair.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE STARTED READING YOU MAY NOT STOP!!
I was murdered on July 14th with my fathers shotgun and butcher knife.
...If you do not post this on 20 other pages i will come to your house in the middle of the night and kill you with my fathers shotgun and butcher knife..........
.......Yo...u............................................................... have 5 hours to complete this task.
don't believe me,
whateffbitch90 9 months ago
actually he's probably much, much better in math than einstein...
EltBerserker 10 months ago
The music at the starting was from 'A Beautiful Mind'?
lantis123 1 year ago
@lantis123 Aye aye, it's from A Beautiful Mind.
aadoza 10 months ago
Most asians good at Math especially Chinese !!!
fuckmania07 1 year ago
"You meet the smartest guy in the world and to me it was like wow"
joebobfuzzywig 1 year ago
He is very smart.. but I think he has not come to terms that his gifts are really given from the one above!
IndoChink 1 year ago
Terence Tao is overrated....what's his contributions? Ben-Tao theorem? Compare that to the contributions of legendary mathematicians like Euler, Gauss, Archimedes, Ramanujan, von Neumann, Jacobi, and others....and it is very small
None of the best modern day mathematicians can compete
BTW IQ is irrelevant to real life, contributions are what matter the very most, IQ matters mostly to racists
itstheChampion88 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 Dude of course no one can compete with those greats. You might as well throw in Newton and Einstein while you're at it. But Tao is good for the modern day and something to be proud of and aspire to.
powpanda 1 year ago
@powpanda no not really what's Tao's contributions? Green-Tao theorem, worked on areas with the Kakeya Problem, sum-product problem, and some other minor things
There's lots of other modern day mathematicians who can compete with Tao in terms of contributions like Manjul Bhargava, Ed Witten, and Grigori Perelman
But Perelman outshines them all with his originality and concise proof of the soul conjecture and proof of the Poincare conjecture
itstheChampion88 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 I know Tao also contributed to this compressed sensing field which is all the rage nowadays.
But OK say you are right, why do you think Tao is so much more famous than these other guys ? Is he a better interview or what? From this video it didn't seem that way heh.
But I believe Tao himself admitted that Perelman was the 'most deserving' of all recipients for some award (that he didn't turn up for) - not the field's medal, some other thing.
powpanda 1 year ago
@powpanda The reason he's more famous is because of the media and winning medals....remember Perelman contributions are much more significant, Manjul Bhargava is the 2nd youngest to be a full professor at Princeton, has contributed a lot and is more impressive than Tao according to Princeton generals, and Edward Witten is both a great physicist and mathematician
itstheChampion88 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 perelman only proved like 1 conjecture and he was guided by another mathematician who proposed a way to solve it, and it took him like a decade. you can't compare oranges and apples, dumbass.
WavesOfTrolls 9 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls what a fuckin idiot....Tao has been guided by lots of mathematicians like Ben Green and has also gotten lots of help from other mathematicians fool....Perelman's methods were entirely original and other mathematicians spent time using Pereleman's original methods
This guy Tao is the most overrated mathematician ever
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 Hey man, I think u'd better be aware of the fact that Tao and the other mathematical great figures you mentioned are not living in the same time, there cannot be any comparison among them. If Tao would be thrown to Euler's time, he might have done a much greater job that Euler.
vurtne1fan 1 year ago
@vurtne1fan lol @ comparing Terence Tao to Euler....Euler makes Terence Tao look like a little subhuman animal and there's no way Terence Tao would've contributed nearly as much as Euler if he lived in the same time with the same resources...remember Euler wrote more than 800 papers and had an innate ability for mathematics that Terence Tao does not come even close to having
Mathematicians today have many more resources than the past mathematicians did and still can't contribute as much
itstheChampion88 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 I admit the increasing availbability of various resources that today's mathematicians have, but it's still insufficient to support the comparability between Euler and Tao. You're advised to notice that Euler was standing at the starting point of modern mathematics, which made him much easier to make important discoveries. In contrast, Tao is living in a age when mathematics has been made much more mature than that of Euler's age, it demands much greater effort
vurtne1fan 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 I admit the increasing availbability of various resources that today's mathematicians have, but it's still insufficient to support the comparability between Euler and Tao. You're advised to notice that Euler was standing at the starting point of modern mathematics, which made him much easier to make important discoveries. In contrast, Tao is living in a age when mathematics has been made much more mature than that of Euler's age, it demands much greater effort
vurtne1fan 1 year ago
@vurtne1fan Not really the problems Euler solved were extremely difficult during Euler's time. The only other person I think would've contributed as much (or maybe more) than Euler if they were living in the exact same time, with the exact same education level, and exact health is Ramanujan
Terence Tao seems to be a learning genius not a contributor, he's a super-fast learner, he can learn things from books and in school, but the mark of a true genius is contributions (beyond learning)
itstheChampion88 1 year ago
@itstheChampion88 we can also argue that discovering fire was extremely difficult too LOL. at some time, new discoveries will be impossible to make.
WavesOfTrolls 9 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls lol you're just in denial that Euler was, is, and always will be a far greater mathematician than Tao ever will be. Euler published nearly 900 books on mathematics.
You're just a gullible idiot who thinks IQ and contests are the only thing that matters
Every single one of Tao's contributions are simply improvements or extensions of things lots of people were already working on....the Green-Tao theorem for instance comes from Szemeredi Theorem...
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
for one to make even publishable results in math. Let me make an analogy to illustrate this point. You can learn more quikly when you are studying math of elementary school level, while it's very hard to make even tiny progress if you are studying graduate school level math. I am math PhD student, I know it very well=))
vurtne1fan 1 year ago
@vurtne1fan Euler didn't do things as simple as what's in elementary school. Euler for instance solved the three-body problem which had stumped the great mathematician Isaac Newton, he also invented graph theory, made many different proofs of theorems, advanced physics, and did much more even when he was completely blind.
People always say problems are much harder now during the time period they live.
itstheChampion88 1 year ago 2
@itstheChampion88 terence tao's iq = 230, highest ever recorded
what's euler iq? LOL i doubt he'd have 230. people from past generation tend to have lower iq.
WavesOfTrolls 9 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls lol...IQ and contributions are two separate things, plus Terence Tao's ADULT IQ has never been measured, childhood IQs like that 230 figure is obviously inflated
Childhood IQs are always inaccurate
But IQs are irrelevant to contributions, so it doesn't really matter, I'm 100% certain that Tao would not have contributed as much as Euler regardless of what his IQ may be
Has Tao contributed as much as Poincare? NO. But who's IQ is higher?
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 its the score he got when he was an adult, LOL
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls No it's not....all the sources show that the 230 IQ score figure for Tao comes from he was a child
Which source says Tao's adult IQ is 230?
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Euler's IQ was never measured but that's irrelevant because contributions are what make a great mathematician not IQ.
Euler's IQ was probably very high as well, Euler proved and disproved many many many theorems, but no one really knows what his IQ was
Basically all the great mathematicians are better than Tao like Johnny Von Neumann, Hilbert, Ramanujan, Euler, Gauss, Poincare, Galois, Abel, Grothendieck, etc...
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 LOLASTIC
anyone can score 200 on an IQ test if the person takes a year to complete it
you can't say that Perelman is the most intelligent because he only solved like 1 problem in his career lol and it took him like 10 years and had to live in his mother basement to do that LOL
apple and orange comparison
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls LOL!
Why are you still in denial for?
IQ scores and being a great mathematician are two separate things fool. Having a high IQ score doesn't indicate that you're the best mathematician
There are many with very very high IQs that never make good mathematicians
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 this is funny coming from an idiot who knows nothing about math.
WavesOfTrolls 9 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Ok idiot if I know nothing about mathematics why don't you try to refute any statement I made instead of throwing ad hominems?
What's Tao's contributions? The answer is ALL of Tao's contributions are insignificant and Tao will easily be forgotten in the history of mathematics
Poincare will definitely be remembered as a better mathematician than Tao because of CONTRIBUTIONS not IQ
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 apple and orange comparison
and people having an iq of 200 like 200 years ago was like having a core of 140 today LOL
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Except that IQ is irrelevant to being a great mathematician
What makes a great mathematician is CONTRIBUTIONS not IQ. Having an IQ of 200 or higher simply indicates that you can learn quickly and problem-solve. Historically the people with super high IQs have not been the best mathematicians.
In reality Tao isn't even at the level of someone like Grothendieck yet, but you claim he would've contributed more than Euler?
Euler and Gauss are usually ranked as the #1 or #2
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls If you want to show that Tao would've contributed as much as Euler why don't you try to give an actual reason?
IQ is not a reason because we know from history that people with the very highest measured IQs haven't been the best mathematicians. We also know that people with normal or below normal IQs have contributed lots to mathematics.
Euler, the most prolific mathematician had high inventiveness + problem-solving ability
Tao seems to only have problem-solving ability
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 lol stupid cant compare apple and orange stupid
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Who's comparing apples and oranges?
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Here's what would've happened if Tao lived during Euler's time:
- Tao lacks inventiveness, so he wouldn't have invented graph theory, modern mathematical notation, etc...
- Tao lacks intuition for theorems, so he wouldn't have came up with Euler's identity or many of Euler's other theorems
- Tao doesn't have Euler's algorist ability, and during Euler's time much less resources were available, so it would've been harder for Tao to contribute
That's what would've happened
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls On the other hand, here's what probably would happen if Euler lived in modern times:
- Euler would probably invent some new mathematical theory that revolutionizes mathematics
- Euler would probably come up with new exciting theorems that change mathematics
- Since there's many more resources available (like Gauss's books) in modern times Euler would probably solve, improve, and extend many theorems and theories
Euler could've probably proven the Green-Tao theorem without effort
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 what a retard
the only way you can compare 2 people is by comparing their iq
if euler passed an iq test back then it would have been around 140 because people back then were not as intelligent as today
right now, you are saying that euler had more potential than tao LOL
prove it, no one ever had a iq as high as 230
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls lol what a fuckin gay Chinese supremacist IQ fan
If IQ is everything, then what about comparing Poincare's IQ to Tao's IQ? Who contributed more?
IQ != Contributions dumb ass, this is proven undeniably by history. What IQ measures is how well you answer IQ test questions. Being able to answer IQ test questions well does mean you would be a great mathematician.
Thanks for proving that in modern times contributions are not viewed highly anymore
Fuck Tao and fuck ALL IQ fans
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls lol how could Tao contribute as much as Euler dumb ass?
- Tao does not have Euler's algorist ability, so he would have never came up with Euler's identity or Euler's many other theorems
- Tao lacks inventiveness
- Tao lacks intuition for theorems
- Tao has not contributed much significant in modern times
You're just in denial, just a faggot IQ fan who wants to declare the supremacy of Chinese and East Asians
Why not talk about contributions? So laughable are Tao's contributions
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls People like you who value IQ as being worth more than everything are destroying mathematics.
Your hypothesis that having a very high IQ makes you the best mathematician can easily be falsified by finding the people with the highest recorded IQ. The people with the highest recorded IQs are not even close to being the best mathematicians.
I would not put Tao above Ngô Bảo Châu, Grigori Perelman, Pierre Deligne, Vladimir Voevodsky, Jean-Pierre Serre, or many other Fields Medalists
itstheChampion88 7 months ago
@itstheChampion88 solving complex problems, that's what mathematicians and scientists do.
in order to have a high iq, you must solve difficult problems in a limited amount of time, duh.
of course, you can't get an iq of 230 by solving a simple iq test on the internet. the tests they give are way easier and are not made to assess the intelligence of geniuses (iq 140+)
WavesOfTrolls 7 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls Thanks for demonstrating the typical gullible nature of IQ fans
There are 3 main problems with using IQ to measure mathematical talent:
- The majority of IQ test questions are easily solvable by computers and nothing like the problems mathematicians face
- You are not allowed to use paper or pencil on IQ tests but basically all mathematicians use paper and pen\pencil to solve problems
- Nearly all contributions in mathematics have literally NOTHING to do with IQ test questions
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
Comment removed
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
@WavesOfTrolls If it makes you feel better I think Chinese mathematicians like Shiing-Shen Chern and Shing-Tung Yau are far better mathematicians than Tao
Tao is just not a good mathematician in my opinion.
For all the Tao fans, if Tao wasn't a childhood IQ genius, but had the EXACT same contributions, how would he be viewed? He would just be viewed as just another mathematician....isn't this true?
itstheChampion88 6 months ago
lol he has this will encourage australians that they can achieve more than just sports
ggHaSu 1 year ago
Word on the street is he has nothing on Perelman that guy solved poincare conjecture
scout6686 1 year ago
Mr Perelman is the smartest guy not Tao !!!
lakshman4u 1 year ago 2
@lakshman4u WTF are you talking about!!! I'm the smartest person in world!
BerglundG 1 year ago
@BerglundG who r u?? I dont know u. so u cant be the smartest in the world.
lakshman4u 1 year ago
Well congratulation this world need smart geneious man to solve and save this earth.
ThansourTeMoy 1 year ago
En latino es mejor, pero pulgar arriba igual, suerte.
pAULSauce 1 year ago
"I just met like the smartest guy in the world... and i was like...wow"
NickSansivero 1 year ago
Is this the music from A Beautiful Mind? Whatever it is, it's great..
intermezzo770 1 year ago
if i can prove that 2 + 2 = 3 do i receive a fields medal? if so i will start my calculations now!!!
deadlobster2 1 year ago
go ahead
m1dget 1 year ago
@deadlobster2 hahaha you are so funny :D
TheOkanokazuya 1 year ago
wow good job, they just reduced one of the most beautiful movie soundtracks to junk by putting it on nearly unhearable volume in the background and stopping it short after 30 seconds each time.
notToast 2 years ago
to WhoLueYou : it appears you already have a preconcieved notion about people. and that idea, or skillful way of interpreting what is factual doesn't set well with you. Your looking is through a screen, some form of pattern, instead of percieving directly. you're contradicting yourself with the whole race issue. don't be a hypocrite
layz0 2 years ago
Has he already developed schizophrenia?
iDraw3G 2 years ago
I have questions for WhoLueYou. If you think it is pointless to discuss racial differences, why do you go on to point out some of these differences? Also, do you not believe in constructivism at all? Do you think that a person's characteristics have no correlation to the environment they were raised in? Also, can you reference where your facts came from?
Asmys 2 years ago
21 isn't that young for a doctorate
RelativityGuru 2 years ago
RIIIIIIGHT!
superfast30 2 years ago
24 is the usual age to complete a doctorate
BarriosGroupie 2 years ago
Comment removed
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@logicalFlaw, most graduate at 21 and then do post graduate study, hence getting their PhD at 24
BarriosGroupie 1 year ago
Comment removed
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
logical, in the UK, the majority are 24 when they get a PhD.
BarriosGroupie 1 year ago
Comment removed
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector I am doing a PhD in the UK and I will be 25 when I finish it. Many people will indeed finish at 24; I had a year out.
In the UK we typically start university at 18 and graduate 3 years later. Were someone to go straight to PhD ( PhDs are 3 years in the UK ), they would finish it at age 24.
benjorino 1 year ago
Comment removed
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
because all knowledge will vanish, but it will remain potent in being
CalvinLe111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They really should study this guy's brain using fMRI. One thing that bugs me is why he's using his incredible brainpower to study prime numbers and other fields that are, by and large, useless for society. Why not apply his intelligence to advancing society ?
angela1894 2 years ago
Actually all mathematics is likely to useful, prime number theory(in general number theory) are useful in computing science.
murozman 2 years ago 11
when newton and leibniz discovered calculus back in their time, practical applications for it were very limited. look at calculus now. without it, science/engineering would not be anywhere near where it has progressed. also, if you watch one of his lectures, he talks about how the us gov't depends on prime numbers for things like cryptography. i think this guys up to something...
akirajamal 2 years ago 2
Advancing society? You mean by eliminating pathetic racists like you. Why are you such a racist? It is counter productive to tell people that blacks are genetically less intelligent on average even if it is true. Why not just view people as individuals and let the race differences take care of themselves. There is no need to discuss it because it creates tention and could discourage a smart black person. There is nothing to be gained by talking about race differences in IQ.
WhoLueYou 2 years ago
Also I could tell you that women are intellectually inferior to men on average. But there would be nothing gained by saying that. Also average white person has an IQ of 100 whereas the average Ashkenazi Jew has an IQ of 115 - 15 points difference. Despite only being less than 1% of world population, Jews comprise over 30% on Nobel Prize winners. America is effectively owned and controlled by very smart Jewish bankers.
WhoLueYou 2 years ago
All the evidence - IQ and scientific achievements and wealth - says that Jews are smarter than whites by a big margin. By there is nothing to be gained by talking about it. Just view people as individuals and let the differences take care of themselves. Talking about racial differences only achieves negative results such as hatred and violence and tension. Also how would a racist like you deal with it if you ecountered a black person with a higher IQ than yourself.
WhoLueYou 2 years ago
The point here is: There is nothing positive to be achieved by talking about race differences.
WhoLueYou 2 years ago
Murozman, I was just reading up on Neil Turok. What the hell makes you think he's the "next einstein". That's bullshit. He seems like a really competent physicist, but how the hell does this make him the intellectual heir to einstein ? That distinction goes to Hawking or Witten
angela1894 2 years ago
Did anybody think of Dr Sheldon Cooper ?
igoronline 2 years ago
A genius!!! But smartest alive? Well, I'd go for Witten.
murozman 2 years ago
Oh I think this guy might be smarter than Witten. My honest opinion is that the smartest guy is Stephen Wolfram. Unlike Tao, Wolfram had no help from teachers or tutors or coaches, and he published an advanced, particle physics paper at the age of 15 and got a PhD at 19 (from Caltech) and became a professor a year later.
angela1894 2 years ago
You seem to think being a prodigy makes a person smarter. They just have faster intellectual development. People like Maxwell and Einstein(greatest theoretical physicists of the 19th & 20th century respectively) weren't prodigies, not even Newton, Dirac, Hawking or Schrodinger! The greatest geniuses are not usually prodigies(some are). People reach their intellectual peaks at different times, it doesn't mean those that get there faster are brighter.
murozman 2 years ago
Most smart people had faster development than their peers. They might not have been prodigies, but they were ahead of their peers to varying degrees. Read Maxwell's biography, he was known as a bright and curious kid. You're also wrong about Dirac, Hawking, and Schrodinger. They were not prodigies, but they were known to be very bright kids, far ahead of their peers. Even Newton was reading astronomy texts as a teenager. The one huge exception is Einstein who was always an unremarkable student.
angela1894 2 years ago
I did not say those guys were not smart! God! You keep on making straw man fallacies, I said they were not prodigies! Curious and bright yes, but not prodigies! Hawking was described as a good but NOT exceptional student. So, they were all bright, how could they not be?
murozman 2 years ago
asians... theyre always smart
cuaem 3 years ago
Smart people are in all races. I western countries they appear really smart since usually people who immigrate to the west are usually well educated and intelligent(and pushy!). Their kids are more likely to be smart as well, thus the illusion of "smart Asians". As for this guy, he's a genius!!!
murozman 2 years ago
You're right, murozman, there are smart people in all races, it's just that some races have a higher percentage of smart people than others. Ever heard of a black person winning a fields medal or physics nobel prize?
angela1894 2 years ago
It's not that black people have a lower percentage of smart people. It's to do with circumstances. In the past they have been poorer and lacked the resources. They are quite capable, a lot is being done to help people in Africa to achieve their fullest by people like Neil Turok(look up nexteinstein). I hope in the future we'll see a lot of black people receiving those awards. By the way Percy Julian(brilliant chemist) did deserve a Nobel prize.
murozman 2 years ago
Murozman are you black ?
Pretty much all IQ tests that have ever been conducted on whites and blacks in all countries, and at all socioeconomic levels show that blacks lag by a CONSISTENT 15 IQ points.
How anyone could blame black intellectual inferiority on environment ALONE is beyond me.
Genetics plays a far bigger role. Read about the Minnesota transracial adoption studies that showed that even when you test blacks and whites at the same socioeconomic level, whites still lead.
angela1894 2 years ago
About my worldwide studies comments read my next comment. As for the African-Americans and black Europeans, during slavery, a slave that showed intelligence was quickly killed. Slaves were bred to be stronger(only the strong ones were allowed to reproduce). Intelligence is heritable(but not always), so it's reasonable to expect less of it from this group.Being poor was one of the examples, others include higher levels of religious beliefs(which often discourages 'earthly wisdom').
murozman 2 years ago
The problem is with the validity of IQ test
zanachan88 2 years ago
Murozman, the examples you gave of smart people are not convincing. First of all, Neil Turok is not black. He's a white South African dude. And Percy Julian was an african american probably with some caucasian genes. I want to hear of a fully black person who is extremely smart. Yet to hear of it. I don't like examples of smart african americans because african americans generally have some caucasian heritage, so you can't be too sure whether it's their white genes that are making them smart..
angela1894 2 years ago
I didn't say Turok is black!!! God! I said he's helping people in Africa to reach their fullest capabilities. You keep on going on about genes, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest "black genes" lead to a lower level of intelligence, only that intelligence is heritable.Also the worldwide studies show a paradox: an African with an IQ of 70 functions normally in society while a European with the same IQ is mentally incapacitated. The validity of IQ testing has long been controversial.
murozman 2 years ago
Also using your logic, it means that any white person with "black genes" in them will basically be an idiot!
murozman 2 years ago
taoism?
Israe5l 3 years ago 2
Doesn't seem like a very articulate guy. Smart, though.
angela1894 3 years ago
I wish I knew his IQ
angela1894 3 years ago
his iq is 230 the world highest now!
glen2300 2 years ago
Liar. Tao's IQ is NOT known.
angela1894 2 years ago
GOOGLE IT ! Idiot
glen2300 2 years ago
you're a liar. Terence Tao's IQ is not publicly known. How did you find out ? Where on the web is it ? Give me the URL. You have absolutely zero proof..
angela1894 2 years ago
Oops, I'm sorry, you're right, Tao's IQ was ESTIMATED to be between 220 and 230. I just don't know whether it was the old-style "ratio IQ" or the newer "deviation IQ".
angela1894 2 years ago
its same type with bush's 91 iq -_-!!!
glen2300 2 years ago
people like him just see the numbers,..and get it.
jalil124 3 years ago
Beauty and truth is shown in his math as image and application. Where is Tao going to lead us?
writetothepoint1960 3 years ago
seven fucking minutes and we still didnt hear why he won the Fields Prize !!(i think i read it had something to do with the Goldbach conj),,total fluff. as we've come to expect from the lazy ,dumb, Aussie news media "'your the first ..blah blah.. whats it like??"lets keep it simple for the masses ..as important as Newton and Einstein...give us a break
mugwamp4 3 years ago
well, the fields medal isn't awarded for any particular result or achievement. it honors his entire body of work.
ihateuutube 3 years ago
tao might be a cracker but he has no creativity at all when it comes to proposing theorems
unerau 3 years ago
Interesting. What make you say that?
zsyed12345678 3 years ago
IMO at 10.
:o
Cufflinks555 3 years ago
he talks really fast.
taepodong1101 3 years ago
Perelmans probably smarter...
these videos makes me feel like the dumbest person out there....
taepodong1101 3 years ago
perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture is more significant than any single result Tao has attained thus far; however, it is very unlikely that perelman is actually 'smarter' than tao.
ihateuutube 3 years ago
the latter gave up maths so i guess you are right.
taepodong1101 3 years ago
Grothendieck > Tao
vizioneer1 3 years ago
beautiful mind soundtrack in the background. .
randomteen314 3 years ago
I agree with KaoriBlue. Besides that point, Tao is a bit show off
VonNeuman2008 3 years ago
I've met him and can say that he is definitely not a show off. He is remarkably humble for someone who has achieved so much.
tywebbOOOOO 3 years ago 10
I really did not want to belittle his achievements, he is without doubt an accomplished mathematician. Tao established himself as a math prodigy after gaining significant fame because of a couple of IMO gold medals in his early ages. I like him because of his support of Perelman . He is teaching a course on Perelman's proof which clarifies Perelman's significant contribution and to some extend an answer to those who wanted to transfer credit (became obvious for me when I read their paper).
VonNeuman2008 3 years ago
@VonNeuman2008 what are you talking about?
PercyMcqueen 1 year ago
amazing what one mind can do.
ecaep45 3 years ago
I hate how the media does its reports on mathematicians/physicists. It's always focused on how smart the person is, never on who they are, what they've done, and how they think about things. And believe me, I mean no disrespect to Prof. Tao and his work, I'm simply talking about the media.
KaoriBlue 3 years ago 5
Normal people wouldnt have a clue if media rambled about complex proofs.
taepodong1101 3 years ago
This is not a documetary program about him or his work. It's just one example of his exposure on media. He got world famous and the media will just consume and reproduce his image again and again like they already did with other scientists like Einstein, Feynman and so on.. That's natural cuz it is human being's basic instinct.
nanjido18 3 years ago
Yeah, but people know what Einstein and Feynman did... or at least what some of their contributions were. Not even close in this case, and the media ought to do better. The paper he did with Ben Green on arithmetic progressions of prime numbers should make it at least a little easier to incorporate a sound-bite or two on some of his work.
KaoriBlue 3 years ago
@KaoriBlue I think the clip had plenty of that in there, and it's only natural that people are interested by his ability than abstruse mathematical achievements.
Agnotio 1 year ago
He's kinda cute.