I really love these Wolfram biographies of famous people.
Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
11–20 of 81 posts
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobel Laureate in Physics They only give Nobels to living people, and typically only young people. Maybe there is some other award recognition?
Young people? They only give to living people but my impression is not that most laureates are young Edit: 72 years in average across all prizes, although first half of 20th century was lower. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37578899
I guess I'm wrong, but I read that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Young people? They only give to living people but my impression is not that most laureates are young Edit: 72 years in average across all prizes, although first half of 20th century was lower. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37578899
I guess I'm wrong, but I read that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing.
If that's the intent then they've been failing miserably at it.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#14Mitchell Feigenbaum has, for the last ~17 years, been my vote for the next Nobel Laureate in Physics. It is a rare thing to derive an irrational fundamental mathematical constant that appears in nature. The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi, and they are readily observed experimentally (though, necessarily, not to full precision :) ). Godspeed, Dr. Feigenbaum. Thank you.
> The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi
I suppose its debatable how fundamental a constant is , but there is no way the Feigenbaum constant is even in the same neighborhood as \pi and e.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Young people? They only give to living people but my impression is not that most laureates are young Edit: 72 years in average across all prizes, although first half of 20th century was lower. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37578899
I guess I'm wrong, but I read that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing.
You may be thinking of the Fields Medal in mathematics, for which recipients must be under 40.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#16Chaos : Making a New Science by James Gleick https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003YL4KOO/ contextualizes the period-doubling thing and talks about some of the other related stuff. Good book.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#17Feigenbaum barely ever showed up in the physics building at Rockefeller while I was there. He had an office. I saw his retreating back once, but he chose not to engage with the community there, despite it being full of people who wandered as widely as he did.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Young people? They only give to living people but my impression is not that most laureates are young Edit: 72 years in average across all prizes, although first half of 20th century was lower. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37578899
I guess I'm wrong, but I read that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing.
That was Nobel's original intent, but the reality of the prize has changed with time.
The Fields Medal and the MacArthur Genius awards are very much in that spirit.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#19I really love these Wolfram biographies of famous people.
You might enjoy his "Idea Makers: Personal Perspectives on the Lives & Ideas of Some Notable People", which consists of short essays on a few interesting people, some of which he knew personally.
Re: Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…
#20Mitchell Feigenbaum has, for the last ~17 years, been my vote for the next Nobel Laureate in Physics. It is a rare thing to derive an irrational fundamental mathematical constant that appears in nature. The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi, and they are readily observed experimentally (though, necessarily, not to full precision :) ). Godspeed, Dr. Feigenbaum. Thank you.
> The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi I suppose its debatable how fundamental a constant is , but there is no way the Feigenbaum constant is even in the same neighborhood as \pi and e.
[deleted]