Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

cantorsparadise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#251

Post by clairity »

MrDresden wrote: post #209

He was beyond a brilliant person, of that is no doubt. And not in anyway trying to take away from that fact, reading the following excerpt from the article..; "[..] von Neumann both worked alongside and collaborated with some of the foremost figures of twentieth century science. He went to high school with Eugene Wigner, collaborated with Hermann Weyl at ETH, attended lectures by Albert Einstein in Berlin, worked und…

it's all mythmaking, a custom as old as time and the ancestor of our modern obsession with promotion. exceptional people aren't born so much as constructed to tickle our imagination and ego.

every culture makes myths but obsession is where it becomes problematic. we must have idols, so we will make them opportunistically rather than leave them to organic discovery. there's enough randomness and manipulation in the people we remember historically to not put too much faith in the objectiveness of any of these constructions.

that's not to say that no credit is due them, but that it's overwhelmingly likely overstated, per this obsession.

also note that any story title with a name prominently featured is simply going to be subjective (practically by definition).

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#252

Post by arethuza »

Retric wrote: post #248
arethuza wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1961 the Pentagon's own estimates gave the expected casualties at 600 million plus when it had ~20K weapons. In 1950 the US had ~2500 weapons so scaling that back proportionally still looks like 10s of millions dead. Edit: I suspect maximum lethality of the US stockpile would have been during the 1960s when they still used large numbers of very large and dirty weapons.

1961 the US had ICBM’s and large numbers of vastly more powerful Hydrogen bombs and very accurate targeting methods. In 1950 the US was still limited to long range bombers, many or even most of which would get shot down and so they would have concentrated on the most critical military targets. Thus, even 10 million dead in 1950 seems very high unless they simply tried to maximize civilian casualties which it’s self w…

I agree that a "preventative" war in 1950 would have been a very different thing from 1961. However, von Neumann was active as a political adviser to very close to his death and I was unaware that he had rejected the idea of such an attack - there were certainly others who favoured such a thing well into the 1960s.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#255

Post by dharmon »

kgwgk wrote: post #164
krige wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting a character in one of Stanisław Lem's stories, "People do not really want to live forever -- they simply do not want to die." Always struck me as a rather profound take on the whole immortality deal.

Von Neumann definitely didn't want to die. According to Wigner: "When Jancsi realized that he was incurably ill, his logic made him conclude that he would cease to exist, cease to have thoughts. The full content of this was incomprehensible to him and it horrified him. We all know this and try to accept it, but it is always difficult. It was heartbreaking to watch the frustration in his mind when the hope was gone. H…

His friends and colleagues were very disappointed that at the very end he turned to religion to help him cope with his fears. He even had a priest visit him for last rites. (Source: A Beautiful Mind)

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#256

Post by confidantlake »

As a pretty average person articles like this often depress me. Like what is the point of trying to learn stuff when I will never be able to do what he did at 8. We only need a few geniuses to do things and then push their solutions to humanity. The rest of us are useless.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#257

Post by 1cvmask »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #243
1cvmask wrote: post #31

Regarding the coining of entropy is just an example of the creative genius of Von Neumann: When Shannon first derived his famous formula for information, he asked von Neumann what he should call it and von Neumann replied “You should call it entropy for two reasons: first because that is what the formula is in statistical mechanises but second and more important, as nobody knows what entropy is, whenever you use the…

Funny you mention that story, I came across it for the first time about 3 days ago in a book I was reading -- Grammatical Man . It's one of the best reads I've found on the history of information theory. Funnily enough the friend that lent it to me isn't even a tech person, he's an electrician who's more interested in occultism and esotericism than mathematics and technology. Every time I read about the 20th century…

I hope you like this biography on Paul Erdos. Great read. If you like it recommend it to others. I have gifted it to many friends and even to those who are not mathematicians, STEMmy or mathematically inclined. Hope you get a chance to read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Loved_Only_Numbers

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#258

Post by confidantlake »

kaba0 wrote: post #234
smnplk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the foundations have to be genetic. There are multitude of factors involved and one of them is having a strong memory. But there also needs to be a drive and thirst for knowledge.

I think drive and thirst for knowledge is more “nurture”, but the base is heavily correlated with genetics. I think it is the same with people holding world records in sports. You can get insanely good no matter where you come from (let alone some unfortunate medical conditions) with only drive and enough exercise, but to win a gold medal, you have to be born for a given sport (of course on top of the insane amount o…

Absolutely. Drive and determination can get you closer to your personal genetic ceiling. But if you don't have lucky genetics your ceiling will be lower than the world class level. Whether that is sports, math, painting, whatever.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#259

Post by bick_nyers »

adverbly wrote: post #56

Is it just me or does it seem like there something like there were a lot of celebrity-level STEM heroes to come out of the early 20th century. These folks all seemed to work together closely. Maybe these things take time, but it just doesn't seem like there is anything remotely like this going on today, despite far greater access to education and increases in global population. Is it perhaps that the limelight is les…

I think mathematicians only become famous when they are being driven by/driving an industrial revolution. Just look at the digital revolution. I have never heard of George Boole until a quick Google search, but he laid down the framework for Boolean Algebra in 1850. Claude Shannon is a much more recognized name, even though the impact of information theory is smaller than that of boolean algebra (considering that BA is a prerequisite). Is it possible that George Boole was as popular in the 1930's as Shannon is now? Maybe. Perhaps the fame of mathematicians is staggered, as the applications often drive their fame, and the applications often come ~50 years later.

Re: The Unparalleled Genius of John von Neumann (2019)

#260

Post by Retric »

arethuza wrote: post #252
Retric wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1961 the US had ICBM’s and large numbers of vastly more powerful Hydrogen bombs and very accurate targeting methods. In 1950 the US was still limited to long range bombers, many or even most of which would get shot down and so they would have concentrated on the most critical military targets. Thus, even 10 million dead in 1950 seems very high unless they simply tried to maximize civilian casualties which it’s self w…

I agree that a "preventative" war in 1950 would have been a very different thing from 1961. However, von Neumann was active as a political adviser to very close to his death and I was unaware that he had rejected the idea of such an attack - there were certainly others who favoured such a thing well into the 1960s.

Sure, though my understanding was this was specifically about an attack before Russia started mass production of atomic bombs. First strike after that point would likely have been vastly more costly on both sides. He was very much aware of the idea, which is why he’s credited in the name and acronym MAD.

In the end the world avoided a large scale nuclear exchange, but when faced with a seemingly like war between two nuclear armed superpowers I can understand the argument.

Post reply on HN