A (very) Brief History of John von Neumann 

Yeah. But can he cook an egg?

@@djbabbotstown Well, he couldn't drive well :D

What i would never get is the great fear of death. I mean lots of people less intelligent have consolidated with their faith more easily and more readily. They say that only when you live fully you are ready to die at any moment. So the conclusion of this video does not make sense. How can one that is living so fully be so afraid of what is apparent? I think von Neumann was not living fully but merely biding time and trying to get as much out before the inevitable. There is a simple joke about this in my native (dutch) language it goes something like this. A guy walks into a bar and nervously asks for a beer quickly before the trouble starts, so the bartender gives him a beer. After a few minutes the guy asks for another beer ‘before the trouble starts’. The bartender gives him a beer. A few moments pass before the guy again asks for a beer ‘before the trouble starts’. The bartender finally fed up with this asks ‘how are you going to pay for this?’ to which the guy replies ‘there’s the trouble’.

Never heard of Terrance Tao then.

Great scientists never admit if the other guy is smarter except they admit Von Neumann is. Because it would be utterly ridiculous to deny it.

Just historys… no proof. Tesla spoke 67 languages ​​fluently by age 2. Oh… I dont have a video to prove that either.

@@jaassil at least we know what he done after. and what did you do?

@@viktorjuhasz1518 ypocrisy fallacy dum dum

When I was six, I could finish my entire Ice Cream cone.

Also, his Ph.D dissertation was so complex that his examiners kindly asked that he re-write the thesis to a more understandable level for their understanding; his examiners were all Ph.D mathematics professors and they did not defy or question his paper, how could they since he was brighter than all of his professors. The remarkable thing about genius is that your teachers have little or nothing to 'teach' to you that you cannot just as easily discover or learn for yourself, all they can do is to provide some guidance and direction of further study. Scary intelligent. AI might easily achieve such a status shortly.

@OverLord Opps In terms of IQ tests or cognitive ability tests he probably wouldve had aall time record . Nowadays asians have this capabilities.

@@stevo7220 I m asian , u guys overestimate us , dumb guys exist here too alot of them

Dude wtf??

He was.

@Noah dean In terms of mathematical and scientific work I would say he was on of the greatest. William Sidis didn't do anything usefull. He's suppose to be remembered as an American mathematician but didn't do anything significant mathematical or scientifically. I think it's unfair to treat intelligence as a game were you get the highest score, I think intelligence has to be useful for it to be really shown. Von Neumann had the mathematical depth of Euler, and was also a good engineer and physicist (Something Euler was not). His work on qauntum mechanics was on level with Dirac, and Dirac was one of the best mathematical minds to study qauntum mechanics. You can argue non of his work was a deep as the theory of special relativity (which is fair), but special relativity is a really deep concept that would take years to study even for a genius. Neumann definitely covered a lot of ground on a lot of deep concept. The Volume of his work is why I think he's the greatest.

I thought John nash had something to do with that as well?

@@thoughtsofalostoneofalosto2591 it seems they both did contribute significantly to game theory

@@thoughtsofalostoneofalosto2591 John Nash was not on the same level of von Neumann, this despite the hype of the movie 'A Beautiful Mind'. Von Neumann was far more fascinating of a chap, very modest in behavior and of his genius too. John Nash was 'nominated' for his Nobel Prize years after his best years were over and he was almost like a street urchin due to his mental instability. Von Neumann was a mathematician and thus there is awarded Nobel Prize for either pure mathematics, yet there can be a Nobel Prize in another field to which mathematics can be applied and for which prize category exists under the Nobel Committee rules. Many critics also contend that the term 'Nobel Prize in Economics' is not valid since Mr Nobel never authorized economics as a category for which the prize should be awarded, rather any economics category award is predicated and created by the Swedish Sovereign Bank IN MEMORY OF Alfred Nobel, but not made by Alfred Nobel in his original intention of the prize. Trivia folks, just trivia.

You are not an economist. Thank you.

Economics is a psuedo-science.

His papers and achievements rates him pretty accurately

and Einstein with 1 theory, and 160 IQ is soooo famous

@@hunmari Einstein with ONE theory???

For once, underrated actually is underrated, at least in terms of popular culture.

@@hunmari You do know Einstein basically invented condensed matter physics, right? And most people don't realize this. That was ONE of like 100 things he did. According to head of applied physics at Yale, who knows more physics than 10 clones of you put together, Douglas Stone, Einstein should have gotten 7 to 10 Nobel Prizes. Yeah "1 theory," you are very ignorant.

People are ignorant of his genius. As an aside, when computer programmers like Grace Hopper showed him the newer emerging forms of computer instruction languages being developed, he was very unimpressed because he thought that the underlying assembly language was sufficient enough in his mind to do the computer tasks without adding another layer of language atop that of assembly language. Such was his genius, the rest of us, however, need such advanced computer languages to write code more efficiently. Only in science fiction Star Trek's Mr. Data and Mr. Spock are von Neumann's math skills equaled.

May you explain what this book is about for three body problem

@@Apocalypsepioneer - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three-Body_Problem_(novel), It is worth reading the book. The story line is fascinating.

Just a precursor to driving whilst texting lol

@@jjvs9 Reject modernity

I will Google this book. Thank you.

None better to date anyway. Imagine being able to do math that quickly and well, he was no mere 'Rain Man' character either, since von Neumann could create mathematical dogma that never previously existed and his genius leapt across varoius fields, not merely mathematics.

@@edmundcharles5278Would say Euler or Gauss may be just a tad bit higher up the rung of legendary mathematicians.

Who was greater Euler or Gauss? I'd go Euler, but it's close. And what about LaGrange vs Gauss? Lagrange was a freak of nature too.

​@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 A shame Galois died so young.

what it greater than his other ideas?

He attended a school that gave 6 or 8 Nobel prize winners. I don't tjink that was an issue. Btw Jancsi was a fun person, the heart of the party, he loved to make people laugh, hr used his immense knowledge to make people laugh. Just look at his broad smile, you can tell it's true.

100.000 years is a lot… are u dumb?

^ The point of his comment is that we are all dumb compared to him

RU-vid says this comment has 2 replies. I click to see the replies and there are none. Why?

@Leonhard Euler how many replies do you see here including this one?

@@TheCorrectionist1984 i see 5

I studied mathematics in undergrad and tutored. I studied statistics for my masters and taught + tutored. I also started working in Data Science 3+ years ago. There's so many great mathematicians, it seems I'll never stop having content to create! If I end up digging into Halmos later on, I'll def check out that autobiography. Thank you for the note :D

@@moderndaymath Ettore Majorana could be an interesting one.

@@NikolajKuntner Oh wow I didn't realize he worked with Fermi! Added him to the backlog :)

just that combination is a paradox

@@corvanha1 how?

​@@asbayt81 Firstly a deep mind is no calculator, but a visionary mind, secondly a deep mind experiences a singularity of being without being separated from unity by divisions or pondering on opposites. And thirdly the outcome of the deep mind's thoughts are allencompassing and unifying. The quick mind- though a sign of genius on its own merits- does not comprehend by unifying but by seperating through extremely intricate equasions and by calculating its effects on a given premise, a particle, an isolated phenomenon, a series of related effects, i.e. by presuming those calculations will eventually be met by the propostion or even a revelation of a third unknown, which cannot be grasped with speed of thinking but only by meditating deeply upon its given presence, its absolute immanence, which is elusive to the mere calculator. Therefore quick minds always depend on the first grasp of understanding without being able to penetrate the underlying higher principle, which is unified and indivisible. Quick minds tend to ponder on the effects rather than the origins, their obsession prevent them to encompass the silence of the unknown, inwhich the absolute solution is embedded, but which cannot be extracted by mere calculations. The quick mind is capable however to step up to a higher principle altogether by transcending its inner motive of conquest through learning to listen to the inner voice in himself, which in the ends gives a clue to the endeavour to attempt a journey to the unknown within himself thereby dissoluting the inner conflict to become closer to his inner being, in which no opposite force exists (in the deepest sence, not in the present reality though), thus putting the equation (the output of calculation) in the service of unity of heart and mind. I do not hope my thoughts are an offence to you. Thank you.

@@corvanha1 💯

By the time we get technology, it is already 50 years old. They already have the advanced technology; they just will not release it to the public. The things we have today, Tesla did 100 years ago. All in the service of maintaining the status quo of the Petro-dollar.

Could it be that the wiki article is an expanded version of the video?

MHGA? Well, in the present situation, Hungary could well do with some improvements to its global image.

Neumann has been robbed off of his achievements many times by hollywood. As if they didn't care about the body of work this genius created.

Most people don't appreciate what they don't understand. That is one reason why singers, movie stars, and other entertainers get much more recognition than (scientific) geniuses.

Hungary's unfortunate 20th century political affiliations have resulted in a kind of 'banishment to the dogbox'. One main outcome of that was that some other European nations and the US have done their best to negate or cover-up the contributions of Hungarian intellectuals. It did not suit THEIR political agendas. Sad.

Turing's Cathedral

Well said....

I had a similar thought. A huge amount of people try to make a living in science, basically producing theories to publish, which is the bases if their titles and income. This creates sensationalism and chaotic narratives.

or was it Budweiser?

@@michaelbarry8373 Edward Künneke.

I'm a big fan of his works, but if we're being realistic here, he contributed to a lot of deaths aswell. brilliant but flawed in many ways too

@@arma5166 Not by intent or by design.

It's how Neumann would have wanted it

Could u pls include two major contributions of Neumann's in both maths and stat... Wanna give my presentation...

A few more points after decimal place?

@@sdlillystone Maybe infinitely more perhaps??

Yeah, a big gap between smart and super genius.

@@linoserrano476 Yup! His mind was in another Realm!

It's nearing the end of the 1st movement of Künneke's Piano Concerto No. 1. I used the entirety of that piece for this video

thanks! @@moderndaymath

And Turing.

He didn't. "Of this deathbed conversion, Morgenstern told Heims, "He was of course completely agnostic all his life, and then he suddenly turned Catholic-it doesn't agree with anything whatsoever in his attitude, outlook and thinking when he was healthy." Father Strittmatter recalled that even after his conversion, von Neumann did not receive much peace or comfort from it, as he still remained terrified of death."

@@DoddoJordan Regardless of one's lifelong attitude toward the existence of Deity, most of us would be terrified of impending death. This is totally understandable. However, it is amazing that so many dying people instinctively turn toward seeking solace from that Deity, regardless of the veracity of its existence.

Hi Ryan, I think it's either von Neumann or Issac Newton. Newton was also an amazing intellect and advance science tremendously during his lifetime. I recommend a good book named, Never at Rest as a good read about Issac Newton. Very interesting.

@@linoserrano476 there is no downplaying what Newton did to mathematics and phisics, we literally teach newtonian physics in highschools, so of course he is one of the candidates for highest intellect to ever live, and I know alot of what Neumann did was expanding on or using these older theories of how the universe works but he too had theories of his own so its just hard to tell different time and different resources, Im sure if newton was around durring the 1900s with all the theories and resources of that age he would have had some mabey more crazy and brilliant theories but well never know. But yeah both are Incredible minds.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Carl Fredrich Gauss...Homer Simpson.

One might venture to say that “reality” was teaching him something very profound through his premature demise.

Ummm. There was a world war in full swing. You can read about it in a book.

We are all weak, when confronting our Final Exit. Very few people die singing limericks or telling jokes...

Leibnitz and Euler pre-dated Goethe

I suspect brilliant people are another species. Still I wonder if a bird in flight or a top athlete has as much a sense of being: perhaps a Buddhist stumbling on enlightenment by totally stilling the mind more so.

The Hollywood moguls can provide the answers here. Followed by the media.

Shockingly no