Strongest well-rounded mathematician on PF

[lisab]

It's patently me.

Whew, glad we got that figured out.

 

[JDStupi]

Hey man, want to know the meaning of life?
0___
0

Mines Bigger,
No, mine is!
0__________
0

Yea but your is crooked (ok that part was a joke about my mess up) But the rest of it, is me poking fun at how come you have to contsntly talk up yourself and say "ohh well I'm an expert in x" Why did you say that? What relevance did it have? You even said it twice, and "I just want something to compete against"...Compete against yourself, go wrestle that ego of yours

 

[nobahar]

Whew, glad we got that figured out.

Everyone was thinking it. I thought I'd just put an end to it.

 

[fss]

I have not, but I will assert that my knowledge of those two subjects is very deep and multidimensional. ^_^ I brought them up primarily to point out that passion is required, not to assert my superiority in the subject, though I could have worded it in a less challenging way.

According to your profile you are in high school. You realize that makes your claim almost comically ridiculous, right? At least you admit that your choice of words was poor :)

 

[The legend]

Do you realize that PF is loaded with Ph.Ds?

Yes!
and there are some guys much beyond that too!

 

[GeorginaS]

We're only 3 months away from the funniest member awards, which, in these parts, is an award second only to the Nobel Prize.

I'm surprised they're not dressed as clown throwing pies at each other.

Three months away? Again, already? Wow does time fly. I only just finished getting the meringue out of my curtains from last year.

i'm not going to get a serious answer, am i?

Yeah, you know, likely not.

 

[G037H3]

Ok, let's give this a shot.

Derive the general equation for entropy in differential form for an internally reversible process. Should be no problem for someone of your mathematical "intellect". I'll even give you you a hint: Tds = dh - dP/p and ds = delta Q/T

Annnnd go.

I can't do that without the requisite tools, and neither would Archimedes be able to.

But the rest of it, is me poking fun at how come you have to contsntly talk up yourself and say "ohh well I'm an expert in x" Why did you say that? What relevance did it have? You even said it twice, and "I just want something to compete against"...Compete against yourself, go wrestle that ego of yours

I'm pretty quiet, overall. I don't display my intellect or insights to any great degree. Also, "competing against myself" is a bad idea, considering that I'm a perfectionist.

According to your profile you are in high school. You realize that makes your claim almost comically ridiculous, right? At least you admit that your choice of words was poor :)

Actually, I had to drop out. And, you'd be surprised how many hours one can spend reading and pondering if they begin reading at a very young age.

Yeah, you know, likely not.

=/

 

[Mentallic]

Here's a scenario to try shed some light on what you mean by "well-rounded" for the rest of us and for yourself.

My friend and I were both in the top math class at the end of high school. He is a hard worker, and I am a natural talent. Whenever we were taught something new in class, I would go away thinking that I understood what I was just showed and I could apply it with a high degree of accuracy to whatever applications tests might throw at me. My friend went away and studied the topic to death, learning from various textbooks to get a feel for all possible questions he could ever be asked.
Now since I had much more time to fondle with while he studied profusely on these topics, I would indulge myself in all kinds of topics that weren't in my curriculum in school (mainly by reading up on problems that users here on PF couldn't solve in the homework help section).

Anyway, much later down the track when we were revising, I would slowly but surely get an answer to that topic covered long ago. My friend would rush through it using short cuts and tricks along the way and get the answer much faster than I could.

In the end of it all, he came first and I came second.

Now a question to you. If it were only my friend and I that were the two candidates for this search of yours to find the "strongest well-rounded mathematician", who would take the cake?

If you chose me then isn't it possible that given more time my friend would also learn everything I have learned and to top it off, he would be better at these topics. He would've been exposed to more proofs, more examples, more tricks etc. and he too would most likely develop a more natural affiliation to understand mathematics with time. Plus, at the present moment he would pound me in a competition on the topics that we have both learnt.

If you chose my friend, then we could argue just the opposite and it would obviously look foolish to choose him and then I come along and could give some insight into a problem that he has no clue about.

And then there's the issue that for PhD's and beyond, they usually follow their own paths that they prefer, specializing in some field of mathematics. How do you compare them then...?

 

[G037H3]

Here's a scenario to try shed some light on what you mean by "well-rounded" for the rest of us and for yourself.

My friend and I were both in the top math class at the end of high school. He is a hard worker, and I am a natural talent. Whenever we were taught something new in class, I would go away thinking that I understood what I was just showed and I could apply it with a high degree of accuracy to whatever applications tests might throw at me. My friend went away and studied the topic to death, learning from various textbooks to get a feel for all possible questions he could ever be asked.
Now since I had much more time to fondle with while he studied profusely on these topics, I would indulge myself in all kinds of topics that weren't in my curriculum in school (mainly by reading up on problems that users here on PF couldn't solve in the homework help section).

Anyway, much later down the track when we were revising, I would slowly but surely get an answer to that topic covered long ago. My friend would rush through it using short cuts and tricks along the way and get the answer much faster than I could.

In the end of it all, he came first and I came second.

Now a question to you. If it were only my friend and I that were the two candidates for this search of yours to find the "strongest well-rounded mathematician", who would take the cake?

If you chose me then isn't it possible that given more time my friend would also learn everything I have learned and to top it off, he would be better at these topics. He would've been exposed to more proofs, more examples, more tricks etc. and he too would most likely develop a more natural affiliation to understand mathematics with time. Plus, at the present moment he would pound me in a competition on the topics that we have both learnt.

If you chose my friend, then we could argue just the opposite and it would obviously look foolish to choose him and then I come along and could give some insight into a problem that he has no clue about.

And then there's the issue that for PhD's and beyond, they usually follow their own paths that they prefer, specializing in some field of mathematics. How do you compare them then...?

By strongest, I suppose I mean the combination of natural talent and focus, culminating in a "peak output/power".

Example: I would consider Euler to be weaker as a mathematician than Gauss, but Euler worked like a madman, so that their overall contributions are somewhat equivalent.

Getting back to your question, I would choose you, because if you are more talented, and assuming that focus is a fixed variable for both participants, if you had spent more time you would have been stronger than him. (I don't necessarily think that speed and calculation power are one and the same, mind. I'm using an overall qualitative definition of 'stronger'.)

I was thinking earlier about the most efficient course of study for developing broad mastery in mathematics, and I think that for me, a focus on algebra, geometry, set theory, and analysis is pretty much all I'd need. of course that entails a lot of material, but I'm arguing that those four things are the minimum required in order to have a broad mastery in problem solving of existing and new problems.

 

[JohnT89]

Lets suppose I am the best mathematician in the world. Ok, then?

You can have nice talks and nice challenges with virtually every mathematician you talk with. There is always something to learn about: the genius who know most is the person who assume he might incidentally learn something from virtually every person in this world regardless of his education.

 

[Max™]

Mathematicians are closer to poets than weightlifters.

That's like asking who is the strongest poet, I hear Angelou could bench 350!

 

[Lacy33]

I'm surprised they're not dressed as clown throwing pies at each other.

This person, seems to have missed all the subtle hints thoes even coming from it's own thread title.
OP, if you are looking to get into the fun, why don't you round it off with your obvously strong personality, and throw pi around a while. (without watching the movie.) If you can master that, it will not only ground you and make you a respected mathematical thinker, but it will also twist your brains right out of your ears and I am willing to put money on it, you have not experience a high like that.

 

[Mu naught]

They say there's no such thing as a stupid question, but I think this one qualifies.

 

[arildno]

You'd be wrong, apparently you have not met arildno.

Except for the fact that I have basically no analytic tools at my disposal.



I have not, but I will assert that my knowledge of those two subjects is very deep and multidimensional. ^_^ I brought them up primarily to point out that passion is required, not to assert my superiority in the subject, though I could have worded it in a less challenging way.

I take the challenge.

 

[G037H3]

They say there's no such thing as a stupid question, but I think this one qualifies.

It's a probing question into the mathematical hierarchy of PF

 

[G037H3]

I take the challenge.

Demons can be good too...

 

[Pythagorean]

Ive noticed Hurkyl in QM and philosophical discussions and iirc he's a mathematician.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

I can't tell if he is serious, or if this is some sort of practical joke/internet-trolling technique.

 

[G037H3]

I can't tell if he is serious, or if this is some sort of practical joke/internet-trolling technique.

I'm serious. I post somewhat regularly >_>

 

[arildno]

Demons can be good too...

I win the first round in the duel concerning who is profoundest in knowledge:
A devil is different from a demon; I thought everybody knew that..

Arildno:1 GO37H3: -1

 

[G037H3]

I win the first round in the duel concerning who is profoundest in knowledge:
A devil is different from a demon; I thought everybody knew that..

Arildno:1 GO37H3: -1

rofl

I didn't look at the label for the emoticon

but is Mephistopheles really evil?

 

[Mentallic]

Mephistopheles

Is that Mephisto from Diablo 2? Because if it is... then yes, he is evil as hell!

This is the most history I know, if it comes in gaming form I'll learn about it

 

[arildno]

rofl

I didn't look at the label for the emoticon

but is Mephistopheles really evil?

Depends on your outlook.

Thus, we are both right.

 

[G037H3]

Depends on your outlook.

Thus, we are both right.

I'm okay with that, for now. :shy: