Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

LOL. I love this example. An absolute genius looks at his own work and thought process to conclude that one does not need to be a 'genius' in order to succeed in math. It's difficult for someone that brilliant to understand that while the things he does may seem ordinary, they are far beyond the reach of the vast majority of human beings.

And he's trying to convince the people who were only Putnam honorable mentions or whatever not to give up on math. This has nothing to do with people with a 120 IQ (I know IQ is a BS measure, but when people say 120 IQ, they mean someone who is above-average, but modestly so).

I wonder what Terry Tao's definition of genius is. Would he consider himself a genius? Everybody else would. But he might not.




It's difficult for someone that brilliant to understand that while the things he does may seem ordinary, they are far beyond the reach of the vast majority of human beings.

Right, so on the hand, he's brilliant and understand both things that are ordinary and things that are extraordinary, but when it comes to somewhat softer knowledge, suddenly his genius is a reason for him to not understand something. Luckily we have you to explain that to him and us...</below the waist, but you are really, really asking for it>

Tao is a genius that teaches other people how to do math and we may well assume that he understands what it requires. He has probably taught dozen of students and according to him, they could be people that score 120 on an IQ test and yet succeed at math.

Finally, if only geniuses could succeed at math, most Ph.D. students would not count as successful, despite advancing the science. You're redefining 'success' to suit your needs and you're doing the same thing with other facts: bending their ambiguity to support your thesis, instead of basing your thesis on a single interpretation of the facts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: