Why is Einstein > von Neumann in intelligence?

I'll end the argument right now. Here's a quote from Eugene Wigner, a Nobel-prize winning physicist who was friends with both Einstein and Von Neumann:

"I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jancsi [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed.

But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jancsi's brilliance, he never produced anything as original."

—————————————————————————————————————

In terms of precocious, “gee whiz he can calculate Pi to the 23,000th decimal place in his head!” Johnny was unmatched. Nobody - for the exception of Ramanujan, whose talents in mathematics were unparalleled - could match Johnny’s eidetic gifts. But that raises an interesting question about what we mean by “intelligence.”

Both men were incredibly prolific. Von Neumann was an incredible polymath (everything from game theory in economics to computational engineering, pure & applied mathematics, etc.) but he didn’t revolutionize an entire field like Einstein did. What Einstein accomplished hadn’t been done in 250 years, and that was just one of his many gifts to humanity. Neumann’s mind was quicker than anybody of his era, but Einstein’s mind was both more penetrating and more original than Johnny’s- and that isn’t an indictment of Johnny, but a reminder of how incredible Einstein’s accomplishments were.

全盛時期 da vinci 夠唔夠打？

因為評價嗰位係物理佬

agree

研究string theory嗰班同呢班癲佬比如何?

string theory can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically

如果用 ”小聰明" 形容von Neumann
未免太侮辱佢

呢句又錯唔晒， 變咗風水佬d frd

當年美國整原子彈時，有啲數係得Von Neumann先計得掂
呢啲咁practical既野物理佬未必識欣賞

變咗娛樂台講八卦

有， 衍生咗唔少添
從呢方面就好過風水唔少

maths有幾可revolutionary to entire maths
就算係Galois都只係整左個modern abstract algebra (which most non-algebra maths people don't give a shit)

Poincare

佢有幾影響成個數學

Topology

most non-geometer/topologist dont give a fuck
如果你指的entire field只係數學的一個subfield咁大把數學都係revolutionary

或者再講點解maths咁難revolutionary to all maths
係因為maths係logically true (除非走去搞d axioms), 唔同physics係一個建模, 當個模型唔得整個新模型咪revolutionary lor
所以跨學科根本唔應該比較

好難咁講㗎喎, 大把應用物理學家 don't give a fuck to Theory of Relativity.
文章主要係討論 originality and invention, which have a deep impact.

maths好難有文章講果種originality