5 ms·
Not a single mention of Stephen Wolfram?
by optimalsolver 3y ago
Not a single mention of Stephen Wolfram?
- rdtsc 3y agoI thought of that too. I think at this point most researches don't have much respect for him. If you listen to him or read his book, he sure likes to take credit for a lot stuff and make large claims about revolutionizing science and such. "I discovered this, I did that, etc...". So I can't blame others for avoiding mentioning him and just pretending he doesn't exist. At the same time this comes from a math background while Wolfram sort of bases his theory on cellular automata with rules, cells, Turing Machines etc.
- passion__desire 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paulpauper 3y agoHis ideas are not mathematically rigorous and would not pass peer review. his ideas are too hand-wavy. I don't think he has ever published anything in peer review or even in a journal format. A doorstop-sized book does not count. No one wants to read all that.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoHe has a PhD from CalTech at age 20, under Richard Feynman. Those are published.
- senderista 3y agoHe was a theoretical physics wunderkind before he created Mathematica and became a crank. There are other great physicists like 't Hooft who became cranks in their later years (arguably including Einstein).
- bubblyworld 3y agoI think Wolfram's work is quite different in flavour - he focuses on discrete dynamical systems (graphs/cellular automata, stuff like that) whereas OP is about continuous iterated systems like the Mandelbrot set (which afaik have a much older history in mathematics).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]