4 ms·

Interesting question: who was smarter, Einstien or Godel. Admittedly, Einstein is much better known but consider their insights: Einstein had the insight that a

Interesting question: who was smarter, Einstien or Godel. Admittedly, Einstein is much better known but consider their insights: Einstein had the insight that acceleration and gravity were manifestations of the same phenomenae and could be modeled by curvature of space. Godel had the insight that all sufficiently complex mathematical systems are incomplete. As an (aspiring) mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound.

fizx 18y ago
But did Gödel have an Annus Mirabilis? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers ) In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for intelligence.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  Impressiveness of accomplishments measures the impressiveness of accomplishments. Not intelligence. With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of programming ability.
  - fizx 18y ago
    Or that Alexander the Great was a good general. Brin and Page aren't in the same league. One who thinks so measures impressiveness poorly.
    - whacked_new 18y ago
      This is quite confusing: you're talking about using "impressiveness" as a "proxy" to measure intelligence, then you're talking about measuring such impressiveness. I don't even know what it is to measure impressiveness poorly -- I don't know how to measure it. Nobel-worthy publications are surely impressive, but it still does not measure intelligence. It measures how Nobel-worthy your work is.
ShardPhoenix 18y ago
There have probably been many people who were smarter than either but didn't accomplish as much for one reason or another.
alain94040 18y ago
It can't possibly matter which one is smarter. We need more of those, that's it. It helps if the media will portray either as a hero or role model for kids. So in that regard, Einstein was more of a success. Those guys started vocations. There is an exponential effect when your life inspires people generation after generation.
trominos 18y ago
Just because one thing's more abstract than another doesn't make it more profound.
- newt0311 18y ago
  I would argue that it does. More abstract concepts often (and especially in this case) elucidate a concept with wider application. General relativity gives us insight into a possible model of our universe. Godel's incompleteness theorem gives us insight into all complex axiomatic systems in all possible universes. The difference is definitely there and an argument can be made (up to senses of aesthetics) that one is better than the other.
  - trominos 18y ago
    No. Incompleteness is only true for logical systems that are sufficiently like the one we've got in our universe. Regardless, your basic argument continues to be that "more general => more profound." Which is quite simply not a true principle.
whacked_new 18y ago
The more you study intelligence, the more you realize that "smart" is such a vague concept that it is borderline useless. Example: whose work was more difficult to understand? Godel's work came "naturally" to Godel; Einstein's came "naturally" to Einstein. They are both "unnatural" for most people. That says nothing about smartness, aside of that both are capable of something that most are not. Next question: was Godel better at math than Einstein was at physics? My answer is "... huh?"
ars 18y ago
>As an (aspiring) mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound. I'm not surprised. People usually find their own subject more <fill in the blank>. I think you also don't realize how profound Einsteins relativity is. It's a lot more than acceleration and gravity (even if that's how it starts), the implications change an immense amount of stuff. That's why people find their own subject more compelling - they understand it more completely.

fizx 18y ago

But did Gödel have an Annus Mirabilis? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers ) In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for intelligence.

whacked_new 18y ago
Impressiveness of accomplishments measures the impressiveness of accomplishments. Not intelligence. With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of programming ability.
- fizx 18y ago
  Or that Alexander the Great was a good general. Brin and Page aren't in the same league. One who thinks so measures impressiveness poorly.
  - whacked_new 18y ago
    This is quite confusing: you're talking about using "impressiveness" as a "proxy" to measure intelligence, then you're talking about measuring such impressiveness. I don't even know what it is to measure impressiveness poorly -- I don't know how to measure it. Nobel-worthy publications are surely impressive, but it still does not measure intelligence. It measures how Nobel-worthy your work is.

ShardPhoenix 18y ago

There have probably been many people who were smarter than either but didn't accomplish as much for one reason or another.

alain94040 18y ago

It can't possibly matter which one is smarter. We need more of those, that's it. It helps if the media will portray either as a hero or role model for kids. So in that regard, Einstein was more of a success. Those guys started vocations. There is an exponential effect when your life inspires people generation after generation.

trominos 18y ago

Just because one thing's more abstract than another doesn't make it more profound.

newt0311 18y ago
I would argue that it does. More abstract concepts often (and especially in this case) elucidate a concept with wider application. General relativity gives us insight into a possible model of our universe. Godel's incompleteness theorem gives us insight into all complex axiomatic systems in all possible universes. The difference is definitely there and an argument can be made (up to senses of aesthetics) that one is better than the other.
- trominos 18y ago
  No. Incompleteness is only true for logical systems that are sufficiently like the one we've got in our universe. Regardless, your basic argument continues to be that "more general => more profound." Which is quite simply not a true principle.

whacked_new 18y ago

The more you study intelligence, the more you realize that "smart" is such a vague concept that it is borderline useless. Example: whose work was more difficult to understand? Godel's work came "naturally" to Godel; Einstein's came "naturally" to Einstein. They are both "unnatural" for most people. That says nothing about smartness, aside of that both are capable of something that most are not. Next question: was Godel better at math than Einstein was at physics? My answer is "... huh?"

ars 18y ago

>As an (aspiring) mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound. I'm not surprised. People usually find their own subject more <fill in the blank>. I think you also don't realize how profound Einsteins relativity is. It's a lot more than acceleration and gravity (even if that's how it starts), the implications change an immense amount of stuff. That's why people find their own subject more compelling - they understand it more completely.