Russian Mathematician: one rare decent human?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by kj1000, Jul 2, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just goes to prove you can be great at sums but still a prize fcukwit.
     
  2. You can always tell the true scholar. They do it for the challenge of solving a problem, not the money.
     
  3. Says who??!
     
  4. Go to any University. Then go to places like microsoft or google where mathematicians are paid more than their University counterparts.

    In fact, if you study any of the great mathematicians down the centuries you would realise that very few of them did it out of a motivation for money.
     
  5. No you're just waffling, as you have nothing to substantiate that claim at all do you?

    If it didn't pay, they would starve to death before they managed to resolve the mathematical problem. This man had little money, and a mother who's also in the same boat. 'Stupidity' springs to mind if you turn down $1M, it's that simple.
     
  6. Whats up? Has it shown up your paucity of scruples?
     
  7. Bollocks. Try looking at scientists. They have the hardest qualifying requirements there are, but pretty crap pay. They tend to do what they do for a love of knowledge. Not everyone is mostly motivated by cash.
     
  8. Thank you StickyEnd. Like I say, how names of millionaires from the 18th century can you remember?
    How many scholars can you name from the same period?
     
  9. To magnify that point, go back as far as classical times. Aristotle/Plato/Archimedes and my all-time favourite Eratosthenes. To name just a few.

    Now, how many rich men of that period can you name?
     
  10. Smart is good, but smart and rich is better. If nothing else, he could have bought himself an unrivalled collection of Rubik's cubes and slide rules. Who knows, he could have even splashed out on some decent food and clothing for his mother.
     
  11. That question makes me think you have a very basic education, am I right? If you actually had gone to university you would have not asked it. I'll wait for the pair of you clowns to now divulge the personal wealth of Aristotle,Plato or Archimedes to us all. Also Aristotle was a 'phi-los-so-pher' and a student of Plato, who also was a 'phil-los-so-pher' but you were 33% right, Archimedes was a mathematician, and a relevently well paid one (by the state and by patrons, alike.)

    Getting back on track with the original howler, "You can always tell the true scholar. They do it for the challenge of solving a problem, not the money." That is about as valid as "Most North Sea fishermen secretly want to dye their hair ginger." No validity required, ok?
     
  12. Hey Poindexter, did your university ever mention the difference between "relevently" and "relatively" or were you off that day?
     
  13. That is just plain wrong. Shall we start with :-
    Newton was , secretly as it was illegal at the time, an alchemist and tried for many years to create gold from base metals. No possible way that could have been for monetary gain.
    Being a dunce at Maths and Physics, he would obviously be exception to your rule!
     
  14. I'm just thinking who checked to see if his answer was correct? if it was such a challenging problem how do they know he was right.