otra trola ? sera ud español nacionalizado proveniente de argentino porque tiene dejes argentinos escribiendo sea sincero.
este es el comentario de un matematico a la biografia de nash enterese y deje de creerse las peliculas:
What is mathematics? Although mathematics is largely about values,
that is to say numbers and their many generalizations, mathematicians
tend to believe that mathematics is value-free. That this is far from the
truth is seen by the fact that the science lay dormant for a thousand years
between the time of Diophantus in the 3rd century G.R. and the revival
of learning in the 13th. Still, most of us agree that numerical value, moral
worth, and pragmatic usefulness ought not be confused.
At the same time, "importance" is the word most abused in
mathematical discourse . As part of their professional equipment,
mathematicians are required to have a sense of what is "important" in the
history of mathematics, in contemporary mathematics, and certainly in
their own field. Sensible people do not work for very long on a difficult
problem that they did not consider "important". Why the properties of
prime numbers should be considered more "important" than the
mathematical prodigy William Sidis's encyclopedic knowledge of the
properties of trolley car transfers is not easy to put into words.
The uses and interpretations of the word "important" vary so much
from one person to the next that, were mathematicians as perspicacious as
they should be, they would recognize how arbitrary it has become, and
discard it as meaningless. Here, for example, is a short list of statements
made by his colleagues about the value of Nash's research:
"The embedding theorem .... is one of the most important pieces of
mathematical analysis in this century. " John Conway. ( Although not an
analyst, Conway is a great mathematician. I suspect him of making this
comment because it sounded at the time like the right thing to say.)
"[Nash's work on parabolic differential equations] .. which many
mathematicians regard as Nash's most important work ." ( Sylvia
Nasar. She doesn't tell us who they are, but they presumably work in the
field of partial differential equations.)
"The concept of a Nash equilibrium n-tuple is perhaps the most
important idea in non-cooperative game theory." Economist P.
Ordeshook. ( Notice the "universal qualifier" perhaps! Lots of people feel
that Game Theory is "not important". )
"Let me describe an important application [ of the manifold-real
varieties paper of 1951] " John Milnor.
( The application, the Artin-Mazur Theorem , is important to the
theory of dynamical systems. One can find mathematicians who think that
the field of dynamical systems is "not of much importance". )
"During these three years [ 1945-48, when he was still a teen-ager] ,
Nash completed an important piece of work on bargaining. " ( Harold
Kuhn, mathematical economist at Princeton. )
"It gives me great pleasure to chair this seminar on the importance
of John Nash's work on the occasion of the first Nobel award that
recognizes the central importance of game theory in current economic
theory." ( ditto. How "important" is current economic theory?)
"In the short period of 1950-53 John Nash published four brilliant
papers in which he made at least three fundamentally important
contributions to game theory." John Harsanyi, co-recipient of the Nobel
prize in economics, 1994.
Without going into the details, everyone of these statements
attributes a different meaning to the word "important". One is reminded
of the story about the student employed by Thomas Kuhn's to proof-read
the original manuscript of his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". He
told Kuhn that the word "paradigm" was being used in 64 different ways!
The valuator, or validator "important" cannot be dropped from
the meta-vocabulary because it is the very pillar, the spine of the entire
enterprise: what sane person would spend weeks, months, even years, on
a mathematics problem unless he ( and, increasingly, she ) thought it was
important? The word determines careers, causes quarrels, ruins
friendships, alienates the profession from the public, and vice-versa .
One example: after Louis DeBranges of Purdue proved the
"Bieberbach Conjecture" around 1986, he barn-stormed the nation,
ranting and bullying conference audiences for not giving him the credit he
deserved. No one , he fumed , thought that anything coming out of Purdue
could be "important"! He finally descended into that black Slough of
Despond, his own "proof' of the Riemann Hypothesis.
When a lecture presented in a research department is poorly
attended, there are usually two reasons for it: the first is that it's on a
topic the department deems "unimportant". In 1997 I attended a lecture
given by a woman whose very name is revered in applied mathematics,
Olga Ladyshenksaya . Only a devoted handful were present at her talk.
Applied mathematics is considered of "no importance" at Berkeley.
The second reason is that it's too specialized topic, with so esoteric a
vocabulary that only a few can understand it. Some people may be sitting
in anyway, though uncomprehending : the subject is "important"!
A life in mathematics conditions people to apply the powerful
law of contradiction to many situations, even where inappropriate. It is
easy to over-generalize but many mathematicians strong in
computational ability and the gift of pattern recognition will be lacking in
the kind of judgment that weighs alternatives, decision-making of the sort
that is done by doctors, judges, politicians, etc. in their professional
activity. The same criticism applies of course to their perceptions of the
value, meaning, worth, or "importance" of their own fields . Such notions
can be inflexible, biased, often unreliable.
It is easier to say what is important in applied mathematics, because
one can speak of its effect on the field of application. A new way of
computing solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation will be deemed an
"important" advance if these solutions lead to a deeper understanding of
hydrodynamics, oceans, clouds, tornadoes, jet streams, etc. Thus the
concept of the fractal is very important from the viewpoint of applied
mathematics, though pure mathematicians see it as just slightly above the
obvious. If one now defines pure mathematics as applied mathematics in
which the field of application is mathematics itself, it becomes easier to
decide matters of relative importance. Observe that discoveries of
applied mathematics are not directly evaluated . It is in the effect of
these results on the field of application that importance resides. Ingenuity
of reasoning, prolonged labor of computation, high levels of abstraction,
extensive command of knowledge count for little . "By their fruits shall you
know them" is the only reliable criterion for judging the "importance" of
advances in any scientific field.
Take the two well-known theorems of Fermat. His last theorem is a
conjecture. It might have been made by anyone, but because it was made by
Fermat, mathematicians took a look at it. Formulating it required no
particular insight; it's the kind of conjecture anyone might make after
reading a book on number theory. Its importance is incontestable: it lay
the ground for 4 centuries of incredible effort.
Fermat's little theorem is also "important". This states that ,
where p is a prime and a is any positive integer. It can
be proven by any talented high school student who's learned something
about congruences in his course on the "new math". It is also among the
most frequently employed tools in Number Theory.
"Nash equilibrium" is even easier to "prove" than Fermat's Little
Theorem. It gave economists the feeling that they were doing something
useful. They therefore considered it very important; and to many people,
Sylvia Nasar among them, a Nobel Prize proves that a result is important.
(III.) John Nash is unquestionably one of the great problem-solvers of
history. The isometric embedding theorem is an "achievement"
comparable, in mathematical terms, to batting 65 home runs. Surprisingly,
it does not require that much of a command of mathematics to read his
papers . Nash did not cultivate an encyclopedic knowledge of
mathematics, or even of his area. He was rather like a mountain climber
who, rising to a certain height, decides that he needs oxygen or an ice-ax,
goes back to base camp to get them, then returns to the assault. Nash only
learned what he needed to attain his objectives. It's amazing how much he
did with so little, particularly when he is compared to those who know
enormous amounts of mathematics but never do any notable research.
(IV.) Nor did Nash introduce any new concepts: things like
"transfinite number", "category derivatives", "fractal", "topos", "group",
"manifold" , etc. These are ideas that illuminate the whole domain of
mathematics . Another example is the idea of "probability" developed by
Pascal and Fermat. The closest that Nash ever came to inventing a concept
is the "non-cooperative game", a variant on the "cooperative game".
In arguing that Nash was (is) or was (is) not a genius, one needs to
look at all five of the above categories and judge him separately relative to
the requirements of each. This already shows how unprofitable the label of
"genius" is, mathematics being a field so rich in its diverse aspects that it is
very difficult to judge the worth of discoveries without relating them to the
purpose for which they were intended. Although it may be possible, in
thought, to separate brilliance from the results of brilliance, it remains a
futile exercise that is best carried out by journalists and their public, who
will always be in need of miracle-workers and wizards to inspire them in
their journey through this trackless wilderness of earthly existence.
Mathematics is a monumental ediface. Some are the architects,
others work on its construction. Still others design the wallpaper, decor,
furniture, etc. If the word "genius" be applied to all of them, what term can
we reserve for the Master Builders: Pythagorus, Brahmagupta,
Archimedes, Descartes, Newton, Laplace. Gauss, Riemann, Galois, Jacobi,
Kowalewski, Hilbert , Grothendieck ...?
Forero del todo a cien
Si no sabe siquiera de ecuaciones de Navier-Stokes....me resulta un poco ridículo. 
Asiduo
