by privatdozent on 1/20/22, 8:25 AM with 35 comments
by mjreacher on 1/20/22, 3:29 PM
The gist of what he said was that while he admired von Neumann greatly, particularly for his incredible speed and clarity of understanding, sometimes he felt a greater respect and closeness for Lefschetz, who lost both of his hands in an industrial accident and despite saying that Lefschetz's style of thinking was 'incredibly confused' in the sense he [Lefschetz] didn't have a full understanding of what he himself [Lefschetz] was thinking, he wanted to get to know him more. More evidence comes from a quote of J. Barkley Rosser which goes as follows [1]:
"If Church said it's obvious, then everybody saw it a half hour ago. If Weyl says it's obvious, von Neumann can prove it. If Lefschetz says it's obvious, it's false."
He also notes unlike Lefschetz von Neumann was not considered by some mathematicians to be a great mathematician because there wasn't one big thing or field that he became the best in the world at or contributed the most too, noting that in mathematics he would likely be best remembered for his work in rings of operators (now known as von Neumann algebras). This lines up with several other stories I've read in math history where many considered much of von Neumann's work past the 1940s (where he was working primarily in applied mathematics and other applied fields) a waste of his talent.
by ArtWomb on 1/20/22, 1:32 PM
by nvalis on 1/20/22, 8:57 AM
by dang on 1/20/22, 10:52 AM
by publicola1990 on 1/20/22, 1:58 PM