Jacob Barnett - Inspiring 14 Year Old
@thumper
well he has a form of autism, so i sorta doubt that in this case, but others it might be a possibility.
i think it can be a very big problem, i think these things cause more trouble than good. while its great to acknowledge intelligence, i dont think it helps to do so on a massive scale.
it can cause kids looking down on themselves for not being as good as them, worse it could cause parents to look down on their kids.
| I can only see this ending with that kid turning out as a complete jackass ten years from now; feeling that he is somehow superior in every way to the rest of mankind. |
well he has a form of autism, so i sorta doubt that in this case, but others it might be a possibility.
i think it can be a very big problem, i think these things cause more trouble than good. while its great to acknowledge intelligence, i dont think it helps to do so on a massive scale.
it can cause kids looking down on themselves for not being as good as them, worse it could cause parents to look down on their kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBW4S9xcTOk#t=9m55s
Most first year calculus students could see that this series is divergent pretty quickly, and the integral test doesn't even apply in this scenario. Maybe he was feeling the nerves of being on TV, and it's tough to get a trick question like that, but it's hardly inspiring to see someone who the media claims is destined for a Nobel prize mess up on a question that a lot of high school students could answer.
Nonetheless, the fact that he's 12 (at the time of the video) and knows what the integral test is, is impressive, and while from what I've read some of his physics theories are a little misguided, there's no denying that he's extremelybright: how many middle schoolers are there that know how to solve the Schrödinger equation! I'm sure he'll contribute a lot to science, but saying he'll win a Nobel prize and disprove well-established theories is too much, i.e. the media has over-hyped this one a little too much.
So incredibly intelligent but overhyped? Sure. But inspiring? Not so much.
Most first year calculus students could see that this series is divergent pretty quickly, and the integral test doesn't even apply in this scenario. Maybe he was feeling the nerves of being on TV, and it's tough to get a trick question like that, but it's hardly inspiring to see someone who the media claims is destined for a Nobel prize mess up on a question that a lot of high school students could answer.
Nonetheless, the fact that he's 12 (at the time of the video) and knows what the integral test is, is impressive, and while from what I've read some of his physics theories are a little misguided, there's no denying that he's extremelybright: how many middle schoolers are there that know how to solve the Schrödinger equation! I'm sure he'll contribute a lot to science, but saying he'll win a Nobel prize and disprove well-established theories is too much, i.e. the media has over-hyped this one a little too much.
So incredibly intelligent but overhyped? Sure. But inspiring? Not so much.
Last edited on
the perfomance of the kid is certainly remarkable and brilliant in sportive way.
And he's nearly the exact opposite of Einstein.
In fact Einstein wasn't very good at school. Not at maths nor physics.
When he applied to the universities none of the them accepted him. So - with the help of some connections - he landed in the most stupidest imaginable place on earth: the patent office.
when he finished his theory of relativity he was 25. A slap in the face of any academic.
They hurried to give him his academic degree to not look that ignorant...
The rest of his life Einstein tried his luck with the unified field theory (God doesn't play the dice), but he failed.
Einstein didn't have any kind of autism, his socal life (though he was a Jew in the Nazi time) was quite normal with friends and wife and such.
I wouln't expect much from a 'hyper intelligent' kid like Jacob Barnett.
I would be rather surprised if he get out of his presolved exercise solving life into something creative, where the solution isn't already present.
Announcing to 'disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity' is rather ridiculous if you don't have an idea how to do that.
And he's nearly the exact opposite of Einstein.
In fact Einstein wasn't very good at school. Not at maths nor physics.
When he applied to the universities none of the them accepted him. So - with the help of some connections - he landed in the most stupidest imaginable place on earth: the patent office.
when he finished his theory of relativity he was 25. A slap in the face of any academic.
They hurried to give him his academic degree to not look that ignorant...
The rest of his life Einstein tried his luck with the unified field theory (God doesn't play the dice), but he failed.
Einstein didn't have any kind of autism, his socal life (though he was a Jew in the Nazi time) was quite normal with friends and wife and such.
I wouln't expect much from a 'hyper intelligent' kid like Jacob Barnett.
I would be rather surprised if he get out of his presolved exercise solving life into something creative, where the solution isn't already present.
Announcing to 'disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity' is rather ridiculous if you don't have an idea how to do that.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I must be missing something... I keep hearing that the kid is trying to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity but in the stuff I read I didn't find that anywhere...
The only thing I read on that subject was that he wanted to come up with a expanded version of the Theory of Relativity which adds on to it...
Science really is not my strong suit so correct me if I am wrong but adding on to it is no where near the same as disproving it correct?
The only thing I read on that subject was that he wanted to come up with a expanded version of the Theory of Relativity which adds on to it...
Science really is not my strong suit so correct me if I am wrong but adding on to it is no where near the same as disproving it correct?
Last edited on
| I am wrong but added on to it is no where near the same as disproving it correct? |
And 'he thinks he can' is not 'he will do'
It seems that the maker of this article have some issues with words...
| I wouln't expect much from a 'hyper intelligent' kid like Jacob Barnett. I would be rather surprised if he get out of his presolved exercise solving life into something creative, where the solution isn't already present. |
I think you have it backwards. I don't think he was ever in a pre-solved exercise solving life. The only thing that is remarkable about him to me is that he is both very intelligent, and someone who thinks outside of the box.
And personally, I don't think this kid has autism, nor do I think that autism is anything more than an overly broad and ambiguous classification used by pseudoscientists. The same people who said he had autism, also said he would never tie his shoes, or talk.
I think that the reason the kid was diagnosed with autism, was that he was so incredibly hyperaware, and intelligent for his age, that he was kept busy in deep thought, taking in the world around him.
Last edited on
Let's wait and see if puberty doesn't ruin the hype.
Still: I'd be surprised if we would hear anything relevant from him
Still: I'd be surprised if we would hear anything relevant from him
| In fact Einstein wasn't very good at school. Not at maths nor physics. |
According to Wikipedia:
| In 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zurich (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH). He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, mainly in French, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics |
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| nor do I think that autism is anything more than an overly broad and ambiguous classification used by pseudoscientists |
The only ambiguity in "autism" is in whether it refers to autism the disorder or autism the spectrum of disorders (in which case it's correct to say "autism spectrum"), and even that isn't broad - it's quite specifically defined in fact: "Autism is characterized by delays or abnormal functioning before the age of three years in one or more of the following domains: (1) social interaction; (2) communication; and (3) restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities." Now we know that if, by the age of three, a person shows delayed development or abnormal functioning in one or more of those three areas in a clinically-significant way, then they fit into the autism spectrum. It doesn't mean they "have autism" because autism is not a thing that a person has, it's not an object that you carry, it's simply a category to describe people who behave in a way that is considered abnormal. It's not set in stone that the person will fit into that category their entire lives. If Jacob Barnett was diagnosed with autism, it means that, by the age of three, he was deficient or abnormal to a clinically-significant extent in one or more of those areas. It doesn't matter if he isn't now. It does matter that they said he'd never learn to talk or tie his shoes, but how do we really know that doctors said that? Because the media reported it?
Last edited on
Really arrogant of him to go on and claim he's going to disprove "Theory of Relativity" which by that I hope he means ToGR and ToSR. We've been through this plenty a time. There's always some new physics kid on the block who thinks they're going to be the next genius and start with disproving Einstein. Of course every time they make an ass of themselves.
This kid has a lot of potential but to compare himself to Einstein already? Most major physicists have conceded Einstein is not wrong. Until he actually makes a name for himself he has no right to compare himself to people like Newton, Einstein, Hawkings etc.
We've learnt it's pretty unlikely that Einstein is wrong. If he is then massive amounts of things will have to be recalculated. The majority of physics books in existence would become irrelevant.
There have been plenty of people with high IQ's yet never made a showing like these great minds did.
Sorry I know I'm ranting but I've seen this kid before. He just really irritates the hell out of me with how he goes around flaunting his intelligence. Einstein wasn't just a genius, he was also humble about it.
This kid has a lot of potential but to compare himself to Einstein already? Most major physicists have conceded Einstein is not wrong. Until he actually makes a name for himself he has no right to compare himself to people like Newton, Einstein, Hawkings etc.
We've learnt it's pretty unlikely that Einstein is wrong. If he is then massive amounts of things will have to be recalculated. The majority of physics books in existence would become irrelevant.
There have been plenty of people with high IQ's yet never made a showing like these great minds did.
Sorry I know I'm ranting but I've seen this kid before. He just really irritates the hell out of me with how he goes around flaunting his intelligence. Einstein wasn't just a genius, he was also humble about it.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
| Really arrogant of him to go on and claim he's going to disprove "Theory of Relativity" which by that I hope he means ToGR and ToSR. |
My gosh how many times do it have to say this. It is like people are just ignoring it lol.
| Zereo wrote: |
|---|
| He never said from what I read that he wanted to "disprove" SR and GR I believe he said he wanted to provide a expanded version of it. Though that is the reporters words not his I believe. |
| From the article wrote: |
|---|
| that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further. |
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI?gcheck=1
He never once said he was going to disprove the "Theory of Relativity" at least not in what I read. The reports might have said it(Though I didn't see that either) but he didn't from what I have seen.
| This kid has a lot of potential but to compare himself to Einstein already? Most major physicists have conceded Einstein is not wrong. Until he actually makes a name for himself he has no right to compare himself to people like Newton, Einstein, Hawkings etc. |
I also don't see where he is comparing himself to Einstein... The reporter and others might be saying it but I didn't read anything about him saying it.
| We've learnt it's pretty unlikely that Einstein is wrong. If he is then massive amounts of things will have to be recalculated. The majority of physics books in existence would become irrelevant. |
Again he wants to expand the theory.
Just because a reporter says something doesn't mean it came from the kids mouth. So it's quite sad when people call this kid arrogant because "other" people compare him to famous scientists.
Last edited on
@Zero
Lol I kind of worded that wrong.
I know he didn't right out say it, I just mean the manner he's going about this is coming off as so. When you're in his shoes you need to make sure to pay your respects to previous minds.
The reason I said disproving it despite the fact he said expand on it is because to do so likely would in the end just make a new theory based of his work. Quantum Physicists are in a way already attempting to expand it by getting Einsteins theories and Quantum Physics to play nice with one another(which is proving pretty difficult). The article from what I read "New expanded theory of relativity" - "Developer of his own original theory on quantum physics?". It just personally comes off to me as wanting to tramp on Einstein.
Again yeah I recognize the reporters were partially shoving words down his throat, I just get some bad vibes from his mannerism. He wasn't directly comparing himself, it's just he needs to be careful not too get too ahead of himself.
"Even genius has its limits"
In a nutshell I just think he's more or less doing some of these things indirectly. I don't think he necessarily is viewing himself as above Einstein and what not, just needs to be careful not to get ahead of himself.
I look what I said though and yeah that really made me look like an ass.
Lol I kind of worded that wrong.
I know he didn't right out say it, I just mean the manner he's going about this is coming off as so. When you're in his shoes you need to make sure to pay your respects to previous minds.
The reason I said disproving it despite the fact he said expand on it is because to do so likely would in the end just make a new theory based of his work. Quantum Physicists are in a way already attempting to expand it by getting Einsteins theories and Quantum Physics to play nice with one another(which is proving pretty difficult). The article from what I read "New expanded theory of relativity" - "Developer of his own original theory on quantum physics?". It just personally comes off to me as wanting to tramp on Einstein.
Again yeah I recognize the reporters were partially shoving words down his throat, I just get some bad vibes from his mannerism. He wasn't directly comparing himself, it's just he needs to be careful not too get too ahead of himself.
"Even genius has its limits"
In a nutshell I just think he's more or less doing some of these things indirectly. I don't think he necessarily is viewing himself as above Einstein and what not, just needs to be careful not to get ahead of himself.
I look what I said though and yeah that really made me look like an ass.
@ascii:
Sorry for ressing a dead thread and all, but I'd just like to defend the kid quickly.
If you tell someone to prove a sequence is convergent then that means that it's already given the sequence is convergent. Whoever wrote that question probably refrained from saying 'prove or disprove' as a nasty trick to try and trip-up the kid on TV. Any normal person, and anyone with autism, would reasonably be expected to immediately try and prove that the series is convergent without checking first.
The question is the thing that's wrong, any mathematician would say so. It clearly pretty much states that it's convergent by asking him to prove it. It doesn't matter that this particular series is reasonably obviously not convergent.
Also, I'm not sure the sequence is divergent. It's more likely to oscillate forever but not necessarily get larger or smaller, but I'm not sure. I can prove it's not convergent, though.
Sorry for ressing a dead thread and all, but I'd just like to defend the kid quickly.
If you tell someone to prove a sequence is convergent then that means that it's already given the sequence is convergent. Whoever wrote that question probably refrained from saying 'prove or disprove' as a nasty trick to try and trip-up the kid on TV. Any normal person, and anyone with autism, would reasonably be expected to immediately try and prove that the series is convergent without checking first.
The question is the thing that's wrong, any mathematician would say so. It clearly pretty much states that it's convergent by asking him to prove it. It doesn't matter that this particular series is reasonably obviously not convergent.
Also, I'm not sure the sequence is divergent. It's more likely to oscillate forever but not necessarily get larger or smaller, but I'm not sure. I can prove it's not convergent, though.
If the series was convergent the general term must go to zero, however the denominator 1 + cos4n is never greater than 2 and the numerator sin(2n) is equal to 1 for infinitely many values. Hence there will be infinitely many values of n for which the general term is greater than 1/2.
I agree with you that it is a trick question. When you are given the problem: "Prove the series is convergent.", your mind will immediately start to explore using techniques for proving a series convergent, whereas if you are told "Prove or disprove." your mind will start off on a completely different track.
I agree with you that it is a trick question. When you are given the problem: "Prove the series is convergent.", your mind will immediately start to explore using techniques for proving a series convergent, whereas if you are told "Prove or disprove." your mind will start off on a completely different track.
| Sorry for ressing a dead thread and all, but I'd just like to defend the kid quickly. If you tell someone to prove a sequence is convergent then that means that it's already given the sequence is convergent. Whoever wrote that question probably refrained from saying 'prove or disprove' as a nasty trick to try and trip-up the kid on TV. Any normal person, and anyone with autism, would reasonably be expected to immediately try and prove that the series is convergent without checking first. The question is the thing that's wrong, any mathematician would say so. It clearly pretty much states that it's convergent by asking him to prove it. It doesn't matter that this particular series is reasonably obviously not convergent. Also, I'm not sure the sequence is divergent. It's more likely to oscillate forever but not necessarily get larger or smaller, but I'm not sure. I can prove it's not convergent, though. |
I did say that a trick question like this was tough and unfair in my original post, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me. What I talked about in my post was the fact that he used the integral test even though the general term is not always non-negative and is not monotone decreasing. Regardless of how the question was phrased, this shows he doesn't fully understand the integral test. Furthermore, even if you were told the series was convergent, a quick glance shows that the function will be periodic and diverge by the nth term test.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.