>>11135977Nope. In fact I would argue that extraordinary brains are really a myth. But let's look at these 2 cases more deeply: These men were famous for creating structures which would provide a rigorous explanation to phenomena or at least an interesting perspective. Also, they did these things 100 years ago, so by nature, the gravity of their accomplishments should be taken with a grain of salt. This is very different from the process of taking a question that somebody else asked and answering it. Physics, even at the highest levels, is still running experiments and mere interpolation of datasets. The study of Von Neumann's contribution to set theory is today considered to be undergraduate level, and he is just as prestigious for his contributions to game thoery.
>>11135474nice drunkpost. FTC is actually very intuitive. If you write out the limit definition of a derivative and compare it side by side to the limit definition of an integral, you will notice two very similar forms that can cancel. It only seems remarkable because it is difficult to get FTC from geometric intuition. And that's what I mean by getting lucky. It is very lucky that such a useful math theorem is so easy to discover. However, as we keep looking for proofs at the same level, our returns are diminishing. Who knows the value of a proof of the same level that we will never see?
