John Nash Quotes

~ I've made the most important discovery of my life. It's only in the mysterious equation of love that any logical reasons can be found. I'm only here tonight because of you. You're the only reason I am...you're all my reasons.~

Classes will dull your mind, destroy the potential for authentic creativity.

The only thing greater than the power of the mind is the courage of the heart

What truly is logic? Who decides reason? [...] It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reason can be found.

The Best for the Group comes when everyone in the group does what's best for himself AND the group.

I cannot waste time in these classes and these books, memorizing the weak assumptions of lesser mortals.

It is better to have been, then not to have been, then to have been nothing at all." What truly is logic? Who decides reason? "It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reason can be found."-JOHN NASH JR.

As you will find in multivariable calculus, there is often a number of solutions for any given problem.

To some extent, sanity is a form of conformity. People are always selling the idea that people who have mental illness are suffering. But it's really not so simple. I think mental illness or madness can be an escape also.

I've always believed in numbers and the equations and logics that lead to reason. But after a lifetime of such pursuits, I ask, "What truly is logic? Who decides reason?" My quest has taken me through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional -- and back. And I have made the most important discovery of my career, the most important discovery of my life: It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reasons can be found

Though I had success in my research both when I was mad and when I was not, eventually I felt that my work would be better respected if I thought and acted like a 'normal' person.

Don't ... depend on current fashion or ... popular opinion.

Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.

Some people see things others cannot, and they are right, and we call them creative geniuses. Some people see things others cannot, and they are wrong, and we call them mentally ill. And some people, like John Nash, are both.

Perhaps it is good to have a beautiful mind, but an even greater gift is to discover a beautiful heart!

And that vulnerability, many thought, was really an issue with “sensory gating,” or the brain’s ability (or inability) to correctly process incoming information. A sensory gating disorder was the most common explanation for the schizophrenia experienced by John Nash—the Nobel Laureate mathematician depicted in A Beautiful Mind—who was able to detect patterns no one else could, and yet also was prone to delusions and visions of beings who were out to get him. Both of those aspects of Nash’s personality were said to be products of the same hypersensitivity

Well, John would do the right thing. I’d always found the right thing to be highly negotiable.

His heroes were solitary thinkers and supermen like Newton and Nietzsche.

It's only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found.

In the 1950s, John Nash disrupted the balance between geometry and analysis when he discovered that the abstract geometric problem of isometric embedding could be solved by the fine “peeling” of partial differential equations.

several studies have since shown that basic military training during peacetime can precipitate schizophrenia in men with a hitherto unsuspected vulnerability to the illness.15

Nash was respected but not well liked.

A genius with a penis. Isn’t that what we all want?” an actress once quipped, and the quip captures the combination of brains, status, and sex appeal that made Nash so irresistible.

Shakespeare was not even able to perform a function that we consider today as perfectly normal and ordinary a function as reading itself. He could not, as the saying goes, “look something up.” Indeed the very phrase—when it is used in the sense of “searching for something in a dictionary or encyclopedia or other book of reference”—simply did not exist. It does not appear in the English language, in fact, until as late as 1692, when an Oxford historian named Anthony Wood used it. Since there was no such phrase until the late seventeenth century, it follows that there was essentially no such concept either, certainly not at the time when Shakespeare was writing—a time when writers were writing furiously, and thinkers thinking as they rarely had before. Despite all the intellectual activity of the time there was in print no guide to the tongue, no linguistic vade mecum, no single book that Shakespeare or Martin Frobisher, Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, Edmund Spenser, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nash, John Donne, Ben Jonson, Izaak Walton, or any of their other learned contemporaries could consult.

And John Nash, my mathematical hero, revolutionized analysis and geometry with the proof of three theorems in scarcely more than five years before succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia. There is a fine line, it is often said, between genius and madness. Neither of these concepts is well defined, however. And in the case not only of Grothendieck but also of Gödel and Nash, periods of mental derangement, so far from promoting mathematical productivity, actually precluded it. Innate versus acquired, a classic debate. Fischer, Grothendieck, Erdős, and Perelman were all Jewish. Of these, Fischer and Erdős were Hungarian. No one who is familiar with the world of science can have failed to notice how many of the most gifted mathematicians and physicists of the twentieth century were Jews, or how many of the greatest geniuses were Hungarian (many

Nash’s equilibrium, when it exists, is that point where neither player can do any better, or have no regrets, given what the opponent has done. Neither can have regrets because of how the other person played the game. It may not be the best option for either player, but it’s the best under the circumstances. There isn’t always an equilibrium in a game, or a Nash equilibrium in a game theory matrix. However, if it exists, in many cases the Nash equilibrium is a far better outcome for both players than the von Neumann saddle point. In the Kelley apartment cleaning game-theory matrices above, the Nash equilibrium is for them both to clean. Consider his payoffs. He does much better if he cleans no matter what she decides to do (because 5.7 is much greater than -2.2). Now consider her payoffs. She also does better if she cleans no matter what he does (because 8.5 is much greater than -6.6). So they have a stable Nash equilibrium at the joint strategy = (Male Cleans, Female Cleans). Then neither of them can have regrets about that choice because with that choice neither of them can do any better, regardless of what the partner does. With the Nash equilibrium their strategy is to maximize one’s own gains even if it means maximizing the partner’s gains (as well as one’s own).

method developed by John Nash and Jürgen Moser is one of the pillars of the Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser (KAM) theory that Étienne had mentioned. I also knew that Nash–Moser relies on Newton’s extraordinary iteration scheme for finding successively better approximations to the roots of real-valued equations—a method that converges unimaginably fast, exponentially exponentially fast!—and that Kolmogorov was able to exploit it with remarkable ingenuity. Frankly, I couldn’t see any connection whatever between these things and Landau damping. But who knows, I muttered to myself, perhaps Étienne’s intuition will turn out to be correct.…

not just Dr. King but John Lewis and Bob Moses, Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash. In their heroic efforts—going door-to-door to register voters, sitting down at lunch counters, and marching to freedom songs—I saw the possibility of practicing the values my mother had taught me; how you could build power not by putting others down but by lifting them up.

Most of all I was inspired by the young leaders of the civil rights movement—not just Dr. King but John Lewis and Bob Moses, Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash. In their heroic efforts—going door-to-door to register voters, sitting down at lunch counters, and marching to freedom songs—I saw the possibility of practicing the values my mother had taught me; how you could build power not by putting others down but by lifting them up. This was true democracy at work—democracy not as a gift from on high, or a division of spoils between interest groups, but rather democracy that was earned, the work of everybody.

A Code of Nature must accommodate a mixture of individually different behavioral tendencies. The human race plays a mixed strategy in the game of life. People are not molecules, all alike and behaving differently only because of random interactions. People just differ, dancing to their own personal drummer. The merger of economic game theory with neuroscience promises more precise understanding of those individual differences and how they contribute to the totality of human social interactions. It's understanding those differences, Camerer says, that will make such a break with old schools of economic thought. "A lot of economic theory uses what is called the representative agent model," Camerer told me. In an economy with millions of people, everybody is clearly not going to be completely alike in behavior. Maybe 10 percent will be of some type, 14 percent another type, 6 percent something else. A real mix. "It's often really hard, mathematically, to add all that up," he said. "It's much easier to say that there's one kind of person and there's a million of them. And you can add things up rather easily." So for the sake of computational simplicity, economists would operate as though the world was populated by millions of one generic type of person, using assumptions about how that generic person would behave. "It's not that we don't think people are different—of course they are, but that wasn't the focus of analysis," Camerer said. "It was, well, let's just stick to one type of person. But I think the brain evidence, as well as genetics, is just going to force us to think about individual differences." And in a way, that is a very natural thing for economists to want to do.

With the motto “do what you will,” Rabelais gave himself permission to do anything he damn well pleased with the language and the form of the novel; as a result, every author of an innovative novel mixing literary forms and genres in an extravagant style is indebted to Rabelais, directly or indirectly. Out of his codpiece came Aneau’s Alector, Nashe’s Unfortunate Traveller, López de Úbeda’s Justina, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Béroalde de Verville’s Fantastic Tales, Sorel’s Francion, Burton’s Anatomy, Swift’s Tale of a Tub and Gulliver’s Travels, Fielding’s Tom Jones, Amory’s John Buncle, Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, the novels of Diderot and maybe Voltaire (a late convert), Smollett’s Adventures of an Atom, Hoffmann’s Tomcat Murr, Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Southey’s Doctor, Melville’s Moby-Dick, Flaubert’s Temptation of Saint Anthony and Bouvard and Pecuchet, Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Frederick Rolfe’s ornate novels, Bely’s Petersburg, Joyce’s Ulysses, Witkiewicz’s Polish jokes, Flann O’Brien’s Irish farces, Philip Wylie’s Finnley Wren, Patchen’s tender novels, Burroughs’s and Kerouac’s mad ones, Nabokov’s later works, Schmidt’s fiction, the novels of Durrell, Burgess (especially A Clockwork Orange and Earthly Powers), Gaddis and Pynchon, Barth, Coover, Sorrentino, Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo, Brossard’s later works, the masterpieces of Latin American magic realism (Paradiso, The Autumn of the Patriarch, Three Trapped Tigers, I the Supreme, Avalovara, Terra Nostra, Palinuro of Mexico), the fabulous creations of those gay Cubans Severo Sarduy and Reinaldo Arenas, Markson’s Springer’s Progress, Mano’s Take Five, Ríos’s Larva and otros libros, the novels of Paul West, Tom Robbins, Stanley Elkin, Alexander Theroux, W. M. Spackman, Alasdair Gray, Gaétan Soucy, and Rikki Ducornet (“Lady Rabelais,” as one critic called her), Mark Leyner’s hyperbolic novels, the writings of Magiser Gass, Greer Gilman’s folkloric fictions and Roger Boylan’s Celtic comedies, Vollmann’s voluminous volumes, Wallace’s brainy fictions, Siegel’s Love in a Dead Language, Danielewski’s novels, Jackson’s Half Life, Field’s Ululu, De La Pava’s Naked Singularity, and James McCourt’s ongoing Mawrdew Czgowchwz saga. (p. 331)

JOHN FORBES NASH, JR.

Our alliance was unspoken, but no less legitimate or sincere.

Dr John Nash Ott is the greatest USA scientist you have probably never heard of.

I had nothing to negotiate with. No leverage. There was only me, Alexander Kempthorne, the man who didn’t exist, the boy who was made, everyone’s favorite villain. I didn’t know how to be who John wanted, or needed, or deserved, but I wanted to be that man for him. I’d do anything for him. Whatever he wanted… …including walking away.

I saw it then, a huge pulsing orb of shadow and trick, the vast, hungry thing he’d described from his dreams, swelling to encompass the bars holding it. Consuming. Shadows poured toward it, each one disappearing inside its blinding light. An origin. A beginning, where the source originated from. It wanted John, wanted him back. It wanted us all back. You can’t have him. He’s mine.

Resilient, brave, thoughtful. John Domenici was the most amazing thing to have happened to me. He’d changed my life, changed me. My love for him was a force all of its own, so powerful there was no controlling it, no ignoring it. All I could do was sacrifice it to save him.

He grabbed at his hair, distraught. “John, don’t do this.” I understood why he wanted to run—why, in his mind, it was the only way out—but I couldn’t walk away. It wouldn’t end until we ended it. “John, please don’t? Please… Let someone else save the world.

I am like the reincarnation of Nikola Tesla, Carlos Monge Medrano and John Nash Ott all rolled into one!

Dr John Nash Ott had reported improved health that an outdoor lifestyle can bring in his books. He believed it could cure prolonged illness. I had a similar experience. I had achieved what had been impossible during the previous decade, a return to the weight I was in my thirties. I had far more energy and far less days of chronic fatigue. I was mentally alert and suffered far less forgetfulness and confusion. I slept better on a two stage sleep cycle that Dr John Nash Ott had reported as an effect of the outdoor lifestyle. I would go to bed earlier, typically a couple of hours after sunset and wake up around 1-2 AM before falling asleep again until morning twilight. My body had automatically aligned with the twilight times. It was common in the morning to be awake in bed listening to the morning chorus of the birds and the “Cock-a-doodle-do!” of the roosters.

In madness, I thought I was the most important person in the world.

RAND proved formative. Some of its employees joked that it stood for “Research And No Development,” and its intellectualism was inspiring to the young economist. The think tank’s ethos was to work on problems so hard that they might actually be unsolvable.9 Four days of the week were dedicated to RAND projects, but the fifth was free for freewheeling personal research. Ken Arrow, a famous economist, and John Nash, the game theorist immortalized in the film A Beautiful Mind, both consulted for RAND around the time Sharpe was there. The eclecticism of RAND’s research community is reflected in his first published works, which were a proposal for a smog tax and a review of aircraft compartment design criteria for Army deployments.

Dr. John Nash Ott had discovered by 1987 that glass, artificial light sources, electricity and electronic systems were having extensive detrimental effects on plants, animals and humans.

There’s a primer,” continued Lightfoote. “I know it. I just can’t figure it out. There’s a measuring stick in this mess!” Lopez sighed. “So you’ve been saying since dawn. But it’s a quarter to five and there hasn’t been anything more. Don’t you get hangovers?” “Cyborg.” “Right. I’d forgotten.” They’d been staring at the reconstructed image for hours, assembled on the computer from several photos Houston had taken, completing the half obtained from Fawkes’s file. “What do you make of it, Francisco?” Houston had asked after they stitched the images together. “Nothing,” he’d sighed. “Just more crazy.” But from early on Lightfoote had disagreed. As the night had limped by, she continued staring at the news clippings, scrap paper, words and diagrams, equations and images John Nash had taped and pinned together across the giant poster board. “Look. This isn’t coincidence. Numbers!” she gestured to

In the history of American fatherhood, there have been roughly three stages, each a response to economic change. In the first, agrarian stage, a father trained and disciplined his son for employment, and often offered him work on the farm, while his wife brought up the girls. (For blacks, this stage began after slavery ended.) As economic life and vocational training moved out of the family in the early nineteenth century, fathers left more of the child-rearing to their wives. According to the historian John Nash, in both these stages, fathers were often distant and stern. Not until the early twentieth century, when increasing numbers of women developed identities, beyond brief jobs before marriage, in the schoolhouse, factory, and office, did the culture discover the idea that "father was friendly". In the early 1950s, popular magazines began to offer articles with titles such as "Fathers Are Parents Too" and "It's Time Father Got Back into the Family". Today, we are in the third stage of economic development but the second stage of fatherhood.

What von Neumann disliked most about Nash’s approach, though, was the axioms upon which it was built. The idea that people might not work together for mutual benefit was anathema to him. He was central European to the core, his intellectual outlook shaped by a milieu where ideas were debated and shaped over coffee and wine.

Still Shapley humoured him, dazzled by the younger mathematician’s obvious brilliance. ‘Nash was spiteful, a child with a social IQ of 12, but Lloyd did appreciate talent,’ recalled Shapley’s roommate, economist Martin Shubik,

A game is the complete exploration of freedom within a restrictive environment

A game is a construct to secure unrestricted freedom within a highly restricted setup.

Game theory is about exploring of freedom of choices and the equilibrium which comes from understanding the consequences of freedom. 24 Dec National Mathematics Day

We have a right to freedom and a duty to curb it some for the common good

The theory of fun. The less the freedom, more the fun 8 Nov World Quality Day 8 Nov World Tongue Twister Day

Dr John Nash Ott had reported in his books that prolonged tent camping could cure illness.

Most people who have heard of John Nash know of him through Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind, which is unfortunate because the film romanticizes the man and somewhat mischaracterizes his work. The Nash portrayed in Sylvia Nasar’s biography, upon which the film is nominally based, is a petulant bully who advises his mistress of four years to give up their son for adoption.

How many of the great mathematicians have been perverts?” None, was his answer. “Some lived celibate lives, usually on account of economic disabilities, but the majority were happily married. . . . The only mathematician discussed here whose life might offer something of interest to a Freudian is Pascal

Woodrow Wilson, like most other educated Americans of his time, despised mathematics, complaining that “the natural man inevitably rebels against mathematics, a mild form of torture that could only be learned by painful processes of drill.

There is no sign of a mathematical pedigree in Nash’s ancestry or any indication that mathematics was much in the air at the Nash household.

The Nashes pushed Johnny as hard socially as they did academically. At first, it was Boy Scout camp and Sunday Bible classes; later on, lessons at the Floyd Ward dancing school and membership in the John Aldens Society, a youth organization devoted to improving the manners of its members.

I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation.

In 1958, Fortune singled Nash out for his achievements in game theory, algebraic geometry, and nonlinear theory,

Despite all the intellectual activity of the time there was in print no guide to the tongue, no linguistic vade mecum, no single book that Shakespeare or Martin Frobisher, Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, Edmund Spenser, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nash, John Donne, Ben Jonson, Izaak Walton, or any of their other learned contemporaries could consult.

A classical Game Theory case. People are not taking vaccines in the hope that everyone else would be vaccinated and they would be safe.

Bobbie Fischer was considered the greatest chess player who ever lived, and he ended up losing complete touch with reality. John Nash, a brilliant mathematician who developed game theory, was debilitated by paranoid schizophrenia. There are

profound dislike for merely absorbing knowledge and a strong compulsion to learn by doing is one of the most reliable signs of genius.

I though that it was strange that people were changing gender in high altitude astronomy until I read Dr. John Nash Ott's books and his discussions about how he was changing the gender of plants and animals using distinctly different spectrum's of light from commercial lighting products. The spectrum of light at high altitudes is distinctly different to that at sea level.

Of all the letters I’ve received from readers, my favorite came from a homeless man. It arrived in a dirty envelope with no return address, and it was scrawled on neon orange paper. It was signed “Berkeley Baby.” It would never have made it past the New York Times mailroom after the anthrax scare. The letter writer turned out to have been the night rewrite editor on the metro desk at the New York Times before he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in the mid-1970s. Since then, he had adopted the name Berkeley Baby and lived on the streets of Berkeley, California, near the university, a forlorn, sad figure not unlike the Phantom of Fine Hall. He wrote, “John Nash’s story gives me hope that one day the world will come back to me too.

Einstein’s office, a large airy room with a bay window that let in plenty of light, was messy. Einstein’s twenty-two-year-old Hungarian.assistant — an intense, chain-smoking logician named John Kemeny, who would later invent the computer language BASIC, become president of Dartmouth College, and head a commission to investigate Three Mile Island — ushered Nash in. Einstein’s handshake, which ended with a twist, was remarkably firm, and he showed Nash to a large wooden meeting table on the far side of the office.

Seman cu John Nash, dar nu sunt schizofrenica. Rezolva tu enigma asta, porumbelule…

In college, Nash studied John Locke’s state of nature—the idea that the best government is the least government because, put simply, it is closest to the state of nature, or what God intended. But in that state, we are animals. It is nonsense to think we are anything more. How silly to believe that man is above that and that love and friendship are anything but the ravings of a more intelligent mind, a mind that can see the futility and thus must invent ways to comfort and distract itself from it. Was

Love isn’t blind, although those who are in love sometimes can’t see. And it sure as hell isn’t pure. There just isn’t such a thing as perfect love. Which makes sense. None of us are perfect. But if there’s any quest worth continuing, it’s the one looking for that great love. The one that gives us the most hope.