What are some noteworthy “mic-drop” moments in math?












23












$begingroup$


Oftentimes in math the manner in which a solution to a problem is announced becomes a significant chapter/part of the lore associated with the problem, almost being remembered more than the manner in which the problem was solved. I think that most mathematicians as a whole, even upon solving major open problems, are an extremely humble lot. But as an outsider I appreciate the understated manner in which some results are dropped.



The very recent example that inspired this question:




  • Andrew Booker's recent solution to $a^3+b^3+c^3=33$ with $(a,b,c)inmathbb{Z}^3$ as $$(a,b,c)=(8866128975287528,-8778405442862239,-2736111468807040)$$ was publicized on Tim Browning's homepage. However the homepage has merely a single, austere line, and does not even indicate that this is/was a semi-famous open problem. Nor was there any indication that the cubes actually sum to $33$, apparently leaving it as an exercise for the reader.


Other examples that come to mind include:




  • In 1976 after Appel and Hakken had proved the Four Color Theorem, Appel wrote on the University of Illinois' math department blackboard "Modulo careful checking, it appears that four colors suffice." The statement "Four Colors Suffice" was used as the stamp for the University of Illinois at least around 1976.

  • In 1697 Newton famously offered an "anonymous solution" to the Royal Society to the Brachistochrone problem that took him a mere evening/sleepless night to resolve. I think the story is noteworthy also because Johanne Bernoulli is said "recognized the lion by his claw."

  • As close to a literal "mic-drop" as I can think of, after noting in his 1993 lectures that Fermat's Last Theorem was a mere corollary of the work presented, Andrew Wiles famously ended his lecture by stating "I think I'll stop here."



What are other noteworthy examples of such announcements in math that are, in some sense, memorable for being understated? Say to an outsider in the field?




Watson and Crick's famous ending of their DNA paper, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material," has a bit of the same understated feel...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    8 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny Ruberman
    5 hours ago
















23












$begingroup$


Oftentimes in math the manner in which a solution to a problem is announced becomes a significant chapter/part of the lore associated with the problem, almost being remembered more than the manner in which the problem was solved. I think that most mathematicians as a whole, even upon solving major open problems, are an extremely humble lot. But as an outsider I appreciate the understated manner in which some results are dropped.



The very recent example that inspired this question:




  • Andrew Booker's recent solution to $a^3+b^3+c^3=33$ with $(a,b,c)inmathbb{Z}^3$ as $$(a,b,c)=(8866128975287528,-8778405442862239,-2736111468807040)$$ was publicized on Tim Browning's homepage. However the homepage has merely a single, austere line, and does not even indicate that this is/was a semi-famous open problem. Nor was there any indication that the cubes actually sum to $33$, apparently leaving it as an exercise for the reader.


Other examples that come to mind include:




  • In 1976 after Appel and Hakken had proved the Four Color Theorem, Appel wrote on the University of Illinois' math department blackboard "Modulo careful checking, it appears that four colors suffice." The statement "Four Colors Suffice" was used as the stamp for the University of Illinois at least around 1976.

  • In 1697 Newton famously offered an "anonymous solution" to the Royal Society to the Brachistochrone problem that took him a mere evening/sleepless night to resolve. I think the story is noteworthy also because Johanne Bernoulli is said "recognized the lion by his claw."

  • As close to a literal "mic-drop" as I can think of, after noting in his 1993 lectures that Fermat's Last Theorem was a mere corollary of the work presented, Andrew Wiles famously ended his lecture by stating "I think I'll stop here."



What are other noteworthy examples of such announcements in math that are, in some sense, memorable for being understated? Say to an outsider in the field?




Watson and Crick's famous ending of their DNA paper, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material," has a bit of the same understated feel...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    8 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny Ruberman
    5 hours ago














23












23








23


5



$begingroup$


Oftentimes in math the manner in which a solution to a problem is announced becomes a significant chapter/part of the lore associated with the problem, almost being remembered more than the manner in which the problem was solved. I think that most mathematicians as a whole, even upon solving major open problems, are an extremely humble lot. But as an outsider I appreciate the understated manner in which some results are dropped.



The very recent example that inspired this question:




  • Andrew Booker's recent solution to $a^3+b^3+c^3=33$ with $(a,b,c)inmathbb{Z}^3$ as $$(a,b,c)=(8866128975287528,-8778405442862239,-2736111468807040)$$ was publicized on Tim Browning's homepage. However the homepage has merely a single, austere line, and does not even indicate that this is/was a semi-famous open problem. Nor was there any indication that the cubes actually sum to $33$, apparently leaving it as an exercise for the reader.


Other examples that come to mind include:




  • In 1976 after Appel and Hakken had proved the Four Color Theorem, Appel wrote on the University of Illinois' math department blackboard "Modulo careful checking, it appears that four colors suffice." The statement "Four Colors Suffice" was used as the stamp for the University of Illinois at least around 1976.

  • In 1697 Newton famously offered an "anonymous solution" to the Royal Society to the Brachistochrone problem that took him a mere evening/sleepless night to resolve. I think the story is noteworthy also because Johanne Bernoulli is said "recognized the lion by his claw."

  • As close to a literal "mic-drop" as I can think of, after noting in his 1993 lectures that Fermat's Last Theorem was a mere corollary of the work presented, Andrew Wiles famously ended his lecture by stating "I think I'll stop here."



What are other noteworthy examples of such announcements in math that are, in some sense, memorable for being understated? Say to an outsider in the field?




Watson and Crick's famous ending of their DNA paper, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material," has a bit of the same understated feel...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Oftentimes in math the manner in which a solution to a problem is announced becomes a significant chapter/part of the lore associated with the problem, almost being remembered more than the manner in which the problem was solved. I think that most mathematicians as a whole, even upon solving major open problems, are an extremely humble lot. But as an outsider I appreciate the understated manner in which some results are dropped.



The very recent example that inspired this question:




  • Andrew Booker's recent solution to $a^3+b^3+c^3=33$ with $(a,b,c)inmathbb{Z}^3$ as $$(a,b,c)=(8866128975287528,-8778405442862239,-2736111468807040)$$ was publicized on Tim Browning's homepage. However the homepage has merely a single, austere line, and does not even indicate that this is/was a semi-famous open problem. Nor was there any indication that the cubes actually sum to $33$, apparently leaving it as an exercise for the reader.


Other examples that come to mind include:




  • In 1976 after Appel and Hakken had proved the Four Color Theorem, Appel wrote on the University of Illinois' math department blackboard "Modulo careful checking, it appears that four colors suffice." The statement "Four Colors Suffice" was used as the stamp for the University of Illinois at least around 1976.

  • In 1697 Newton famously offered an "anonymous solution" to the Royal Society to the Brachistochrone problem that took him a mere evening/sleepless night to resolve. I think the story is noteworthy also because Johanne Bernoulli is said "recognized the lion by his claw."

  • As close to a literal "mic-drop" as I can think of, after noting in his 1993 lectures that Fermat's Last Theorem was a mere corollary of the work presented, Andrew Wiles famously ended his lecture by stating "I think I'll stop here."



What are other noteworthy examples of such announcements in math that are, in some sense, memorable for being understated? Say to an outsider in the field?




Watson and Crick's famous ending of their DNA paper, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material," has a bit of the same understated feel...







soft-question big-list






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago


























community wiki





7 revs
Mark S









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    8 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny Ruberman
    5 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    8 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    8 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny Ruberman
    5 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
$endgroup$
– KConrad
8 hours ago






$begingroup$
The tale about Cole seems to have no basis in fact and was just a legend propagated by E. T. Bell, who was a former PhD student of Cole. Cole did have a real method of discovering the factorization (the answers to mathoverflow.net/questions/207321/… include a link to Cole's article) and it was not the "three years of Sundays" that Bell wrote. I therefore don't think the Cole story should be among your examples.
$endgroup$
– KConrad
8 hours ago






3




3




$begingroup$
The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
$endgroup$
– KConrad
8 hours ago






$begingroup$
The example of how Ramanujan's results came to the attention of Hardy and Littlewood is fairly well documented, and would be a better choice than Cole's "story".
$endgroup$
– KConrad
8 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
I'd say Yitang Zhang's submission in 2013 was pretty understated. Gerhard "Would This Be An Example?" Paseman, 2019.03.10.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Tim Browning announced the three-cubes solution, but it seems that he was reporting on work of Andrew Booker, see gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/… and people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~maarb/papers/cubesv1.pdf
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
7 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
$endgroup$
– Danny Ruberman
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
I still have the envelope from my acceptance to grad school at the University of Illinois from that era (winter of 1977) with that franking.
$endgroup$
– Danny Ruberman
5 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

The best known lower bound for the minimal length of superpermutations was originally posted anonymously to 4chan.



The story is told at Mystery Math Whiz and Novelist Advance Permutation Problem, and a publication with a cleaned-up version of the proof is at A lower bound on the length of the shortest superpattern, with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author. The original 4chan source is archived here.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
    $endgroup$
    – Robin Houston
    7 hours ago








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S
    6 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro A
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
    $endgroup$
    – user2357112
    2 hours ago



















8












$begingroup$

I consider this manner as a mark of a professional mathematician: let others convey the excitement of a discovery. A good recent example was the submission of a paper on bounded gaps between primes. Much of the public excitement was generated by people other than the author, Yitang Zhang.



Gerhard "Can Be Excited In Private" Paseman, 2019.03.10.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
    $endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    4 hours ago



















6












$begingroup$

Applications of algebra to a problem in topology (YouTube) at Atiyah80 was a talk by Mike Hopkins. In it he announced the solution to the Kervaire invariant one problem in all but one dimension (arXiv, Annals).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    5












    $begingroup$

    Perelman solving the Poincare "conjecture," posting it only on the arXiv, leaving math, and refusing the Clay prize could be interpreted as a kind of "mic drop."






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
      $endgroup$
      – Samantha Y
      2 hours ago



















    5












    $begingroup$

    Not math but in physics the statistical interpretation of the wave-function was announced by Max Born in a footnote.



    From his paper Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge,




    (1) Anmerkung bei der Korrektur: Genauere Überlegung zeigt, daß die
    Wahrscheinlichkeit dem Quadrat der Größe $Phi_{n_tau m}$ proportional ist.




    This can be translated as




    (1) Addition in proof: More careful consideration shows that the probability is proportional to the square
    of the quantity $Phi_{n_tau m}.$




    Because of its implications this is probably the most important footnote in the history of physics. Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize "for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction".






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
      $endgroup$
      – Andreas Blass
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
      $endgroup$
      – Matt F.
      2 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
      $endgroup$
      – lcv
      2 hours ago



















    3












    $begingroup$

    From the Wikipedia article on Frank Nelson Cole:




    On October 31, 1903, Cole famously made a presentation to a meeting of
    the American Mathematical Society where he identified the factors of
    the Mersenne number $2^{67}$ − 1, or M67.[5] Édouard Lucas had demonstrated
    in 1876 that M67 must have factors (i.e., is not prime), but he was
    unable to determine what those factors were. During Cole's so-called
    "lecture", he approached the chalkboard and in complete silence
    proceeded to calculate the value of M67, with the result being
    147,573,952,589,676,412,927. Cole then moved to the other side of the
    board and wrote 193,707,721 × 761,838,257,287, and worked through the
    tedious calculations by hand. Upon completing the multiplication and
    demonstrating that the result equaled M67, Cole returned to his seat,
    not having uttered a word during the hour-long presentation. His
    audience greeted the presentation with a standing ovation.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      4 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
      $endgroup$
      – Gerry Myerson
      4 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
      $endgroup$
      – Zach Teitler
      4 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      2 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Zach Teitler
      3 mins ago



















    1












    $begingroup$

    Onsager announced in 1948 that he and Kaufman had found a proof for the fact that the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the square lattice with couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$ is given by



    $M = left(1 - left[sinh (2beta J_1) sinh (2beta J_2)right]^{-2}right)^{frac{1}{8}}$



    But he kept the proof a secret as a challenge to the physics community. The proof was obtained by Yang in 1951






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "504"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325105%2fwhat-are-some-noteworthy-mic-drop-moments-in-math%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      9












      $begingroup$

      The best known lower bound for the minimal length of superpermutations was originally posted anonymously to 4chan.



      The story is told at Mystery Math Whiz and Novelist Advance Permutation Problem, and a publication with a cleaned-up version of the proof is at A lower bound on the length of the shortest superpattern, with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author. The original 4chan source is archived here.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
        $endgroup$
        – Robin Houston
        7 hours ago








      • 5




        $begingroup$
        "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
        $endgroup$
        – R..
        7 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
        $endgroup$
        – Pedro A
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        2 hours ago
















      9












      $begingroup$

      The best known lower bound for the minimal length of superpermutations was originally posted anonymously to 4chan.



      The story is told at Mystery Math Whiz and Novelist Advance Permutation Problem, and a publication with a cleaned-up version of the proof is at A lower bound on the length of the shortest superpattern, with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author. The original 4chan source is archived here.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
        $endgroup$
        – Robin Houston
        7 hours ago








      • 5




        $begingroup$
        "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
        $endgroup$
        – R..
        7 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
        $endgroup$
        – Pedro A
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        2 hours ago














      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      The best known lower bound for the minimal length of superpermutations was originally posted anonymously to 4chan.



      The story is told at Mystery Math Whiz and Novelist Advance Permutation Problem, and a publication with a cleaned-up version of the proof is at A lower bound on the length of the shortest superpattern, with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author. The original 4chan source is archived here.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      The best known lower bound for the minimal length of superpermutations was originally posted anonymously to 4chan.



      The story is told at Mystery Math Whiz and Novelist Advance Permutation Problem, and a publication with a cleaned-up version of the proof is at A lower bound on the length of the shortest superpattern, with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author. The original 4chan source is archived here.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 1 hour ago


























      community wiki





      2 revs, 2 users 67%
      Carlo Beenakker









      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
        $endgroup$
        – Robin Houston
        7 hours ago








      • 5




        $begingroup$
        "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
        $endgroup$
        – R..
        7 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
        $endgroup$
        – Pedro A
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        2 hours ago














      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
        $endgroup$
        – Robin Houston
        7 hours ago








      • 5




        $begingroup$
        "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
        $endgroup$
        – R..
        7 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
        $endgroup$
        – Pedro A
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        2 hours ago








      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
      $endgroup$
      – Robin Houston
      7 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      Also: a new superpermutation of 7 symbols, shorter than any that was known at the time (8907 symbols long), was posted as a pseudonymous comment on YouTube in February 2019.
      $endgroup$
      – Robin Houston
      7 hours ago






      5




      5




      $begingroup$
      "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – R..
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      "Mainly devoted to anime" is a rather kind way to put it.. ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – R..
      7 hours ago




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      6 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      @R.., as I understand it, the 4chan poster answered a question in a forum dedicated to a particular anime program. The anime in question was meant to be non-linear, and watched in any order. The question was effectively "what is the most efficient way to watch all $n$ episodes of the anime serially, in any order." So it was answered in a forum really "devoted to anime," rather than the average 4chan forum.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      6 hours ago






      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
      $endgroup$
      – Pedro A
      3 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @MarkS More specifically, Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu, and hence the problem was also named "The Haruhi Problem".
      $endgroup$
      – Pedro A
      3 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
      $endgroup$
      – user2357112
      2 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The wiki wasn't the original place the proof was posted; that was a repost. The proof was originally posted to 4chan (archive available here). (Also, the wiki isn't really an anime wiki.)
      $endgroup$
      – user2357112
      2 hours ago











      8












      $begingroup$

      I consider this manner as a mark of a professional mathematician: let others convey the excitement of a discovery. A good recent example was the submission of a paper on bounded gaps between primes. Much of the public excitement was generated by people other than the author, Yitang Zhang.



      Gerhard "Can Be Excited In Private" Paseman, 2019.03.10.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
        $endgroup$
        – Will Sawin
        4 hours ago
















      8












      $begingroup$

      I consider this manner as a mark of a professional mathematician: let others convey the excitement of a discovery. A good recent example was the submission of a paper on bounded gaps between primes. Much of the public excitement was generated by people other than the author, Yitang Zhang.



      Gerhard "Can Be Excited In Private" Paseman, 2019.03.10.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
        $endgroup$
        – Will Sawin
        4 hours ago














      8












      8








      8





      $begingroup$

      I consider this manner as a mark of a professional mathematician: let others convey the excitement of a discovery. A good recent example was the submission of a paper on bounded gaps between primes. Much of the public excitement was generated by people other than the author, Yitang Zhang.



      Gerhard "Can Be Excited In Private" Paseman, 2019.03.10.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      I consider this manner as a mark of a professional mathematician: let others convey the excitement of a discovery. A good recent example was the submission of a paper on bounded gaps between primes. Much of the public excitement was generated by people other than the author, Yitang Zhang.



      Gerhard "Can Be Excited In Private" Paseman, 2019.03.10.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      answered 8 hours ago


























      community wiki





      Gerhard Paseman













      • $begingroup$
        I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
        $endgroup$
        – Will Sawin
        4 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark S
        6 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
        $endgroup$
        – Will Sawin
        4 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I especially like his understated comment that "I believe one could make it sharper" when asked if he thought $k<70,000,000$ could be reduced.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark S
      6 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
      $endgroup$
      – Will Sawin
      4 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Well, a distinction can be drawn between the most professional approach, which I guess is to submit the work to the Annals or another top journal, accept invitations to speak about it, etc. followed by Yitang Zhang and the more dramatic (and fun) approach where you post it only to your personal website, refuse to tell people what your talk announcing the result is about in advance, leave math immediately afterwards, etc. It seems that the "mic drop" refers to examples that go above and beyond what you'd do for a usual strong result.
      $endgroup$
      – Will Sawin
      4 hours ago











      6












      $begingroup$

      Applications of algebra to a problem in topology (YouTube) at Atiyah80 was a talk by Mike Hopkins. In it he announced the solution to the Kervaire invariant one problem in all but one dimension (arXiv, Annals).






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        Applications of algebra to a problem in topology (YouTube) at Atiyah80 was a talk by Mike Hopkins. In it he announced the solution to the Kervaire invariant one problem in all but one dimension (arXiv, Annals).






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Applications of algebra to a problem in topology (YouTube) at Atiyah80 was a talk by Mike Hopkins. In it he announced the solution to the Kervaire invariant one problem in all but one dimension (arXiv, Annals).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Applications of algebra to a problem in topology (YouTube) at Atiyah80 was a talk by Mike Hopkins. In it he announced the solution to the Kervaire invariant one problem in all but one dimension (arXiv, Annals).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          answered 6 hours ago


























          community wiki





          David Roberts
























              5












              $begingroup$

              Perelman solving the Poincare "conjecture," posting it only on the arXiv, leaving math, and refusing the Clay prize could be interpreted as a kind of "mic drop."






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
                $endgroup$
                – Samantha Y
                2 hours ago
















              5












              $begingroup$

              Perelman solving the Poincare "conjecture," posting it only on the arXiv, leaving math, and refusing the Clay prize could be interpreted as a kind of "mic drop."






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
                $endgroup$
                – Samantha Y
                2 hours ago














              5












              5








              5





              $begingroup$

              Perelman solving the Poincare "conjecture," posting it only on the arXiv, leaving math, and refusing the Clay prize could be interpreted as a kind of "mic drop."






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Perelman solving the Poincare "conjecture," posting it only on the arXiv, leaving math, and refusing the Clay prize could be interpreted as a kind of "mic drop."







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              answered 4 hours ago


























              community wiki





              Kimball













              • $begingroup$
                Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
                $endgroup$
                – Samantha Y
                2 hours ago


















              • $begingroup$
                Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
                $endgroup$
                – Samantha Y
                2 hours ago
















              $begingroup$
              Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
              $endgroup$
              – Samantha Y
              2 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Let us not mince words: " 'I'm not interested in money or fame,' he is quoted to have said at the time. 'I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me.' "
              $endgroup$
              – Samantha Y
              2 hours ago











              5












              $begingroup$

              Not math but in physics the statistical interpretation of the wave-function was announced by Max Born in a footnote.



              From his paper Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge,




              (1) Anmerkung bei der Korrektur: Genauere Überlegung zeigt, daß die
              Wahrscheinlichkeit dem Quadrat der Größe $Phi_{n_tau m}$ proportional ist.




              This can be translated as




              (1) Addition in proof: More careful consideration shows that the probability is proportional to the square
              of the quantity $Phi_{n_tau m}.$




              Because of its implications this is probably the most important footnote in the history of physics. Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize "for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction".






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
                $endgroup$
                – Andreas Blass
                3 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt F.
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
                $endgroup$
                – lcv
                2 hours ago
















              5












              $begingroup$

              Not math but in physics the statistical interpretation of the wave-function was announced by Max Born in a footnote.



              From his paper Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge,




              (1) Anmerkung bei der Korrektur: Genauere Überlegung zeigt, daß die
              Wahrscheinlichkeit dem Quadrat der Größe $Phi_{n_tau m}$ proportional ist.




              This can be translated as




              (1) Addition in proof: More careful consideration shows that the probability is proportional to the square
              of the quantity $Phi_{n_tau m}.$




              Because of its implications this is probably the most important footnote in the history of physics. Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize "for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction".






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
                $endgroup$
                – Andreas Blass
                3 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt F.
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
                $endgroup$
                – lcv
                2 hours ago














              5












              5








              5





              $begingroup$

              Not math but in physics the statistical interpretation of the wave-function was announced by Max Born in a footnote.



              From his paper Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge,




              (1) Anmerkung bei der Korrektur: Genauere Überlegung zeigt, daß die
              Wahrscheinlichkeit dem Quadrat der Größe $Phi_{n_tau m}$ proportional ist.




              This can be translated as




              (1) Addition in proof: More careful consideration shows that the probability is proportional to the square
              of the quantity $Phi_{n_tau m}.$




              Because of its implications this is probably the most important footnote in the history of physics. Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize "for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction".






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Not math but in physics the statistical interpretation of the wave-function was announced by Max Born in a footnote.



              From his paper Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge,




              (1) Anmerkung bei der Korrektur: Genauere Überlegung zeigt, daß die
              Wahrscheinlichkeit dem Quadrat der Größe $Phi_{n_tau m}$ proportional ist.




              This can be translated as




              (1) Addition in proof: More careful consideration shows that the probability is proportional to the square
              of the quantity $Phi_{n_tau m}.$




              Because of its implications this is probably the most important footnote in the history of physics. Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize "for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction".







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 2 hours ago


























              community wiki





              4 revs, 3 users 77%
              lcv









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
                $endgroup$
                – Andreas Blass
                3 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt F.
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
                $endgroup$
                – lcv
                2 hours ago














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
                $endgroup$
                – Andreas Blass
                3 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
                $endgroup$
                – Matt F.
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
                $endgroup$
                – lcv
                2 hours ago








              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
              $endgroup$
              – Andreas Blass
              3 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I think "Anmerkung bei der Korrektur" is better translated as "Remark added in proof". In particular, it would be a remark by the author, not by the editor. Also, "zeigt" is present tense, "shows" not "will show".
              $endgroup$
              – Andreas Blass
              3 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt F.
              2 hours ago






              $begingroup$
              The footnote is not the announcement of a probabilistic interpretation, but a correction that the probability is proportional to $Phi^2$ rather than $Phi$. Also the paper is not so much understated as preliminary, as indicated right below the title.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt F.
              2 hours ago














              $begingroup$
              @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
              $endgroup$
              – lcv
              2 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              @AndreasBlass you're right. You're welcome to provide a better translation than the one I found online. If I remember correctly Born added that footnote once the paper was already in the review process
              $endgroup$
              – lcv
              2 hours ago











              3












              $begingroup$

              From the Wikipedia article on Frank Nelson Cole:




              On October 31, 1903, Cole famously made a presentation to a meeting of
              the American Mathematical Society where he identified the factors of
              the Mersenne number $2^{67}$ − 1, or M67.[5] Édouard Lucas had demonstrated
              in 1876 that M67 must have factors (i.e., is not prime), but he was
              unable to determine what those factors were. During Cole's so-called
              "lecture", he approached the chalkboard and in complete silence
              proceeded to calculate the value of M67, with the result being
              147,573,952,589,676,412,927. Cole then moved to the other side of the
              board and wrote 193,707,721 × 761,838,257,287, and worked through the
              tedious calculations by hand. Upon completing the multiplication and
              demonstrating that the result equaled M67, Cole returned to his seat,
              not having uttered a word during the hour-long presentation. His
              audience greeted the presentation with a standing ovation.







              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 3




                $begingroup$
                I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                4 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
                $endgroup$
                – Gerry Myerson
                4 hours ago






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                3 mins ago
















              3












              $begingroup$

              From the Wikipedia article on Frank Nelson Cole:




              On October 31, 1903, Cole famously made a presentation to a meeting of
              the American Mathematical Society where he identified the factors of
              the Mersenne number $2^{67}$ − 1, or M67.[5] Édouard Lucas had demonstrated
              in 1876 that M67 must have factors (i.e., is not prime), but he was
              unable to determine what those factors were. During Cole's so-called
              "lecture", he approached the chalkboard and in complete silence
              proceeded to calculate the value of M67, with the result being
              147,573,952,589,676,412,927. Cole then moved to the other side of the
              board and wrote 193,707,721 × 761,838,257,287, and worked through the
              tedious calculations by hand. Upon completing the multiplication and
              demonstrating that the result equaled M67, Cole returned to his seat,
              not having uttered a word during the hour-long presentation. His
              audience greeted the presentation with a standing ovation.







              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 3




                $begingroup$
                I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                4 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
                $endgroup$
                – Gerry Myerson
                4 hours ago






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                3 mins ago














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              From the Wikipedia article on Frank Nelson Cole:




              On October 31, 1903, Cole famously made a presentation to a meeting of
              the American Mathematical Society where he identified the factors of
              the Mersenne number $2^{67}$ − 1, or M67.[5] Édouard Lucas had demonstrated
              in 1876 that M67 must have factors (i.e., is not prime), but he was
              unable to determine what those factors were. During Cole's so-called
              "lecture", he approached the chalkboard and in complete silence
              proceeded to calculate the value of M67, with the result being
              147,573,952,589,676,412,927. Cole then moved to the other side of the
              board and wrote 193,707,721 × 761,838,257,287, and worked through the
              tedious calculations by hand. Upon completing the multiplication and
              demonstrating that the result equaled M67, Cole returned to his seat,
              not having uttered a word during the hour-long presentation. His
              audience greeted the presentation with a standing ovation.







              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              From the Wikipedia article on Frank Nelson Cole:




              On October 31, 1903, Cole famously made a presentation to a meeting of
              the American Mathematical Society where he identified the factors of
              the Mersenne number $2^{67}$ − 1, or M67.[5] Édouard Lucas had demonstrated
              in 1876 that M67 must have factors (i.e., is not prime), but he was
              unable to determine what those factors were. During Cole's so-called
              "lecture", he approached the chalkboard and in complete silence
              proceeded to calculate the value of M67, with the result being
              147,573,952,589,676,412,927. Cole then moved to the other side of the
              board and wrote 193,707,721 × 761,838,257,287, and worked through the
              tedious calculations by hand. Upon completing the multiplication and
              demonstrating that the result equaled M67, Cole returned to his seat,
              not having uttered a word during the hour-long presentation. His
              audience greeted the presentation with a standing ovation.








              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 4 hours ago


























              community wiki





              2 revs, 2 users 97%
              Jeff Strom









              • 3




                $begingroup$
                I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                4 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
                $endgroup$
                – Gerry Myerson
                4 hours ago






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                3 mins ago














              • 3




                $begingroup$
                I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                4 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
                $endgroup$
                – Gerry Myerson
                4 hours ago






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
                $endgroup$
                – Mark S
                2 hours ago












              • $begingroup$
                $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
                $endgroup$
                – Zach Teitler
                3 mins ago








              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
              $endgroup$
              – Mark S
              4 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I'm interested in the historiography of this urban legend. Is the only source for the above E. T. Bell? If so, must it be considered suspect, because E. T. Bell was a much better mythmaker than a biographer? I'd like to believe it to be true - a broken clock is still right twice a day...
              $endgroup$
              – Mark S
              4 hours ago




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
              $endgroup$
              – Gerry Myerson
              4 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              This alleged mic-drop was specifically excluded in the original posting of the question, but that has been edited out. The comments on it remain. Of course, if it's true, it's a perfect answer to the question, but did it really happen this way?
              $endgroup$
              – Gerry Myerson
              4 hours ago




              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
              $endgroup$
              – Zach Teitler
              4 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Maybe things were different in 1903, but I would not give a standing ovation for an hour of silent arithmetic. Also I’m sorry but those calculations don’t seem like they would take an hour. None of it seems believable. Still a fun story though.
              $endgroup$
              – Zach Teitler
              4 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
              $endgroup$
              – Mark S
              2 hours ago






              $begingroup$
              @ZachTeitler Maybe $M_{67}$ was a really big deal in 1903? Maybe actually finding the factors was generally greeted with some expression of acclamation? Mersenne antedates Fermat by a dozen or so years, $M_{67}$ was effectively open for just as long in 1903 as FLT was. I'm pretty sure that people stood up and clapped at the end of Wiles' lecture in 1993. Of course Wiles' lecture was not an "hour of silent arithmetic," so maybe that part is a stretch.
              $endgroup$
              – Mark S
              2 hours ago














              $begingroup$
              $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
              $endgroup$
              – Zach Teitler
              3 mins ago




              $begingroup$
              $M_{67}$ would be a big deal any time and finding those factors would have certainly been worthy of acclaim. I just meant that there would be far better ways to present the factorization than grinding through the arithmetic. As an audience member I would be far, far more interested in how Cole found those factors, than in whether he remembered to carry the $3$ or whatever. An hour of that would have been tough to sit through. Although... maybe at one of those 20-minute AMS special sessions, perhaps.... :-)
              $endgroup$
              – Zach Teitler
              3 mins ago











              1












              $begingroup$

              Onsager announced in 1948 that he and Kaufman had found a proof for the fact that the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the square lattice with couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$ is given by



              $M = left(1 - left[sinh (2beta J_1) sinh (2beta J_2)right]^{-2}right)^{frac{1}{8}}$



              But he kept the proof a secret as a challenge to the physics community. The proof was obtained by Yang in 1951






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                Onsager announced in 1948 that he and Kaufman had found a proof for the fact that the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the square lattice with couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$ is given by



                $M = left(1 - left[sinh (2beta J_1) sinh (2beta J_2)right]^{-2}right)^{frac{1}{8}}$



                But he kept the proof a secret as a challenge to the physics community. The proof was obtained by Yang in 1951






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Onsager announced in 1948 that he and Kaufman had found a proof for the fact that the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the square lattice with couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$ is given by



                  $M = left(1 - left[sinh (2beta J_1) sinh (2beta J_2)right]^{-2}right)^{frac{1}{8}}$



                  But he kept the proof a secret as a challenge to the physics community. The proof was obtained by Yang in 1951






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Onsager announced in 1948 that he and Kaufman had found a proof for the fact that the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model on the square lattice with couplings $J_1$ and $J_2$ is given by



                  $M = left(1 - left[sinh (2beta J_1) sinh (2beta J_2)right]^{-2}right)^{frac{1}{8}}$



                  But he kept the proof a secret as a challenge to the physics community. The proof was obtained by Yang in 1951







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  answered 2 hours ago


























                  community wiki





                  Count Iblis































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325105%2fwhat-are-some-noteworthy-mic-drop-moments-in-math%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Loup dans la culture

                      How to solve the problem of ntp “Unable to contact time server” from KDE?

                      ASUS Zenbook UX433/UX333 — Configure Touchpad-embedded numpad on Linux