What are some noteworthy “mic-drop” moments in math?
$begingroup$
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...
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
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...
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
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
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
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...
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
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
soft-question big-list
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
|
show 3 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
$endgroup$
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).
answered 6 hours ago
community wiki
David Roberts
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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."
$endgroup$
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."
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
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".
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
answered 2 hours ago
community wiki
Count Iblis
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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