Slashdot Mirror
Ramanujian's Deathbed Problem Cracked
Jake's Mom sends word of the serendipitous solution to a decades-old mathematical mystery. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin have unraveled a major number theory puzzle left at the death of one of the twentieth century's greatest mathematicians, Srinivasa Ramanujan. From the press release: "Mathematicians have finally laid to rest the legendary mystery surrounding an elusive group of numerical expressions known as the 'mock theta functions.' Number theorists have struggled to understand the functions ever since... Ramanujan first alluded to them in a letter written [to G. H. Hardy] on his deathbed, in 1920. Now, using mathematical techniques that emerged well after Ramanujan's death, two number theorists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have pieced together an explanatory framework that for the first time illustrates what mock theta functions are, and exactly how to derive them."
There's gotta be a Scientology joke in there somewhere
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
But...but....with the "i" it almost anagrams to "marijuana"!
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
I think you imagined the "i"
Heheh...no kidding. When I saw "Ramanujian" in the header, my first thought was, "An Armenian created a math problem?!"
"I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain."
This does seem like good work, but realistically we won't know how important it is until it appears as a deus ex machina device on NUMB3RS.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
You mean there was even MORE math after "Integration by Parts"? Sheesh you guys need to get a life :P
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Silly, it's between Illinois and Ohio.
"The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
How will I intellectually masturbate?
Simple. Redefine the universe's parameters such that intellectual masturbation is no longer necessary, and place yourself in the appropriate set. You're a mathematician. You can do ANYTHING. Duh!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sex scandal? Uh, yeah... don't hold your breath.
Ramanujan was already a complex guy.
Trying to Wick rotate him would be a pretty negative thing to do.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
It would have to be imaginary, or complex. But that's a bit of a tangent from the point. The TFA is obtuse, cos() it doesn't exp()lain anything much. It would seem that the Slashdot crowd are caught on it Hooke, line and sinker, though. Of course, any maths problem is as easy as Pi, if you use sufficiently advanced techniques. However, if the problem cannot be differentiated meaningfully, can it be integral?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are smooth operators that act on imaginary numbers right by the corner. Then it gets really kinky. Consider improper integrals, strip functions, etc.
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
Sure! Jake's Mom submitted this story. I bet she's hot. I say go for it!
I resent that mockery, you insensitive... oh, I thought you said deride.
You see what kind of puns you guys make when you finally get some coverage? We're not letting you have a story again until 2008.
It's easy - just have a good writer release a few Bible Code books.
- Bible code for children
- Bible code for dummies
- Bible code howto
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
I know how:
... kind of like how Srinivasa Ramanujan found patterns."
"Hm, it seems this perp is following a pattern
[long and vague digression on Ramanujan's work that conveys nothing other than "it's complicated"]
[condescending reference to the hot chick's heritage]
"So that implies that he'll strike *here* next."
[catches perp]
****
Is that about right?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I think you imagined the "i"
enter the existentialist theories...
> And how many potential geniuses do we miss out on when we teach 50% of our population to prioritize making babies over perusing their talents and goals?
:)
:p
Okay, I'll play
Tough question. It's widely known that the intelligence distribution of women tends less toward both extremes, so a factor of 2 increase in geniuses is a very liberal upper bound.
On the other hand, if these geniuses have fewer children than they otherwise would, their genes will fail to be passed on. Since intelligence has a substantial hereditary component, this is a great loss to the pool of future geniuses, especially since some of their male children may have tended toward even more extreme high intelligence!
So, if your social goal is to have a high number of geniuses, I'd suggest that society should repress intelligent women so that they instead make many babies
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.