Slashdot Mirror
Controversy Over 140-Year-Old Math Problem
sciencehabit writes "British mathematician Darren Crowdy has been bragging all week about how he solved a 140-year-old math problem, as we discussed a few days ago. But three American mathematicians say they had the critical idea first."
Newton? Meet Leibniz.
No one cares that you engage in fist sports.
"I solved this problem, here's the solution." "But we *thought* of it first."
Q: What did the three American mathematicians say to the British mathematician? A: FIRST!!!!!
Basically, the british guy forgot to add a constant to the end. Problem solved.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?
A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...
Please continue fighting for who thought the solution first.
More at http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~runde/jokes.html
I always thought it mattered who published first, not thought of it.
./ "wins"?
The first to post on
Crowdy heard Elcrat talk about that work in 2003, but he says the American trio didn't realize the relevance of the Schottky groups.
The Americans' formula, published in 2004, involves the multiplication of an infinite number of terms, which goes haywire if the holes are too close together. Crowdy's formula replaces that product with an obscure beast known as Schottky-Klein prime function. Crowdy says his formula will never fail. "I'm very skeptical" of that claim, says Pfaltzgraff.
Basicaslly, the American Team was clueless until someone pointed out the obvious to them, now they want the credit. Fail.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
... if you don't get the last square and yell "bingo". Them's the breaks Mr. Johnny-Come-Lately
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Landau's group was discussing a bright new theory, and one of junior colleagues of Landau bragged that he had independently discovered the theory a couple of years ago, but did not bother to publish his finding.
"I would not repeat this claim if I were you," Landau replied: "There is nothing wrong if one has not found a solution to a particular problem. However, if one has found it but does not publish it, he shows a poor judgment and inability to understand what important is in modern physics". Actually, from TFA, the American team did publish first, but "didn't realize the relevance of the Schottky groups." Further, the Brit (working independently, and supposedly without knowledge of this obscure paper) says his formula will work every time. The Americans are of course sceptical, but can't seem to find any situation where it won't work. Kudos to both, but it seems history will go to the Brit for this. I'll check Wiki in about a year; I'll bet it talks about the Brit, and mentions the American team in passing.
I object to the use of the word 'bragging' in the summary. I went to grad school with Darren (his office was 3 doors down from mine) and he was a great all-around guy. He was someone you could joke around with and I never saw any indication of him being a braggard. It's possible that he's changed significantly in the last 10 years, but I see nothing in TFA that would suggest this. He made what is potentially a significant contribution. Why shouldn't he be aloud to be proud of it?
GMD
watch this
The British guy got in his First Post, but was modded -1 Offtopic by three American moderators.
.sig
You may have posted first, but I thought of posting before you did.
The article seems to indicate that he's working on his own. I agree that overusing things like "I", "me" and "my" can sound a lot like bragging (whereas "We", "ours", etc. does not) but if he really was working solo, he wouldn't need to phrase it any other way, neh?
To be fair, one should probably not be using subjective tenses all that much in academic writing anyway.
Two mathematicians, let's call them Bob and Tarquin, were in a café discussing the woeful state of mathematical ignorance amongst the general public. Bob excused himself to visit the restroom and Tarquin beckoned over the waitress.
"Would you mind helping me with a small bet?" he asked. "When my friend returns I'm going to ask you a question, and I'd like you to reply 'X cubed'. OK?"
The waitress looked mystified but agreed to do as requested. A few minutes later, Dave returned and the two men resumed their earlier conversation.
"It's not all that bad," said Tarquin. "I bet you $10 that even this slack-jawed troll of a waitress can do basic calculus".
"You're on!" scoffed Dave.
So they beckoned the waitress over. Tarquin gave her a surreptitious wink and said "I wonder if you could help my friend and I settle an argument - can you tell me the integral of three X squared?"
The waitress pondered for a moment and replied "Easy: X cubed".
Tarquin grinned smugly at Dave as the waitress walked away. And then, over her shoulder, she added: "Oh yes: plus a constant".
Has Crowdy proven that his technique will never fail? The original article claimed that Crowdy overcame the obstacle of holes in the polygon... but at best it seems he overcame having holes too close together. In reality you have four iterations:
Crowdy over came holes that are "too close" together.
The three Americans deserve credit for overcoming the multiple hole obstacle.
The mathematicians in the 1920s overcame a single hole problem
The original mathematicians deserve credit for the formula in general.
The only way, IMO, that Crowdy deserves an equal amount of credit to the Americans is if his formula is actually universal. The additional functionality seems much smaller than that contributed by the three Americans.
I am never forget the day... you post link to song about Lobachevski.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'll freely admit I'm doing good to count to 21 without slipping off my boots and unzipping my jeans, but...
-On the internet, no one cares if you're a dog.-
I can't do that, Dave.