To convince anyone that the page she discusses has something to do with Leonardo's astrological chart, it seems to me she also needs to explain this: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp?pid=2002046&iid=1006202&srchtype=ITEM . It's another page with the same animal in the center, the same word under it (complete with what Sherwood interprets as an inserted "r" above the word), fifteen tub ladies (dressed this time), all holding stars in their outstretched hands instead of on "strings." No babies in sight that I can see.
"Manuscript --
Too many concurrent connections (> 100.000). The manuscript page is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later."
Good job -- we just slashdotted God.
I agree -- as I said in reply to an earlier comment here, I didn't mean to suggest that Connes disapproved of the proof at all, let alone became disgusted with it. I suspect that our editorial overlord used "rebuke" when he meant "refute," and even "refute" might be too strong. I hope that Li, Connes, Tao and their colleagues continue their conversation in public -- it's a privilege to watch them work. We spectators are lucky that Li published his proof in a relatively short paper, so that other mathematicians have been willing and able to examine it right away. There's a discussion on Tao's blog - http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-randomness-in-the-prime-numbers/#comment-30767 - that outlines the current state of the saga.
I didn't mean to suggest that Connes disapproved of the proof, just that he found a problem that he believed was a deal-breaker and therefore saw no reason to read on. As others have noted, the proof's author has since revised it, apparently in response to the comments by Profs Tao and Connes.
You'd have to be crazy to bet that this proof is correct. That said (I'm not a mathematician, but): First, Li's proof at least claims to build on approaches that are, for number theory, reasonably mainstream. He cites the big guns. Second, he's not a delusional crank -- he's had number theory papers published in peer-reviewed journals. The math community will probably take him seriously. Finally, the best news - his paper is only forty pages long, so the few people who are capable of evaluating the proof won't feel that they have to devote the rest of their careers to it. Chances are that we will hear fairly soon whether or not the proof is valid.
There's been a raft of comments here about the significance of a proof -- one short answer is that there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of mathematical theorems that start "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis...."
Re:some of those nerd brethren have two X chromoso
on
The Phoenix Has Landed
·
· Score: 1
Never mind the DNA, the key word here is nerd. If you watched NASA TV, you saw that the desks at JPL are labeled by function -- communications, landing, attitude control, etc. One station was labeled "Geology" -- and featured a Post-It note changing the designation to the correct "Planetology." Nerds Rule.
"I also support a local church with a local area network of about a dozen computers, which seems to have an endemic problem with IP address conflicts. In this case, I leave the PCs on and power cycle the router."
Idly wondering how this fix can work....
If the router is serving internal IP's addresses via DHCP, power cycling shouldn't change anything since DHCP is pull-only by client request. If DHCP isn't in use, cycling the router wouldn't matter either (unless the router has some "feature" that causes it to lease an extra internal address for itself that conflicts with another IP that's in use but hasn't been excluded from the router's DHCP pool.)
Slashdot Mirror
To convince anyone that the page she discusses has something to do with Leonardo's astrological chart, it seems to me she also needs to explain this: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/brbldl/oneITEM.asp?pid=2002046&iid=1006202&srchtype=ITEM . It's another page with the same animal in the center, the same word under it (complete with what Sherwood interprets as an inserted "r" above the word), fifteen tub ladies (dressed this time), all holding stars in their outstretched hands instead of on "strings." No babies in sight that I can see.
There's no iPhone app for this?
"Manuscript -- Too many concurrent connections (> 100.000). The manuscript page is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later." Good job -- we just slashdotted God.
I agree -- as I said in reply to an earlier comment here, I didn't mean to suggest that Connes disapproved of the proof at all, let alone became disgusted with it. I suspect that our editorial overlord used "rebuke" when he meant "refute," and even "refute" might be too strong. I hope that Li, Connes, Tao and their colleagues continue their conversation in public -- it's a privilege to watch them work. We spectators are lucky that Li published his proof in a relatively short paper, so that other mathematicians have been willing and able to examine it right away. There's a discussion on Tao's blog - http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-randomness-in-the-prime-numbers/#comment-30767 - that outlines the current state of the saga.
I didn't mean to suggest that Connes disapproved of the proof, just that he found a problem that he believed was a deal-breaker and therefore saw no reason to read on. As others have noted, the proof's author has since revised it, apparently in response to the comments by Profs Tao and Connes.
Prof. Li has posted a fourth version of his proof on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0090v4. According to this comment on Connes's blog http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2008/06/fun-day-two.html?showComment=1215144000000#c3090911722072092520, Li has made changes to the equations that Tao and Connes identified as problematic. The saga continues.
Alain Connes, a leading French mathematician whose work forms part of the foundation of Li's claimed proof, believes that the proof is flawed -- so much so that he stopped reading it. Here's his comment (on his blog): http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2008/06/fun-day-two.html?showComment=1215071400000#c8876982000013974667 Li will have to respond to this. Expect fireworks.
You'd have to be crazy to bet that this proof is correct. That said (I'm not a mathematician, but): First, Li's proof at least claims to build on approaches that are, for number theory, reasonably mainstream. He cites the big guns. Second, he's not a delusional crank -- he's had number theory papers published in peer-reviewed journals. The math community will probably take him seriously. Finally, the best news - his paper is only forty pages long, so the few people who are capable of evaluating the proof won't feel that they have to devote the rest of their careers to it. Chances are that we will hear fairly soon whether or not the proof is valid. There's been a raft of comments here about the significance of a proof -- one short answer is that there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of mathematical theorems that start "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis...."
Never mind the DNA, the key word here is nerd. If you watched NASA TV, you saw that the desks at JPL are labeled by function -- communications, landing, attitude control, etc. One station was labeled "Geology" -- and featured a Post-It note changing the designation to the correct "Planetology." Nerds Rule.
"I also support a local church with a local area network of about a dozen computers, which seems to have an endemic problem with IP address conflicts. In this case, I leave the PCs on and power cycle the router."
Idly wondering how this fix can work....
If the router is serving internal IP's addresses via DHCP, power cycling shouldn't change anything since DHCP is pull-only by client request. If DHCP isn't in use, cycling the router wouldn't matter either (unless the router has some "feature" that causes it to lease an extra internal address for itself that conflicts with another IP that's in use but hasn't been excluded from the router's DHCP pool.)
Anyone?