[deleted]
A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#22(regarding the current title of this submission, in case it gets changed:) >This 67-year-old retiree solved a math problem–using Microsoft Word What does Microsoft Word have to do with this? The fact that the document was typeset in Microsoft Word instead of LaTeX does not really sound remarkable.
[deleted]
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#23I'm sorry to be mean, but this title is stupid and condescending. He didn't use Word to solve the problem, he used Word to write the paper about the solution. It really has nothing to do with how the problem was actually solved. Might as well claim he "used Windows" to solve the problem.
For context, the submission title was "This 67-year-old retiree solved a math problem–using Microsoft Word". Thankfully, it's been fixed.
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#24>“He had formulas that enabled him to pull off his magic,” Pitt said. “And I didn’t have the formulas.” The more I do pure mathematics, the more I realize just how important these kinds of insights are. Very often, solving a theoretical problem involves two key ingredients: 1. Rewriting your problem in a particular way, so that it is amenable to a certain suite of methods/looks like known results. 2. Apply a key bit…
A similar realization is that most algorithms/data structures problems posed in software engineering interviews are all about imposing the right mathematical formalisms.
If you correctly infer the _structure_ of the problem, then you're going to have an easy time solving it. If not, you'll use a great lot of time hunting for a fruitful angle of attack.
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#25I'm sorry to be mean, but this title is stupid and condescending. He didn't use Word to solve the problem, he used Word to write the paper about the solution. It really has nothing to do with how the problem was actually solved. Might as well claim he "used Windows" to solve the problem.
"The authors don't use TeX" is #1 of Scott Aaronson's Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#26It seems like a stretch to call this a big discovery in the math world. Even if it had been published in a top journal etc, it would be unlikely to be heralded as a major achievement.
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#27[deleted]
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#28It would be nice if the title named the proof. Math is a giant field, and very few HNers are mathematicians or interested in any particular area of mathematics, so it would be helpful to know what the general topic is without clicking on the link and reading a few paragraphs.
"A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof of the Gaussian Correlation Inequality (2017)"
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#29>“He had formulas that enabled him to pull off his magic,” Pitt said. “And I didn’t have the formulas.” The more I do pure mathematics, the more I realize just how important these kinds of insights are. Very often, solving a theoretical problem involves two key ingredients: 1. Rewriting your problem in a particular way, so that it is amenable to a certain suite of methods/looks like known results. 2. Apply a key bit…
A similar realization is that most algorithms/data structures problems posed in software engineering interviews are all about imposing the right mathematical formalisms. If you correctly infer the _structure_ of the problem, then you're going to have an easy time solving it. If not, you'll use a great lot of time hunting for a fruitful angle of attack.
Oh please let’s not glorify those simple trick questions to be anywhere near as hard or require the degree of intuition that OP or theoretical mathematicians work on.
75% of interview questions can be solved with some form of BFS/DFS and they’re largely a hazing ritual these days. I’m saying this as someone who recently got offers from 4 of the big 5 companies
Re: A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
A similar realization is that most algorithms/data structures problems posed in software engineering interviews are all about imposing the right mathematical formalisms. If you correctly infer the _structure_ of the problem, then you're going to have an easy time solving it. If not, you'll use a great lot of time hunting for a fruitful angle of attack.
Oh please let’s not glorify those simple trick questions to be anywhere near as hard or require the degree of intuition that OP or theoretical mathematicians work on. 75% of interview questions can be solved with some form of BFS/DFS and they’re largely a hazing ritual these days. I’m saying this as someone who recently got offers from 4 of the big 5 companies
Something only takes “hard intuition” the first time it comes up. For instance, when these data structures were new, inventing them took hard intuition. The second time the same trick is used, it becomes a ‘clever application of an obscure idea’ to a new problem.
Then once the same intuitive leap has been used to solve many different problems, and gets taught in school, it becomes a “simple trick”, or even just a “standard technique”.
If this same method is useful for solving a wide range of structurally similar problems, it will go through that process, and eventually become thought of as a “simple trick”. If it is only used as a one-off for this particular proof, it will remain one man’s genius idea.