John Conway has died
51–60 of 194 posts
Re: John Conway has died
#52Re: John Conway has died
#53and I was planning to get in touch just to say hello and ask him a few geometry questions. If you ever have a thought like that about someone in their 80s then just do go ahead and do it.
The Game of Life came with the example cassette of software for my first computer so he's been with me from the beginning of my journey into algorithms and software.
Re: John Conway has died
#54As a teen, I was obsessed with knot theory, and Conway's knot notation always felt like magic to me. The notation works by counting the number of twists in a segment, and then looking for another twist directly connected to the previous twist, and so on. This gives you a sequence of integers, one counting the number (and direction) of twists. If the entire knot is made of twists connected this way, then the continued…
Can two different knots have the same integer sequence?
As for uniqueness, even "rational knots," the ones from the simplest of the fundamental polyhedra, have multiple fractions representing them.
Re: John Conway has died
#55Re: John Conway has died
#56Thanks for kicking our butts in Linear Algebra and for all your strange but endearing quirks, like "if you see a John Conway without a bike around his neck, that is not the real John Conway" or throwing your shoe at the window to wake us up in class.
Re: John Conway has died
#57People here might know him best for the "Game of Life"[0], but he did so much more. The book about Conway by Siobhan Roberts is an interesting read about the man and his work. There's a review here.[1] Some will know Conway via is work on the Classification of Finite Simple Groups (with many others), some via his "Look and Say" sequence, while still others will know his book "Winning Ways"[2], written with Richard Gu…
In mainstream pure mathematics, you first create the naturals (whole numbers). Then from there you create the rationals, as fractions of naturals. Then from there you can create the reals as infinite sequences of rationals.
This works, but it is arguably inelegant. We like to say naturals are a subset of rationals, and rationals are a subset of reals. But by this construction they're not ontologically the same. (We can of course find a subset of the reals that look like the rationals, etc., but they aren't identical, only equivalent.)
In contrast, the surreal numbers are all constructed in one go. Very elegant.
Re: John Conway has died
#58There's thin black banner at the top of HN at the moment. Is that in honor of John Conway?