Can someone explain the n^2 + 2 triangles paper?
Yes
Good!
The shortest papers ever published (2016)
11–20 of 84 posts
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#12Can someone explain the n^2 + 2 triangles paper?
It exhibits two distinct constructions both of which demonstrate that n^2 + 2 unit equilateral triangles are sufficient to cover an equilateral triangle of side n + ε. The obvious area argument shows that at least n^2 + 1 are required.
A small modification of the second figure can show that for any non-equilateral triangle, n^2 + 1 such triangles will cover a similar triangle of length ration 1 : n + ε; it remains (as of 2010, at least; see [1]) an open problem whether a construction of n^2 + 1 triangles exists in the equilateral case.
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#13Hmm. I'm wondering how the short lengths of these papers might cause them to have lower information-theoretic entropy than the (in)famous "chicken" talk[1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk
We should note, however, that that work was disproven in 2019. As it turns out: Not chicken.
Chicken't.
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#14Hmm. I'm wondering how the short lengths of these papers might cause them to have lower information-theoretic entropy than the (in)famous "chicken" talk[1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk
[deleted]
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#15[dead]
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#16[dead]
[flagged]
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#17Related:
The Shortest Papers Ever Published (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15737611 - Nov 2017 (93 comments)
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#18the writer’s block paper is art!
.
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should note, however, that that work was disproven in 2019. As it turns out: Not chicken.
So C = NC?
What I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)
#20As a rule, when trying to convey information, I try to write and speak plainly. I try to avoid jargon.
I have found many academic papers in the faux sciences to be extremely dense and full of terms that are only known to the priests of that arcane subject (still subsidized by taxes as if the result is a common good).
If you have a point, say it. There is no need to write in legalese. When I see supposed research written like this, I assume it’s a grift written just for the tiny group of academics tenured in that subject, who review each others’ papers every year, buy each others’ books, and keep the perpetual motion machine of funding running until they hit retirement.