Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's numerological nonsense like Bible Code.
It is not; I invite you to study it before you reject it.
Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
91–96 of 96 posts
Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feynman was undoubtedly a genius, but he also suffered from a need to be admired. The safecracking episodes at Los Alamos are a perfect example - giving the impression he was an expert safe cracker when his real methodology was guesswork and sometimes subterfuge (birthdays, anniversaries, or even subtlety observing someone inputting their combination).
I get your point, I really do. But if what you call his "real methodology" worked well, why would he use more advanced/safecracker-y techniques? I'd say the real mistake he made was that he lifted the veil off of how he did things, leading people to say "oh even I could have done that".
Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
#93The taxi cab story is easily a top-5 math story, and is quintessential Ramanujan. Has there been a genius of his kind since? Maybe Terry Tao, but his work also lacks the ease and lack of machinery that Ramanujan had. Truly amazing.
I am surprised no one in including Gauss.
Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get your point, I really do. But if what you call his "real methodology" worked well, why would he use more advanced/safecracker-y techniques? I'd say the real mistake he made was that he lifted the veil off of how he did things, leading people to say "oh even I could have done that".
Something something, invoice $1 for chalk, $9999 for knowing where to mark the 'X'.
Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not; I invite you to study it before you reject it.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pray supply something more substantial than a link (to what looks like a religious organisation) in support of your claim.
Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pray supply something more substantial than a link (to what looks like a religious organisation) in support of your claim.
I agree, hence the link. You are asking me to write out in a comment the information that is presented clearly and accessibly in the link.