Live data from Hacker News

Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

plus.maths.org

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

#91
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's numerological nonsense like Bible Code.

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)

#92

Earlier 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".

Something something, invoice $1 for chalk, $9999 for knowing where to mark the 'X'.

Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

#93
post #60

The 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.

Didn't Gauss live and die before Ramanujan was born?

Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

#94

Earlier 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'.

zigackly (https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4746820383_314f398f2f.j...)

Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

#95
post #87

Earlier 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.

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.

Re: Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015)

#96
post #95

Earlier 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.

Took a quick look. All that it seems to say is a version of "19, therefore {deity}didit". Not clear, smells like numerological nonsense, so no thank you, moving on.
Post reply on HN