3 ms·
Don't miss the compelling sequal, "Division by four". http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01402 http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01402
by mathgenius 11y ago
Don't miss the compelling sequal, "Division by four".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01402 http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01402
- gizmo686 11y agoThis has probably one of the most amusing paragraphs of a math paper I have seen: "We made it hard for ourselves in order to show a method that works for all n. It would have been more natural to take n = 3, which is the crucial test case for division. If you can divide by 2, and hence by 4, there is no guarantee that you can divide by 3; whereas if you can divide by 3, you can divide by any n. This is not meant as a formal statement, it’s what you might call a Thesis. We chose n = 4 instead of n = 3 because there are four suits in a standard deck of cards, and because there is already a paper called ‘Division by three’ [2], which this paper is meant to supersede." Also worth noting, these two papers have the same lead author.