7 ms·
A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof (2017)
- jchw 8y ago(regarding the current title of this submission, in case it gets changed:) >This 67-year-old retiree solved a math problem–using Microsoft Word What does Microsoft Word have to do with this? The fact that the document was typeset in Microsoft Word instead of LaTeX does not really sound remarkable.
- TomMarius 8y agoThe article is not about the math problem itself, it's also about MS Word starting to be used and accepted alongside LaTeX. EDIT: I am wrong, I misunderstood the article
- kardos 8y agoNot sure how you came to that conclusion. The article's actual title doesn't mention Word, and it seems to be a minor point in the article. It even goes on to say: >> Richards notified a few colleagues and even helped Royen retype his paper in LaTeX to make it appear more professional.
- TomMarius 8y agoI've re-read the article and you're right. I misunderstood the "Word is getting around" part. Sorry
- ars 8y ago> What does Microsoft Word have to do with this? It's an indication that the person who solved it is an amateur, that's all.
- jchw 8y ago'Amateur' would seem to conflict with 'retiree.'
- ars 8y agoNot really. You can be an expert in one field and an amateur in another.
- rusk 8y agoNot just that, but that he did it with rudimentary tools.
- kardos 8y agoWhich is pretty thin. I wouldn't consider mathematicians of the pre-word-processor era amateurs.
- mnl 8y agoNo, he's not an amateur but a retired statistian. And the fact that LaTeX is the standard for DIY typesetting in academia nowadays has nothing to do with your competence as a mathematician, or the rigour of a proof published as a Word document. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you work with pen and paper or with pencil and paper. This title is absurd.
- ggambetta 8y agoIt's just blatant clickbait :(
- vajrabum 8y agoThe word retiree is clickbait too. It hides the fact that he is a (retired) professional statistician.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- BlackFingolfin 8y agoThis is from 2017, previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13977554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13977554
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marcelluspye 8y ago>“He had formulas that enabled him to pull off his magic,” Pitt said. “And I didn’t have the formulas.” The more I do pure mathematics, the more I realize just how important these kinds of insights are. Very often, solving a theoretical problem involves two key ingredients: 1. Rewriting your problem in a particular way, so that it is amenable to a certain suite of methods/looks like known results. 2. Apply a key bit of knowledge gleaned from intuition. This is unrelated to the formal way the problem was written down. Sometimes, showing your intuition is true formally actually takes a lot of work. And for some proofs, looking at the problem a particular way makes the solution obvious on its own, with no need for a step 2. And other times, like this, all the technical tools in the world are no match for just knowing the right piece of information.
- loeber 8y agoA similar realization is that most algorithms/data structures problems posed in software engineering interviews are all about imposing the right mathematical formalisms. If you correctly infer the _structure_ of the problem, then you're going to have an easy time solving it. If not, you'll use a great lot of time hunting for a fruitful angle of attack.
- spiderPig 8y agoOh please let’s not glorify those simple trick questions to be anywhere near as hard or require the degree of intuition that OP or theoretical mathematicians work on. 75% of interview questions can be solved with some form of BFS/DFS and they’re largely a hazing ritual these days. I’m saying this as someone who recently got offers from 4 of the big 5 companies
- jacobolus 8y agoSomething only takes “hard intuition” the first time it comes up. For instance, when these data structures were new, inventing them took hard intuition. The second time the same trick is used, it becomes a ‘clever application of an obscure idea’ to a new problem. Then once the same intuitive leap has been used to solve many different problems, and gets taught in school, it becomes a “simple trick”, or even just a “standard technique”. If this same method is useful for solving a wide range of structurally similar problems, it will go through that process, and eventually become thought of as a “simple trick”. If it is only used as a one-off for this particular proof, it will remain one man’s genius idea.
- jlarocco 8y agoI'm sorry to be mean, but this title is stupid and condescending. He didn't use Word to solve the problem, he used Word to write the paper about the solution. It really has nothing to do with how the problem was actually solved. Might as well claim he "used Windows" to solve the problem.
- jwilk 8y agoFor context, the submission title was "This 67-year-old retiree solved a math problem–using Microsoft Word". Thankfully, it's been fixed.
- bbeonx 8y agoAhh, thank you. I was very confused
- dmurray 8y ago"The authors don't use TeX" is #1 of Scott Aaronson's Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304
- crazy_monkey 8y agoExcellent work! Glad they re-typeset it in LaTeX!
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vladislav 8y agoIt seems like a stretch to call this a big discovery in the math world. Even if it had been published in a top journal etc, it would be unlikely to be heralded as a major achievement.
- tangentspace 8y agoIs it being characterized as a major discovery somewhere in this article? I see it described as an elusive problem, and it's claimed that the solution is a major paper worthy of publication in Annals of Statistics, but mostly it just comes across as an interesting story about how this proof came to be.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- harshreality 8y agoIt would be nice if the title named the proof. Math is a giant field, and very few HNers are mathematicians or interested in any particular area of mathematics, so it would be helpful to know what the general topic is without clicking on the link and reading a few paragraphs. "A Retiree Discovers an Elusive Math Proof of the Gaussian Correlation Inequality (2017)"
- stealthmodeclan 8y agoThis is based on experience, i used to teach math. (~4000) And i found it easier to teach math to people whoes father, grandfather, great grandfather all had masters in math. So, i wonder if mathematical abilities are in genes and gene function changes when you bring a person with such genes into a math intense environment.
- full_pint 8y agoCould it just possibly be the fact they've been raised in environment that encourages the thought processes necessary to understand more "abstract" math? Phrased differently, they've been given somewhat "institutional" tools necessary to accomplish these types of goals?
- jacobolus 8y agoFrom observation, some of the people I know who were sharpest at learning new technical subjects and solving hard technical problems were way behind as undergraduates compared to folks who were not as good at problem solving but had been steeped in a technical culture from a young age, and as a result the newcomers had to work a lot harder to catch up. “Easy to teach” comes from understanding your vocabulary and references, having seen similar material before, not being confused by severe misconceptions, coming in with similar mindset, etc., not necessarily from being the best at new research (or whatever other real work task). Someone who is a 4th generation mathematician is going to be completely comfortable talking about mathematical topics in casual conversation, irrespective of any genetic differences.
- Ultimatt 8y agoNot sure why you would even remotely assume genetics over just skills being passed down..? Pre war if you look at careers in census everyone used to do what their parents did. Its because its what they taught you!
- stealthmodeclan 8y ago> Not sure why you would even remotely assume genetics over just skills being passed down..? There were also orphans who had never seen their parents or grandparents. When genes are responsible for being lactose tolerate, why is it hard to hypothesise that only some people benefit from being raised in a math intense environment and not others?