> I think the article also mentions this My bad, I didn't read the article carefully enough. > I don't get what is the significant difference between this fin

> I think the article also mentions this My bad, I didn't read the article carefully enough. > I don't get what is the significant difference between this finding and Levin's. I think it's generally very important to find connections between distant and seemingly unrelated fields. And it's even better to express two seemingly separate fields in the same terms. Because then there's a lot of potential to cross apply the techniques which were developed in those fields. You can see the linked result not only as a formal construction of a problem with certain properties, but also as a link between two distant fields and as one of the many steps needed to maybe one day show that those fields are the same thing. One of my theoretician friends likes to say that solutions in mathematics are valuable because of the "moral" they have, i.e. the possibilities and lessons they demonstrate, not because they formally satisfy some conditions. Think of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Centuries ago they were completely separate fields. A growing plant and a lightning bolt were completely different concepts which seemed to be operated by their own distinct laws and have nothing to do with each other. But as the Science progressed, people learned about the elemental particles and could see now that lightning bolt and a plant are not separate concepts, but only manifestations of the same laws and processes on lower levels. Now Physics, Chemistry and Biology are not completely distinct domains (Richard Feynman would argue that the latter two are sub-fields of Physics) and techniques and findings from one can be sometimes converted to the others.