3 ms·
Source paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05537 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05537
by thirdmunky 4y ago
Source paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05537 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05537
- n4r9 4y agoPlus much shorter write-up from Bloom and Sisask: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- red_trumpet 4y agoI think you mean this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211
- n4r9 4y agoYes, thank you!
- rml 4y agoautomatic conversion to web page available at https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2302.07211 https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2302.07211 (more info about the conversions at https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org)
- eternalban 4y agoTIL. Thank you for this. https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/ https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/
- voxelghost 4y agoSeems to only be working for papers in TeX?
- satvikpendem 4y agoSee also, ArΧiv Vanity: https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2302.07211/ https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2302.07211/
- lixtra 4y agoThe first half page finally made me understand the problem. I didn’t get it from the article.
- n4r9 4y agoThe statement in the article: > a limit on the size of a set of integers in which no three of them are evenly spaced This misses a key detail. You can trivially find arbitrarily large such sets e.g. take the first however many powers of 2: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ... The missing constraint is that the set of integers must be a subset of { 1, 2, ... , N }.
- monktastic1 4y agoI thought it was pretty clear from this: > Erdős and Turán wanted to know how many numbers smaller than some ceiling N can be put into a set without creating any three-term arithmetic progressions.
- charlieyu1 4y ago[flagged]
- compacct27 4y agoTrue, but we wouldn't be discussing this without the journalism in the first place
- charlieyu1 4y agoJust state the result. 15 year olds can understand big O notation and arithmetic progressions. Instead we get a long article that nobody gets what is actually going on even after reading it.
- Ar-Curunir 4y agoWhat nonsense. Would you have even heard of this paper if not for Quanta? Also, no mathematician or computer scientist I know has anything negative to say about Quanta.
- pmezard 4y agoI do not really understand the unconditional love for Quanta. Sure it is better it exists than not but I find the articles vague and mostly about people/institution name dropping. "Someone someone from the prestigious MIT said <this is a tremendous result!>". Cool I guess? Take this one: - No clear explanation of the problem to solve. Could have given an example or something to hammer out what is an arithmetic progression of 3 numbers. - No detail about the actual form of the previous bound and the new one. - Not much detail about the actual technique. I get that it become very technical very quickly. But that is the actual job of a science/math journalist to distill this. "They used a well know technique of increasing density, etc.". If it is well know, why not try to describe how it works. I wonder what someone like 3blue1brown would make of this.
- impendia 4y ago> I wonder what someone like 3blue1brown would make of this. Although I am not Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown creator), I would wager very good money that he would strongly approve. I am a research mathematician, I do read Quanta, and I've been interviewed for them also. Overall my impression is that they do a good job of making at least something of contemporary research mathematics accessible to the general public. Most people have very little concept of what we do. It is a notoriously hard task, it is a vitally important one, and it is one that too few people are attempting. Quanta does the best job of it of any publication I know, and for that I am very grateful.