4 ms·
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certain
by sfink 3y ago
Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got to be way, way smaller.
(On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles on Quanta Magazine. I sorta thought this type of quality writing was dead and gone from the freely accessible web.)
- stronglikedan 3y ago> Quanta Magazine Their YT videos are also top notch.
- NooneAtAll3 3y agoare we talking about the same YT channel? the one I looked at had overly-pretentious zooms and panning, while almost no actual info
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoI think you are possibly missing the possibility that going from 4^k to 3.993^k might involve learning something new about the problem. Frequently learning something new is more important than the absolute magnitude of the improvement.
- a1369209993 3y ago> might involve learning something new about the problem I think that's almost literally what sfink said though: > > they're creating a whole new form of proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases
- geodel 3y ago> I sorta thought this type of quality writing was dead and gone from the freely accessible web It is working because its funded by Hedge fund founder billionaire/mathematician and they are not looking for subscription revenues (yet).
- julianeon 3y agoThat explains it. I also wondered how the ad-supported Buzzfeed style web could make the money math work out. Its good to know that’s not the source.
- tecleandor 3y agoOh, I didn't notice it's Jim Simmons's. I saw his opening lecture at 2014's ICM in Seoul, before the Fields Medals. There were lots of questions about how to make money, even when he previously stated that he wouldn't answer any of those.
- NooneAtAll3 3y agodid it change from a year ago? for the last 1-1,5 years quality of explanations in quanta's publications had been aaawful - with situation improving to the previous level only a month or so ago I don't think funding source is the main explanation for quality (tho maybe for _ability_ to have quality)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]