4 ms·
But I do appreciate the comedy! Well while I have you, the message I feel I failed to adhere to in my comment was my interest in letting you, or others who fol
by jrhvmt 2y ago
But I do appreciate the comedy!
Well while I have you, the message I feel I failed to adhere to in my comment was my interest in letting you, or others who follow their passion in math and programming, know that what you are doing is in fact “real” math!
Keep it up!
Your post made me click through a bunch of links in it. Thank you, but give me back that hour! ;P
Better yet, I’ll trade you a different rabbit hole.
Based on your post I think you’d really enjoy this “strange determinant” series from Timothy Gowers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=byjhpzEoXFs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=byjhpzEoXFs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers
- epidemian 2y agoI appreciate the clarification, as well as the initial comment TBH. And i agree actually, that doing this kind of computer-assisted search is indeed "real" maths, or at least a part of it; a useful tool. I think a comment on Lobsters[1] expressed this sentiment better than i could: > It is, but it’s also a bit unsatisfactory, no? A lot of the time the particular statement is less important than the way it was obtained—why or how is something works seems much more relevant to me than the binary question of whether it is true. A novel result more often than not also uses novel proof techniques, which may then be adapted to other problems. One may learn a lot more from the proof than even from the applications of the result. > (Perhaps the author does has a point about the different mindsets :)) And thanks for the video recommendation. Added to my watchlist :) [1]: https://lobste.rs/s/vkqqvl/programming_vs_mathematical_curiosity#c_vixl4m https://lobste.rs/s/vkqqvl/programming_vs_mathematical_curio...