×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

1st pst (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721833)

yeah

Re:1st pst (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721840)

second post. seems like the error condition is preventing everyone from posting.

Withdrawn (5, Informative)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721842)

The paper has since been withdrawn with the reason "A serious error has been found in the paper, specifically, Lemma 8 is incorrect."

Re:Withdrawn (0)

millwall (622730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721873)

So perhaps the Slashdot post should be withdrawn as well since tere is nothing new here. Move along.

Re:Withdrawn (4, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721885)


Yeah, it's likely it'll take a long time to fix it.

Gerald Tenenbaum [u-nancy.fr] (the guy who pointed out the mistake) is quite well known, so if he feels that this affects the paper badly, it's probably quite true - and it maybe a while before people get around coming up with an alternative.

(I know this because Tenenbaum is known to my advisor, Jean Bellissard [gatech.edu] .)

Re:Withdrawn (3, Interesting)

gartogg (317481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722174)

I understand that it's flawed, but Is there any place the original (flawed in lemma 8) proof can be viewed?

(I went to GA Tech for a semester...)

Re:Withdrawn (4, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722232)

Here is the original paper [stanford.edu] .

(it might be gone soon, though - it's an arXiv mirror)

Lemma 8 is on Page 35 -


Lemma 8 Let r(v) and (v) of class C1(v0,), 0 r(v) v0 = 1/2 N0; and let (v) in C0(v ,) be such that

*defines an integral limit for K as a function of (T) for certain values of T, and gives the boundary and limit conditions*



Although this made sense, the proof is kinda over my head, though. :-)

Btw - which dept were you at GT?

Re:Withdrawn (0)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722244)

Bah, Slashdot ate up all the variables and constants that I'd copy/pasted from the PDF - too bad.

You can get it off the paper, anyway.

Re:Withdrawn (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722600)

Props for Bellissard. I'm going to his Calc. II Honors lecture in 30 minutes. Why he was chosen to teach the clueless freshmen, I don't know. He probably has better things to do than watch us stare blankly back at him.

Re:Withdrawn (2, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722625)

Bellissard seriously rocks.

He's one of the people responsible for theoretical QC research in GATech -- along with Chapman and a few other folks from GTRI such as John Cortese.

He's also the former editor of the really respected Theoretical Physics journal, Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré.

Brilliant professor, and a wonderful person.

Re:Withdrawn (0, Redundant)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721945)

This sounds very similar to what happened to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem--hopefully just like with FLT they'll be able to find a way around the problem.

Re:Withdrawn (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721956)

Yes, and you've karma whored straight off the article.

Re:Withdrawn (1, Funny)

kimmerin (782473) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722138)

And who showed that Lemma 8 of the proof is incorrent? G. Tenenbaum of the Institut Élie Cartan in Nancy, so it's a French Fried Proof.

I like a good alliteration as much as anyone (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721844)

Probably more than most. Sadly, that's not what proffered [reference.com] means.

It was proffered a long time ago. The news is that it doesn't work. May I suggest punctured?

Re:I like a good alliteration as much as anyone (2, Informative)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721857)

To offer for acceptance; tender. See Synonyms at offer.

The act of proffering; an offer.

2. To essay or attempt of one's own accord; to undertake, or propose to undertake

Re:I like a good alliteration as much as anyone (0, Offtopic)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722207)

are you agreeing or disagreeing with the coward? I would have been more clear if you offered some of your own text and not just copied the dictionary entry.

In any event the coward is correct, proffered is not the proper word to use in this case.

Re:I like a good alliteration as much as anyone (-1, Troll)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721974)

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEED!
you are the insult master!
you are the insult master!

Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (5, Funny)

dabigpaybackski (772131) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721848)

Who's that weird janitor kid who keeps doing equations on the hallway chalkboards? Maybe he could help out with this.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (-1, Offtopic)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721871)

Matt Damon?

Matt Damon!

Matt Damon.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721894)

HAHAHA!

Mods on crack, eh?

Matt Damon acted in Good Will Hunting - the above poster is just making fun of how Matt Damon was portrayed in Team America.

Heh, some people can't get the bloody joke.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721936)

If I see a +2 or 3 Funny and I agree, I mod insightful or interesting to cancel out the retarded twats who mod anything they don't get as offtopic. I don't see why funny doesn't effect karma anyway, but that's a different issue.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722091)

Yeah, but the way that comment has been modded up and down, it's strange.

Looks like some guy modded it up as informative to make up for the karma loss of it being modded offtopic, and now it's modded down again.

Mods are on crack today.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722122)

affect, not effect.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721898)

Will Hunting

quit watching movies and read a godamn book

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721923)

quit watching movies and read a godamn book

Really?

As a matter of fact, I do [metlin.org] .

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722245)

http://metlin.org/personal/karthik-books.html

God, what horribly broken html you write! Yuck. It's completely unreadable in Mozilla. Hint: validator.w3.org [w3.org] .

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722276)

It's just a personal list - it's written in Excel and exported as HTML.

Btw, it works fine on both Firefox and Mozilla 1.7.3 - do a refresh and it renders fine.

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721914)

Yeah, this is actually the one time that Matt Damon is ON TOPIC...

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721920)

since when has a maths nerd known where there are infinitely many prime twins!

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722153)

or even where just one pair of prime twins are?

Re:Get MIT on the line, ASAP! (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722299)

since when has a maths nerd known where there are infinitely many prime twins!

Unfortunately, the proof was only that there _are_ infinitely many of them. Actually finding them is left as an exercise to the reader.

/. version (5, Funny)

cheezemonkhai (638797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721860)

"Continuing on a previous slashdot story regarding Arenstorf's proof of the existence of Infinitely Many First Posts, it seems that a hole has recently been found in the proof, however mathematicians remain hopeful that the proof can be corrected."

old news (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721863)

The mistake was found back in June [nodak.edu]

Re:old news (5, Interesting)

gnalle (125916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722167)

A simple Google search [google.com] reveals that the story is a dupe [slashdot.org] . Search the old threads for cool comments to boost your karma :)

When I get more time I want to make a perl script that wgets slashdot.org once an hour and searches google for dupes. It is probably enough to test if any links from present slashdot stories have appeared on the site before, but perhaps I can find a way to pick out relevant title words. Once my script has found a dupe it should pick a few highrated comments from the old thread and repost them :)

Re: old news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722484)

It is old news (the paper was withdrawn in June) but it is not, apparently, a slashdot dupe. The link you gave is to a different withdrawn proof of a close relative to the twin prime conjecture. If you want to see the flawed paper, follow the original link to v1.

Tenenbaum? (2, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721865)

While Arenstorf's approach looks promising, an error in one particular step of the proof (...) has recently been pointed out by (...) Tenenbaum

Damn him, he claims Linux design is wrong too!

err, does he?

Re:Tenenbaum? (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722488)

50% Funny
40% Overrated
10% Informative

Try getting more negative karma from a single post, trolls!

I love.... (5, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721870)

scientists doing math,
slashdotters aimless wrath,
comments from stupid jerks,

and TWINS!

Re:I love.... (1, Funny)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722013)

That is just beautiful! This deserves more than +5 funny as it is the best post I've read on /. in months...

Oh wait, that sort says something about us doesn't it.

Re:I love.... (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722120)

Yeah, but its still 7am on the Eastern Seaboard, and no one outside North America has ever seen that Coors advert.

Re:I love.... (0, Offtopic)

Xiver (13712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722214)

I know this will probably get a -1 country music modifier, but...

Reminds me of an old Tom T. Hall Song...

I love little baby ducks, old pick-up trucks, slow-moving trains, and rain
I love little country streams, sleep without dreams, sunday school in may, And hay
And I love you too

I love leaves in the wind, pictures of my friends, birds in the world, and squirrels
I love coffee in a cup, little fuzzy pups, bourbon in a glass, and grass,
And I love you too

I love honest open smiles, kisses from a child, tomatoes on the vine, and onions
I love winners when they cry, losers when they try, music when it's good, and life
And I love you too

Re:I love.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722411)

I see your -1 country music modifier and raise you a -5 country music modifier.

thank you, that will be all

FROST PIST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721926)

FRIST PSOT

Re:FROST PIST (0, Offtopic)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721961)

You must be a pure mathematician.

You seem quite cut off from the reality of a first post. ;-)

Re:FROST PIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722012)

Man, mods are crazy today.

Either that, or they have no clue whatsoever about math or the article.

Not getting the joke != offtopic.

Not quite ready for prime time (-1, Troll)

goneutt (694223) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721927)

I don't get to bug a mathematician for another 4 hours, but why are these huge primes of any concern.

ugh, only in math do all the digits count. In all the other fields a few decimal places will do. (unless your atomic modeling, then 10^128 numbers might be usefull). Thats a quick summary of why I suck in calculus, but can apply it perfectly. Give me usable numbers, like Pi to five places. (except in tennesse, where it's sometimes defined as 3)

Re:Not quite ready for prime time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10721966)

Umm.... cryptography? You ever use SSL?

twin primes. (4, Interesting)

rubberbando (784342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721937)

Before I go into my spiel, I will admit that I am no scientist or mathematician.

I always have had an obsession with the pattern of prime numbers. Now and then I get motivated and download a current list of those discovered. With that I try to find some magical pattern, in hopes of finding a secret message or formula explaining reality. When that announcement was made in the previous slashdot story, I did find the claim of infinite primes to be troubling. From my own observations, I believe the gaps between primes may fluctuate greatly but the maximum and minimums grow ever higher. To me these gaps look like some sort of waveform. If I had better coding skills in the manipulation of sound, I would write a program to generate a sound wave out of these numbers. Does anyone know if this has been tried and if so, what was discovered?

Re:twin primes. (2, Insightful)

Moderatbastard (808662) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721949)

maximum and minimums grow ever higher
It's maxima and minima. And I would have thought that the latter tend to grow ever lower...

Re:twin primes. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722430)

Since the gap between two primes cannot get smaller than the gap between 2 and 3 (i.e. no number in between at all), the minimum gap is actually a constant function as soon as you passed 3 (and undefined before, of course).

Now, giben that primes with only one number in between are called twin primes, what about 2 and 3, which are even closer, with nothing in between? Maybe siamese twin primes?

Re:twin primes. (3, Informative)

fymidos (512362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722041)

>claim of infinite primes to be troubling

it is not a claim, it was proven a long long time ago.
This proof is about infinite number of "prime twins" , primes that are next to each other (like 11-13)

Re:twin primes. (1)

rubberbando (784342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722070)

it is not a claim, it was proven a long long time ago. This proof is about infinite number of "prime twins" , primes that are next to each other (like 11-13)

My bad. I meant infinite twin primes, not infinite primes.

Re:twin primes. (4, Informative)

isometrick (817436) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722043)

I think the average maximum difference between primes may increase as primes grow higher (prime density decreases), but twin primes (primes of form p and p+2) continue to exist so the minimum difference for any range can still be very low. IMHO, numerology should be treated like any other -ology, but I did find one reference to what you are talking about: The Music of the Primes [google.com] , however the site seems to be gone/down. Good luck with your search!

Re:twin primes. (2, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722063)

IMHO, numerology should be treated like any other -ology,

Errr, numerology [wikipedia.org] is more of a mystical study, considered to be pseudoscience.

Perhaps you meant Number Theory [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:twin primes. (1)

isometrick (817436) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722074)

I meant numerology. I think that finding music in the primes qualifies as numerology.

Re:twin primes. (2, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722112)

Ah, my bad. I thought you were talking of Primes in P w.r.t. numerology, and being a physicist completely ignored the rest of the content =)

Been up all night, need more sleep.

No. %s/g/sleep/coffee. Better!

Re:twin primes. (2, Interesting)

locofungus (179280) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722352)

It's trivial to prove that there is an arbitrarily long sequence of numbers with no primes in it.

(n+1)!+2 ... (n+1)!+n+1 is a run of n numbers none of which are prime.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to go all the way to (n+1)! before you can find a run of n numbers without a prime, merely that such a run must exist.

Treat any -ology the same? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722396)

Is this intended to be a positive or negative treatment of -ology words in general.

Either way it is silly. We have:

Numerology

Geology

Astrology

Zoology

Scientology

Psycology

Phrenology

Biology

Theology

Anaesthesiology

Do you really advocate treating all these the same?

Re:Treat any -ology the same? (1)

isometrick (817436) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722624)

I thought about that when I was writing it, but I thought that most people would get the meaning of what I was saying.

I guess I overestimated.

Re:twin primes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722069)

From my own observations, I believe the gaps between primes may fluctuate greatly but the maximum and minimums grow ever higher. To me these gaps look like some sort of waveform. If I had better coding skills in the manipulation of sound, I would write a program to generate a sound wave out of these numbers. Does anyone know if this has been tried and if so, what was discovered?

Are you stoned?

Re:twin primes. (1, Interesting)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722088)

Good summary from a waveform perspective [maths.org] .
There are definitely an infinitely large number of primes. Proof: assume a finite number of primes p1,p2,...,pn (counting from smallest to largest). Then p1*p2*...*pn + 1 is divisible by none of these (hence is prime) and is larger than pn. This is a contradiction of the original assumption, which must therefore be wrong. Hence there are an infinite number of primes.

Re:twin primes. (2, Informative)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722587)

You cannot conclude that p1*...pn+1 is prime. For example 2*3*5*7*11*13+1 = 30031, which is divisible by 59, hence NOT prime. However, what you CAN conclude is that p1*...pn+1 is either prime, or has a prime factor larger than any of the given pk's.

Re:twin primes. (1)

Ian Glover (176720) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722588)

p1*p2*...*pn + 1 isn't necessarily prime (for example n = 4 gives 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 + 1 = 211 = 13 * 16). But if isn't then it must be divisible by prime other than p1, ..., pn so you've still got the contradiction.

Re:twin primes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722103)

>> I did find the claim of infinite primes to be troubling.

There are infinitely many primes - that's a really old, really easy proof that people in discrete math courses everywhere do on homeworks. You can find it in any undergrad into to discrete math text.

The article is talking about twin primes.

Re:twin primes. (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722168)

First, I assume you mean twin primes. Proving infinite primes is trivial and from ancient Greece. It is a proved fact that there are arbitrarily large gaps in the prime sequence (i.e. infinitely large gaps). And that primes get rarer and rarer, in the limit, infinitely rare. Neither of those means that the number of primes is finite.

Basicly, if you set it up as a probability statement:
p( prime ) -> 0
p( prime pair ) -> 0

The latter will simply go towards 0 a lot faster than the former. All you would need to prove is that there must be one more pair (which is not trivial) and you're done.

Take the greek proof, where you multiply all known primes and add 1. Imagine if you took say, the 1000 smallest primes. All it proves is that there's a prime q <= p1*p2*....*p999*p1000+1. That product will be much much greater than any one of the primes. All it takes it one in the entire interval, and the total is infinite.

Kjella

Re:twin primes. (1)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722237)

To me these gaps look like some sort of waveform. If I had better coding skills in the manipulation of sound, I would write a program to generate a sound wave out of these numbers. Does anyone know if this has been tried and if so, what was discovered?

"All your base are belong to us" in a slightly annoyed British accent.

The Real Twin-Prime Proof (3, Informative)

bearnol (259150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721946)

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

carnivore302 (708545) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722075)

While I'm not a mathematician, I'm sure this proof is flawed because of the way it works with infinite series.

It kind of reminds me of the "proof" that 0 equals 1.

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722084)

Wow. That site seems to have a lot of other cool stuff, too. Thanks!

I'm guessing you're probably not the same James Wanless as the tarot reader/whatever?

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

bearnol (259150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722117)

Assuming your first comment is meant without sarcasm (of which I have encountered quite a lot :-( ) - thank you too - I hope you do indeed find my site of interest...
Wrt your second comment - that is correct - he and I are separate individuals, with no direct connection other than our names - though I do quite like tarot! :-)

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722145)

No sarcasm intended, merely meant it as a compliment. Noticed that the upper directory [blueyonder.co.uk] had a lot of other cool math stuff, too.

(haven't gone through them - yet, merely noticed that there seemed to be a lot of good mathematical content).

You should probably read Primes is in P [iitk.ac.in] - good paper.

PS - There is no such thing as FBT, atleast AFAIK. Is that one of yours? Has it been published/peer reviewed?

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722169)

ROTFL!

Didn't realize for a fact about some of the stuff you have, nice :-P

Almost had me, until I decided to look deeper.

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (1)

bearnol (259150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722318)

Yes, indeed - the funny thing is (and it's a REALLY big joke! :-) it actually _is_ all true and complete ie correct...
J

Re:The Real Twin-Prime Proof (0)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722338)

Ofcourse.

Proof by induction, eh mate? ;-)

Wonder how many math-challenged would actually get it, though. Good one!

Poor hyperlinking (2, Insightful)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721973)

While Slashdot stories (unlike most of the Flash-based web) can be a good example of hyperlinking, this story (after the first link) was appalling - why was the link to the withdrawal placed around the words 'infinitiely many twin primes'? Not only did I immediately wonder why there seemed to be no link to evidence of the withdrawal, but there was no direct link to explain what the twin prime conjecture is...

Serious Error.. (3, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 9 years ago | (#10721993)

[i]it seems that a hole has recently been found in the proof[/i]

He forgot to carry the 1

Math humor (3, Funny)

Brian Kendig (1959) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722078)

At a conference, a mathematician proves a theorem. Someone in the audience interrupts him: "That proof must be wrong. I have a counterexample to your theorem." The speaker replies, "I don't care, I have another proof for it."

Please don't start... (5, Funny)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722109)

An example of the maths humour genre from my Director of Studies (who was pissed at the time):

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Upon which the others chorused "Shut up you ****ing pedant!" and hurled him out the train window. ...it seemed funnier at the time. Specially after the Zorb's Lemon joke.

Re:Please don't start... (2, Funny)

RichDice (7079) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722515)

Here's the joke that completely killed me and my friends doing physics & astronomy degress back just a tad more than a decade ago...

There once was a very wealthy man who enjoyed greatly betting on horse races. As he was motivated to win in all his endeavours, he desired to find a perfect method for placing his bets at the track.

To this end, he hired three experts whom he set upon the task of finding a perfect betting system. They were a biologist, a statistician, and a physicist. He gave them a year to investigate and told them to present their results after the year was up.

When it was time to present the results, he gathered them together.

"Did you find a perfect system?" he asked the biologist. "I studied everything I could about the muscular power, reflex reaction time, diet, training, and many other things. Unfortunately the variables were just too complicated and there were too many of them, so I couldn't find a perfect system."

Not a problem, thought the man, I have two other experts. So he asked the statistician if he had found a perfect system.

"I analyzed every piece of data that I could: track condition, weather conditions, time of day, jockey, competitors, age of the horse... just everything. I ran every regression I could. But there were just too many variables and I couldn't develop a predicable model from them."

Now the man was concerned, so with hestitation he asked the physicist if he had discovered a perfect system for betting on horses at the race.

"Yes!" exclaimed the physicist, "I have!"

"Terrific!" said the man.

"Well," started the physicist slowly, "there is one problem. It only works for spherical horses moving through a vacuum."

Cheers,
Richard

Well, you know what they say... (1)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722540)

Engineers think that equations imitate reality
Physicists think that reality imitates equations
Mathematicians can't make the connection

Re:Math humor (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722121)

And here's how to confuse a mathematician:

Let odds be even...

Re:Math humor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722273)

I don't get it. Howsoever you continue that sentence, it is completely logical, since you can prove anything from a contradiction. How would you go about confusing a mathematician with that?

Re:Math humor (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722427)

You, my friend, must be a mathematician, because only a mathematician would say that "you can prove anything from a contradiction". You are clearly confused, seeing as you don't see how this statement would confuse a mathematician. It seems to work...

Object Oriented Programming.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722252)

..forces stupid "software engineering professors" who can only think top-down, bottom-up programming. And that's why they likes it

Lemma (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722392)

Prove: If n and n+2 paired primes, n+1 is divisible by 6.

Re:Lemma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10722412)

(The exception being the pair 3,5.)

My Twin Prime problems (-1, Offtopic)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10722417)

It started in HS. I dated a 1 of a pair of twins. She was very cute, but then I moved away... and we broke up.

My second girlfriend was met at a supermarket where I was a cachier. She turned out to be a twin too. Very difficult when you can barely tell them apart. Anyways, broke up with her.

A few more women... then in college .... another twin. This one was alot of fun but just wasn't connecting. Oddly enough she lived in the same city I was moving to.

Start taking classes at RIT, meet another twin ;) Didn't go anywhere great.

Finally, twin from college introduces me to her sister. Sister and I hit it off... and tommorow I propose ;)

So thats my Prime Twin Problem Solved.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...