@St_Rev In case this is of any interest (greek to me): http://phys.org/news/2014-04-mathematicians-source-rogers-ramanujan-identities-algebraic.html …
@St_Rev East of the Sun, West of the Moon. I understood almost none of it. Also, I'm an idiot. I can program the fuck out computers, though.
-
-
@Meaningness Moral of the story: there is no point writing news articles on mathematical research, bc epsilon > readers > 0 will understand. -
@St_Rev EXCEPT WHAT THE GODDAMN MOLECULE IS - 16 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness Algebraic numbers are just the zeroes of polynomials with integer coefficients. Up to degree 4, you can write them explicitly.. -
@St_Rev That much I knew… :-)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness And 100 years later, someone finally figured out why they work and how to make more of them, the end. -
@St_Rev Naturally I’ve read Hardy’s Apology and looked at the Ramanujan formulas and ran away shrieking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness So, apparently Ramanujan wrote formulas that magically spit out algebraic numbers & didn't explain anything, because Ramanujan.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness ...just using radicals. (e.g. using the quadratic formula). But degree 5+ is hairy, as Galois proved.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness Number theorists and other unsavory types would like to have more of an analytic handle on e.g. x^17 + x + 17.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.