I feel like we don’t talk enough about how ridiculous the proof of Monsky’s theorem is.
My impression is that people mainly bring it up because of the p-adics, but there's also a nice connection to tropical geometry which I learned about from Matt Baker's wonderful blog:https://mattbaker.blog/2016/03/24/p-adic-numbers-and-dissections-of-squares-into-triangles/ …
-
-
I think it’s the combination of the 2-adic valuation and Sperner’s lemma, both of which are a bit magical and feel quite distant from the original problem. Interesting post. Thanks for the link.
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.