Proof proof proof! (Distant chants)
-
-
-
1975 computer assisted proof of Dressler and Parker:https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1974-28-125/S0025-5718-1974-0327652-1/home.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
12758 = 23^3+8^3+4^3+2^3+7 in case anyone is wondering So I guess maybe 23^3+8^3+4^3+2^3+2^3+(-1^3) but that's not distinct Dang, that's cool
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"The largest number we know"* or there is a mathematical reason for which a largest number cannot be represented as the sum of distinct cubes ?
-
Most probably there is a math reason. Mathematicians always question if there are larger, so I doubt this question can get them unprepared.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Actually that's incorrect, 12758 would be the largest number that can not be represented as the sum of distinct POSITIVE cubes.
-
Actually that’s still not quite it: 12758 is the largest _integer_ ...

- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Based on the fact that 128 is known to be the largest integer which is not expressible as a sum of distinct squares. Let m1, m2,.. be an infinite increasing sequence of positive integers, such that for some positive integer k the inequality m(i+1) > 2m(i), holds for all i > k.
-
Is this really ghoshee?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.