Posted on 03/25/2005 8:50:03 AM PST by bedolido
A number puzzle originating in the work of self-taught maths genius Srinivasa Ramanujan nearly a century ago has been solved. The solution may one day lead to advances in particle physics and computer security.
Karl Mahlburg, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, US, has spent a year putting together the final pieces to the puzzle, which involves understanding patterns of numbers.
"I have filled notebook upon notebook with calculations and equations," says Mahlburg, who has submitted a 10-page paper of his results to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The patterns were first discovered by Ramanujan, who was born in India in 1887 and flunked out of college after just a year because he neglected his studies in subjects outside of mathematics.
But he was so passionate about the subject he wrote to mathematicians in England outlining his theories, and one realised his innate talent. Ramanujan was brought to England in 1914 and worked there until shortly before his untimely death in 1920 following a mystery illness.
Curious patterns Ramanujan noticed that whole numbers can be broken into sums of smaller numbers, called partitions. The number 4, for example, contains five partitions: 4, 3+1, 2+2, 1+1+2, and 1+1+1+1.
He further realised that curious patterns - called congruences - occurred for some numbers in that the number of partitions was divisible by 5, 7, and 11. For example, the number of partitions for any number ending in 4 or 9 is divisible by 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
How many folks are smart enough to understand these things, but aren't out there doing research themselves instead of writing about someone else's for low-circulation science magazines? My guess is, not many. Always part of the problem in science reporting: the folks smart enough to report on these topics well are either researching or (if they haven't got great financial ambitions) teaching (or both).
Only the zaphod's heads don't look like I imagined.
who was it that said "you know the sound of two hands clapping... but what is the sound of one hand clapping"... besides Shelly Berman in the 60's.
I think you have me lost. Care to elaborate?
No, science can be reported to a general audience because most scientists aren't very . . . what's the word . . . bright. Mathematics can't. And when they try, you get an effort like this.
Did someone sneeze?
The article tries to talk about the problem without explaining it. You can't do that. You can't give a "feel" or an "idea" of what's going on. You have to explain it in detail. And then nobody reading the New Scientist would care.
Ah. Yes, that's true. No application of it is implied.
Mostly Harmless...
Well, applications are for wimps. They don't even explain the theory in the article. For any particular application, the answer could be checked by computer.
See post #71. :-)
I'd like to see a Freeper poll of how many people have read at least one Hitchhiker's Guide book.
I'd bet that a bunch of WWII GIs caught it before you invented it...
I started, however, I found them too silly to continue.
In Britain, "Maths" is correct. They spell some words funny over there too. (Tyre, endeavour, glamour, etc.
What about a thread then? Or ping list?
and sport rather than sports.
Bah!! I just use my trusty RPN HP Calculator.
They also crap in the loo.
Where's "MadIvan? He knows the language throughly.
Leave me off that one. LOL!
I truly did not like that book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.