TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

After 100 Years, Ramanujan Gap Filled (2013)

127 点作者 bladecatcher大约 10 年前

3 条评论

throwaway88760大约 10 年前
At first I thought the comments saying &quot;this is not a proof&quot; were being sarcastic, but I guess readers are simply not aware.<p>Ramanajuan derived a lot of his mathematical writings from intuition and seldom had proofs to the level of Western expectations.<p>It&#x27;s nice that his &quot;lost&quot; formulae have been verified, but more important would be an understanding of the intuition behind them.<p>I&#x27;m hoping that would lead to tools for lighter-weight proofs than the recent heavy-weight and impenetrable Weil et al proofs.
评论 #9544019 未加载
monochromatic大约 10 年前
I don&#x27;t really understand this article. It reads like pop science because of all the elided details, but no layperson could possibly understand it. But I&#x27;m not sure how much an expert would really out of it either. The stuff about &quot;having solutions for a particular function&quot; is just nonsense.<p>Also, can <i>anyone</i> actually decipher the handwritten stuff?
_dark_matter_大约 10 年前
Here&#x27;s their method:<p>&gt;First, calculate a numerical value for the point of interest. Second, conjecture a closed algebraic form for this number. Third, express the algebraic number as nested radicals. Finally, check the conjectured form with many digits of accuracy.<p>But this isn&#x27;t a proof. It&#x27;s just empirical evidence. At least it seems to me - I&#x27;m no mathematician.
评论 #9540948 未加载
评论 #9543360 未加载
评论 #9541704 未加载