Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July 1st, 2010

Grigory Perelman, a reclusive Russian mathematics genius has decided to decline the Millennium Prize.

Perelman believed the prize was unfair. Perelman told Interfax he considered his contribution to solving the Poincare conjecture no greater than that of Columbia University mathematician Richard Hamilton.
Let me see if I can give some idea of the conjecture.
When most people think of a sphere, they generally consider the space that a sphere occupies—a ping-pong ball, for example. When topologists talk about a sphere, they are talking exclusively about its surface. So whatever you do short of puncturing it makes it still a sphere.
A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can inflate or deflate it; you can mold the sphere into another shape. But in the world of topology, no matter what you do to it, the resulting deformed, twisted and complicated form is still a sphere. It still has its surface in tact, hasn’t it? Say you’re walking down a street, and you encounter a strange and complicated shape whose surface sports peaks and valleys, mountains and molehills, but no holes. If you were a mathematician, you may want to study the way that functions behave on it. Poincaré‘s conjecture says that no matter what it looks like, it’s a sphere.
The Poincaré conjecture says that the three-sphere is the only type of bounded three-dimensional space possible that contains no holes. This conjecture was first proposed in 1904 by H. Poincaré.
The Poincaré conjecture has proved a thorny problem ever since it was first proposed, and its study has led not only to many false proofs, but also to a deepening in the understanding of the topology of manifolds. The Clay Mathematics Institute included the conjecture on its list of $1 million prize problems.

(ack: What is The Poincare Conjecture?
by Stephen Ornes / August 25, 2006-seedmagazine.com)

benny
A: U Klid?
B: R U Klidding?

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Thomas Carlyle saw red when he saw Swinburne. (Swine-born as Punch would characterize him). He refused to receive the poet on the grounds, he was ‘sitting in a sewer and adding to it.’ The poet thin and unsteady with a face all curves with a weak chin and topped with a carrot mop wildly spread out called to mind, one who was addicted to drink if not laudanum. He had a secret vice, of flagellation. Perhaps corporal punishment administrated to him in his school days stuck with him in later life. He got back on Carlyle by this comment: ‘That very sorry pair of phenomena,Thomas Cloacina and his Goody.’
On Charles Lamb Carlyle said thus: ‘Charles Lamb I sincerely believe to be in some considerable degree insane . A more pitiful,rickety,grasping,staggering stammering Tomfool I do not know. ‘. He didn’t spare Coleridge whose work he dismissed as thus:’ A weak,diffusive,weltering,ineffectual man…Never did I see such apparatus got ready for thinking,and so little thought. He mounts scaffolding,pulleys and tackle,gathers all the tools in th neighborhood with labor, with noise,demonstration,precept,abuse, and sets-three bricks.
On Charles Darwin:
I have no patience whatever with these gorilla damnifications of humanity.
bennyl

Read Full Post »