> With this red flag emblazoned on it, the proof continued to be ignored. Finally, in December 2015, the Polish mathematician Rafał Latała and his student Dariusz Matlak put out a paper advertising Royen’s proof, reorganizing it in a way some people found easier to follow.
I studied Probability Theory under prof. dr hab. Rafał Latała. He is a great researcher and amazing teacher.
Decades were spent applying exceedingly complex mathematical techniques, but in the end, the proof involved relatively rudimentary knowledge. And to top it all off, Royen submitted his proof to some unknown journal in India and called it a day!
I'm glad quanta touched on the fact that people still want a more geometric proof. In general the technique of a proof is as important as the statement with regards to mathematical impact, perhaps even more.
The number of random dart throws in the intersection of the shapes is greater than or equal to the number in either individual shape.
Well, sort of. The wikipedia page says "the proportion of the darts landing in the intersection of both shapes is no less than the product of the proportions of the darts landing in each shape."
Stories like this always remind me of how much we as a society love the story of unexpected loners figuring out the secret. There's nothing wrong with that, but there also some wonderful breakthroughs being made by groups of people working together.
I'd love to see a film about someone like Terrence Tao, a man best known for all the breakthroughs coming from collaborations.
I wonder about the "red flag" discussed in the article. Can't editors submit articles to journals with them on the editorial board? I'd think that it is valid to submit to other editors.
Readers of the paper can’t know who handled the submission.
Even if that were published, there still would be the suspicion that other editors wouldn’t want to reject a paper from someone they work with (this may be a fairly loose ‘work with’ for editors of a,journal, but again, whose to know?)
Previous discussion [1], 71 comments.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13977554
> With this red flag emblazoned on it, the proof continued to be ignored. Finally, in December 2015, the Polish mathematician Rafał Latała and his student Dariusz Matlak put out a paper advertising Royen’s proof, reorganizing it in a way some people found easier to follow.
I studied Probability Theory under prof. dr hab. Rafał Latała. He is a great researcher and amazing teacher.
This was an amazing read!
Decades were spent applying exceedingly complex mathematical techniques, but in the end, the proof involved relatively rudimentary knowledge. And to top it all off, Royen submitted his proof to some unknown journal in India and called it a day!
I'm glad quanta touched on the fact that people still want a more geometric proof. In general the technique of a proof is as important as the statement with regards to mathematical impact, perhaps even more.
The wikipedia diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_correlation_inequalit... helps gain an intuition for the Gaussian correlation inequality. The diagram shows a circle and a rectangle centered on the origin.
The number of random dart throws in the intersection of the shapes is greater than or equal to the number in either individual shape.
Well, sort of. The wikipedia page says "the proportion of the darts landing in the intersection of both shapes is no less than the product of the proportions of the darts landing in each shape."
That Wikipedia article wasn't even created until shortly after the Quanta magazine article was published.
Stories like this always remind me of how much we as a society love the story of unexpected loners figuring out the secret. There's nothing wrong with that, but there also some wonderful breakthroughs being made by groups of people working together.
I'd love to see a film about someone like Terrence Tao, a man best known for all the breakthroughs coming from collaborations.
I wonder about the "red flag" discussed in the article. Can't editors submit articles to journals with them on the editorial board? I'd think that it is valid to submit to other editors.
Readers of the paper can’t know who handled the submission.
Even if that were published, there still would be the suspicion that other editors wouldn’t want to reject a paper from someone they work with (this may be a fairly loose ‘work with’ for editors of a,journal, but again, whose to know?)
Non-AMP link: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/elusive-math-proof-found-almos...
We've updated the link from https://www-wired-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.wired.com/2..., which points to this original source.