Mathematicians solve a complex, 120 year-old problem...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Asher

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think that's why he was making a joke.

Nah, I just wanted to see who would be the first poster to act like a total dick.

[civman2000]

I know little about the topic, but this hardly sounds like a newsworthy achievement. I mean, it's an impressive feat of computation, but it's not like they solved some big deep open problem.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Nah, I just wanted to see who would be the first poster to act like a total dick.

So someone pointing out you're incorrect and explaining why is being a total dick in your book?

Originally posted by civman2000
I know little about the topic, but this hardly sounds like a newsworthy achievement. I mean, it's an impressive feat of computation, but it's not like they solved some big deep open problem.

I was also sort of wondering about this.
From what I could see, it seemed mostly like a big computation, but I am not familiar with the details either.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Asher
Here's the map of E8 from Wikipedia:



4 years

Hey! That's not symmetrical!
Back to the drawingboard.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by civman2000
I know little about the topic, but this hardly sounds like a newsworthy achievement. I mean, it's an impressive feat of computation, but it's not like they solved some big deep open problem.

The same goes for the HGP, but look at the fanfare that got.

[Jon Miller]

There just isn't the romance in a lot of computational work.

Jon Miller

[Flubber]

My question is why this matters. Does solving this structure have implications that can actually be used?

I note that the enthusiastic math guy said -- "This groundbreaking achievement is significant both as an advance in basic knowledge, as well as a major advance in the use of large scale computing to solve complicated mathematical problems "


So solving this complex problem is important . . . . because it shows our ability to solve complex problems ??

I'll be excited if we can build stronger things with less materials or whatnot but this just seems to be an academic exercise with no real point.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Pekka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%E2%82%88_%28mathematics%29

This baby has 240 vectors in an eight-dimensional space. These vectors are the corners of an eight-dimensional object called the Gosset polytope 4 21 represented here in two dimensions

Not the prettiest picture I've seen. Poor math guys using precious time on making a bad painting.

[Wittlich]

They could have saved years of research by just using a spyrograph...

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Flubber
I'll be excited if we can build stronger things with less materials or whatnot but this just seems to be an academic exercise with no real point.

This is a very shortsighted view.

Historically, if mankind had restricted itself to discoveries that allowed it to "build more stuff with less" in the short to medium term, I'm not sure we would have made it past the Middle Ages if even that.



Mathematics is often studied as "an academic exercise" as you say, but the subject as a coherent whole and results often have unexpected applications, sometimes much later.
I'll give an example.
Number theory has always been a central branch of mathematics (it is often called the "queen of mathematics").
Yet it had arguably no direct applications until recently. Number theorists studied it because it was interesting.
Now, number theory is the basis for all cryptography so underlies all of practical information security.


There are many other examples in the rest of science.
Take the theory of relativity.
How long from its publication to the first application (application here means not understanding of something, but ability to do something we couldn't do before)?
I'd say maybe 40 years (atomic bomb?) is a good estimate.

This is far from isolated. Most advances in mathematics or physics that end up having applications usually take a very long time to do so.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The same goes for the HGP, but look at the fanfare that got.

Yes but in mathematics, if it is known how to do some computations, actually doing them is often not considered very important. I'm not saying useless, but not "breakthrough" or what not.

This particular news I didn't see on any math news site.

[Jon Miller]

huh? General Relativity has no application as of yet. The Atomic bomb is based off of Quantum physics, not GR.

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

LT said relativity, not GR. Special relativity played a role, didn't it?

[Jon Miller]

It is central in quantum field theory, I don't know much about the calculations needed to work out the basics of the Atomic bomb. Standard Quantum Mechanics isn't Lorentz Invariant though.

However, Special Relativity was very small stuff, Lorentz had already done a lot of the work, and was obvious to most everyone. Therefore I assumed he was refering to GR, which is what is more obviously refered to with theory of relativity.

Jon Miller
edit: We didn't have QFT until the 50s btw)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Yes but in mathematics, if it is known how to do some computations, actually doing them is often not considered very important. I'm not saying useless, but not "breakthrough" or what not.

This particular news I didn't see on any math news site.

LUL

Is this important or not? You seem to go back and forth . . . Or is it important in the sense that any scientific knowledge could potentially be important someday somehow in ways we don't yet understand. I get that -- and I see much value in pure undirected research for the mere purpose of research.