Re:Mathematicians Outwit Hidden Number Conspiracy
by ximeng on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @05:04AM
(#29793194)
I think maybe Wikipedia is better here than Wolfram's site, it has entries for Ramanujan graphs and expander graphs for example.
The paper does actually seem readable, especially at the beginning, but it's dense and long. Somewhere between the article and the paper in terms of complexity and technicality would definitely be interesting to me, although I realise it's a lot of work to produce something like that.
Interestingly the paper acknowledges collaborators who have helped via MathOverflow. I wonder if a collaborative site for explaining maths papers in more detail could be viable. After all, even xkcd.com has explainxkcd.com. Like you, I am not sure what this would like, but it would be fun to find out.
Re:Mathematicians Outwit Hidden Number Conspiracy
by ianai on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @05:20AM
(#29793282)
It kind of sounds like they think they found a kernel of knowledge which could form the body of something like a for-loop or inductive step of an induction proof of the larger problem.
The paper does actually seem readable, especially at the beginning, but it's dense and long. Somewhere between the article and the paper in terms of complexity and technicality would definitely be interesting to me, although I realise it's a lot of work to produce something like that.
Interestingly the paper acknowledges collaborators who have helped via MathOverflow. I wonder if a collaborative site for explaining maths papers in more detail could be viable. After all, even xkcd.com has explainxkcd.com. Like you, I am not sure what this would like, but it would be fun to find out.