![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack"A proof of the Riemann hypothesis"
Linked from God plays dice blog, a putative paper on the Riemann hypothesis. I can't read it, I never was plugged into the mathematical grapevine. But it would feel remiss in the extreme not to pass on the comment.
For non-mathematicians, the Riemann hypothesis refers to a simple formula f(z), where z is a complex number. It is zero at z=-2, z=-4, z=-6, etc. It is also zero for many complex numbers z=0.5+it, ie. with real part 1/2, and some imaginary part. The hypothesis is that these are the only complex numbers with f(z)=0.
This is explained in more detail in the comments below, directly after "unnecessarily confusing, you should have..." and before "not entirely accurate because...".
The Riemann hypothesis is interesting because it ties into all sorts of different maths (eg. primes), and everyone's sure it's true, and people have had computers checking millions of solutions and seeing that they do conform, and there's lots of maths proved on the assumption that it's true. If it were proved, it would be the most famous result in maths in the last, um, ten years :)
ETA: The result is from a stable that does work on the Riemann Hypothesis, but has had several flawed proofs published before. This was flawed, and maybe patched already.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Evolution , with the magic of stop-motion fridges. (Also: Dumbasses put hands over their ears and say "la la la, can't hear you". Original scientist sends long, thoughtful reply saying "Pull your fucking heads out of your asses, already. Duh.") Disclaimer: people who believe in the absence of any sort of evolution are not automatically dumbasses. Really.
God hates FAQs
A friend recently linked to a service which, when you're raptured, can send a last message to a loved one. There are two basic approaches. You've been left behind .com is run by Christians, and employs an ingenious dead-man's-handle.
Post Rapture Post .com is run by atheists. Post Rapture Post is a lot funnier.
Q. How Do We Know that You Will Not Ascend To Heaven with Us?
A. The Bible says that only those that repent of their sins and accept Jesus as the True Son of God will be saved. We do neither. Some of our personal sins include: drunkenness, heresy, sacrilige/blasphemy, gluttony, laciviousness, and sloth. There is no way we are going to disappear into Heaven any time soon.
Q. Aren't You Afraid of God's Wrath?
A. We don't believe in God, remember? In the event that the Rapture actually occurs, we will go to Plan B: "Lifetime of Sin Followed by Deathbed Repentance."
FWIW, I think both sites, whatever their personal beliefs, genuinely offer the service, but don't hold me to that.
Linked from God plays dice blog, a putative paper on the Riemann hypothesis. I can't read it, I never was plugged into the mathematical grapevine. But it would feel remiss in the extreme not to pass on the comment.
For non-mathematicians, the Riemann hypothesis refers to a simple formula f(z), where z is a complex number. It is zero at z=-2, z=-4, z=-6, etc. It is also zero for many complex numbers z=0.5+it, ie. with real part 1/2, and some imaginary part. The hypothesis is that these are the only complex numbers with f(z)=0.
This is explained in more detail in the comments below, directly after "unnecessarily confusing, you should have..." and before "not entirely accurate because...".
The Riemann hypothesis is interesting because it ties into all sorts of different maths (eg. primes), and everyone's sure it's true, and people have had computers checking millions of solutions and seeing that they do conform, and there's lots of maths proved on the assumption that it's true. If it were proved, it would be the most famous result in maths in the last, um, ten years :)
ETA: The result is from a stable that does work on the Riemann Hypothesis, but has had several flawed proofs published before. This was flawed, and maybe patched already.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Evolution , with the magic of stop-motion fridges. (Also: Dumbasses put hands over their ears and say "la la la, can't hear you". Original scientist sends long, thoughtful reply saying "Pull your fucking heads out of your asses, already. Duh.") Disclaimer: people who believe in the absence of any sort of evolution are not automatically dumbasses. Really.
God hates FAQs
A friend recently linked to a service which, when you're raptured, can send a last message to a loved one. There are two basic approaches. You've been left behind .com is run by Christians, and employs an ingenious dead-man's-handle.
Post Rapture Post .com is run by atheists. Post Rapture Post is a lot funnier.
Q. How Do We Know that You Will Not Ascend To Heaven with Us?
A. The Bible says that only those that repent of their sins and accept Jesus as the True Son of God will be saved. We do neither. Some of our personal sins include: drunkenness, heresy, sacrilige/blasphemy, gluttony, laciviousness, and sloth. There is no way we are going to disappear into Heaven any time soon.
Q. Aren't You Afraid of God's Wrath?
A. We don't believe in God, remember? In the event that the Rapture actually occurs, we will go to Plan B: "Lifetime of Sin Followed by Deathbed Repentance."
FWIW, I think both sites, whatever their personal beliefs, genuinely offer the service, but don't hold me to that.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:36 pm (UTC)I think it's substantially less interesting to have a behaviour acquired from acquisition of genetic material from elsewhere that already had evolved or otherwise acquired that behaviour, than to have a behaviour that spontaneously develops.
I don't think there's much debate about whether there are small changes in the genetic code from generation to generation; the dangerous argument to deal with is the "but you can't get significant large-scale change out of lots of very small changes" one, and in the absence of contamination, this experiment is very important on that front. If contamination could have occurred (and I can't see a way of ruling it out), the experiment is interesting but weak.
It's going to be fascinating (but I sadly suspect inconclusive) to see what the differences are between the first generation that will exhibit the change and the last generation that won't.
Of course, even if it turns out that the difference consists of a very small point change (which makes available a previously unavailable section of material that's present in both), then the annoying creationist argument will still be that all the interesting code sequences had to always have been there all the time.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:47 pm (UTC)Slightly relevant information: I work for the Macromolecular Structures Database group - who are the repository of protein crystal structure files.