Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Stockholm or Bust :-?

Expand Messages
  • David Broadhurst
    On a lighter note, I was reading http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/as-29.11.02-000/ ... Here, with a couple of years of schoolchild german from a long way
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2002
      On a lighter note, I was reading

      http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/as-29.11.02-000/

      > Solche Suchprojekte werden niemals wirklich enden,
      > sondern nur Etappenziele ansteuern,
      > denn eine "groesste" Primzahl gibt es nicht,
      > das hatte schon der alte Grieche Euklid nachgewiesen --
      > zumindest fuer klassische Zahlenraeume.

      Here, with a couple of years of schoolchild german
      from a long way back, is my stab at a translation.

      > Such search-projects will provably never end,
      > but only steer towards intermediate targets,
      > since there is no "largest" prime number,
      > as was already demonstrated by the ancient Greek, Euclid --
      > at least for classical number fields.

      So far, pretty good journalism, I would say.

      Except that there is curious hook in the tail:

      > Aber wer weiss, moeglicherweise
      > ist ja auch dieser Raum gekruemmt:
      > Die Wechselwirkung des Raumes der
      > natuerlichen Zahlen mit der Materie im Rahmen
      > einer allgemeinen relativistischen Koerpertheorie ist
      > derzeit jedenfalls noch ungenuegend erforscht.

      which I decode as [believe it or not]

      > But who knows, possibly
      > this is also a curved space:
      > The interaction of the space of the
      > natural numbers with matter in the framework
      > of a general relativistic theory of particles is
      > currently in any case still insufficiently explored.

      [It was difficult to capture the ambiguity of "Raum".]

      So if the spacetime curvature created by the quarks in
      your 1GHz Athlon also makes number theory sufficiently
      "non-euclidean", who knows, that processor might yet
      share a Nobel prize with 16oB?

      Improbable, perhaps, but then so is the idea that the
      Sierpinski problem might yield to number crunching.
      For some heuristics on the latter see Section 7 of

      http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.gallot/papers/weight.html

      which estimated a 1 in 10,000 chance of completing the
      work with exponents less that 4,000,000.

      David
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.