Recent submissions

Comment · 6 years ago
Damn, I'm doing research involving partitions right now. I used crank/rank all the time -invariants that he introduced years ago. What a shame, RIP
Comment · 6 years ago
I don't remember if this is the exact paper but as united893 already posted, the paper was probably:

https://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-...

Long story short: Imagine you have an object, place an ant on the surface of the object, and then instruct the ant to walk in a straight line forever. Will the ant ever end up in the same place it started (with the same initial direction)? If so, then it has formed a closed geodesic. For some objects, the answer is obvious. For a perfect sphere, the answer is always yes. In fact, any sphere-like object (imagine warping/contorting a sphere without tearing or poking holes in it) will always have at least 3 such closed geodesics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_of_the_three_geodesics.

Miriam managed to construct an amazing formula that, when given the number of holes in an object, can give you the probability of forming a closed geodesic when starting from a random point in a random direction.

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx-kAlEpiZk is a great video that goes over what I explained and a couple other great achievements of hers. Worth a watch.

Comment · 6 years ago
Mirzakhani will always have a special place in my heart.

I was an undergraduate mathematics student when I discovered her work. It was a paper on closed geodesics and there was something special about her writing. Her approaches were simple an elegant -the kind that made you, as a reader, feel accomplished for understanding such a complex subject. It wasn't long until she was placed among other grand mathematicians that I looked up to.

A year later she died. I wasn't even aware of her health. It sucked to see an idol go so young. But it's incredible what she accomplished within her lifetime. She'll always be one of the greatest.

Comment · 6 years ago

  That's also what I was taught as a best practice, but it's not always possible.
Well of course it's possible -there are infinitely many sets of coprime numbers! Silly engineers
Comment · 6 years ago
That was also one of my initial thoughts. But who knows. I'm sure milk consumption varies a lot in different geographies, cultural backgrounds, upbringings, etc...

I personally never drink milk. The only dairy product I regularly consume is butter. But I had a roommate who drank a glass of milk with dinner every day and occasionally had a bowl of cereal in the mornings. So It's at least a spectrum.

Comment · 6 years ago
To be fair, it's a pretty large claim to just assume that something "went wrong with the attempts to screen out the confounding factors" and that the conclusion must be false.

It's a shocking conclusion, I'll give you that. And to be honest, I'm not convinced either. You might very well be right. But it's a strong claim to make agains a peer-reviewed journal publication.

Comment · 6 years ago
Exactly. As I said, they didn't reveal much of the process that "accounted for confounding" but I just wanted to dismiss everyone's initial reaction that this is just an obvious case of confounding.

Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't. It just depends on how much you trust their methodology.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
> It searches until it finds a seed, then goes back to the trail, maybe using the angle of the sunlight as a guide, to return to the nest, following the stream of outgoing foragers.

I remember reading that ants counted steps to find their way home. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly or maybe it was false?

Either way, cool article. Emergence is a cool property that shows up everywhere!

Comment · 6 years ago
So no, lol
Comment · 6 years ago
Sounds like they already pricked the patient when they couldn't find a vein in the arm, maybe?
Comment · 6 years ago
Except their laptops and phones totally do...

What are you talking about?

Comment · 6 years ago
The way I understand it (which isn't that well either tbh) is that most modern anti-cheat softwares run off of some Hardware ID (HWID). An amalgam of ids from your GPU, CPU, OS, Mac adress, and so on... that are somehow combined or hashed into some uniquely identifying ID. This is a bit harder to spoof than an IP address ban. And most are robust to gradual changes. Like Theseus' ship, if you change your GPU one day, OS the next, and so on... is it the same computer you should ban? Most HWIDs generated by games won't change until a certain number of those variables are messed around with.

Once again, I'm no expert but I think that's at least helpful.

Comment · 7 years ago
It's a joke. Being distasteful and offensive was the entire point...

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton