JMA-PSOS

Today, I read one of the funniest abstracts in a long time and given the smirky face of the author’s thumbnail, I do believe he wrote it in jest:

In this paper I present a possible proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. The proof was inspired by a unifying societal philosophy: Recursive Perspectivism. Recursive Perspectivism, the proof itself as well as their relations are described in the book "The path of humanity: societal innovation for the world of tomorrow" (in press, 2018; I will refer to it as "the book"), and the presentation "Dicey proofs of the Riemann hypothesis" (December 31, 2017; I will refer to it as "the presentation"). The book is not about number theory. The book is about human development, societal innovation and sustainability, and it is founded on a Recursive Perspectivism which in turn gives rise to a recursive multi-actor interpretation of societal practice. During the writing of "The path of humanity" I slowly came to understand the deep ways in which The path of humanity, Bernoulli experiments and the Riemann hypothesis rest on common grounds. Not only do they rest on prime numbers, but furthermore the way in which they develop rests on similar principles. In order to understand these principles better, hesitantly (as I slowly came to understand the imposing reputation of the Riemann hypothesis) I entered the number theoretical realm from the vantage point of Recursive Perspectivism. The difficulty of understanding whole numbers is in their combined nature: structurally they are multiplications of prime numbers, and numerically they are ordered along the number line. Understanding the interplay between these two viewpoints, structure and content, offers a route to understanding and proving the Riemann hypothesis. I emphasize whole numbers while applying a recursive scheme in my proposal for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, and I use clean, simple, ancient and well established mathematics in doing so. This would make my approach both elementary and recursive. I use entropic and annihilative arguments from physics. Mathematically I build on Pascal's triangle, Newton's binomial or combinatorial formula, Gauss' normal distribution, Bernoulli experiments and the Mertens function. Be on guard when reading the paper: I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist. I do not claim a high or even a moderate level of proficiency in these fields. I therefore am prone to make errors, and to cut some corners. But even if these warnings would prove to be in due place, the following still would hold true. Pascal, Newton, Gauss, Bernoulli and Mertens offer an imposing foundation for Recursive Perspectivism and the discrete inversely proportional relationship that explains the many pattern laws we experience in "our environment". The relations between the Riemann hypothesis, Recursive Perspectivism and societal innovation are important: for our further human development; for a sustainable, a better future. This is the reason why I entered number theory. Therefore I ask you to carefully read this paper, the presentation and the book. Thank you for your attention. Henk Diepenmaat This paper is based on The path of humanity: societal innovation for the world of tomorrow, Parthenon Publishers, Almere, The Netherlands (2018)

Prima olimpiada scolara de matematica din Romania de care stiu este cea internationala de matematica din 1959. Dupa cate stiu, erau 3 (poate 4) olimpiade scolare in Romania in anii 80: mate, fizica, romana (si poate si chimie). Acum sunt zeci. In anii 80 am participat la cele de mate si romana, iar la romana am ajuns chiar la faza nationala in clasa VII-a (la Braila cred), unde am avut un rezultat mediocru. Imi aduc aminte ca in liceu, eu eram in clasa A, dar clasa B era cea de matematicieni si profesorul lor de mate (Ilie Olaru) facea pregatire pt olimpiada in afara orelor. Cred ca am fost o data sau de doua ori la pregatirea lor si am fost complet depasit de nivelul problemelor discutate, ca de altfel si de majoritatea problemelor din Gazeta Matematica ce erau recomandate pt pregatire.

Dupa 1990, am participat la competitii matematice in liceu si universitate in SUA. In liceu am castigat premiul intai de cateva ori la CCML, am luat premiul doi o data la ICTM (cu echipa de doi, cu Igor P?) si am fost la faza nationala la ARML de doua ori: cu echipa de rezerva in 1990 si cu echipa Chicago A in 1991 (cu care am luat locul 2 pe SUA/Canada cu echipa, in urma echipei din Ontario A care a luat primul loc). Am amintiri placute din excursiile facute pentru ARML la PSU (la University Park cred) si excursia cu masina sotilor Z pt ICTM (la Normal, Bloomington sau Urbana).

La universitate am luat locul 3 intr-un an la competitia locala si am participat o singura data la Putnam.

I was listening to the Hidden Brain podcast on NPR, particularly the You, but better episode and Katy Milkman (while promoting her 2021 book How To Change; see summary) told a little story told about George Dantzig's famous "homework" (stats) problems. KM made the mistake to say unsolvable instead of unsolved (yuge difference):

What's so fascinating about this is that those were two unsolvable problems that had been written on the board. So, his professor discovers that George Dantzig has actually solved these unsolvable problems and comes rushing, and he tells him, "Oh my goodness, do you know what you've done?" Believing these were just his regular homework problems is a big part of what helped George solve them. He didn't treat them any differently. He expected to find a solution. He persisted until he did. If he had thought they were unsolvable problems, he might not ever have attempted them and never have had the success.

This brought up two thoughts:
1. We fail by making small mistakes that compound over time (e.g. religion, oral traditions, language evolution, growing bureaucracies, common law, survival bias, compound interest, ignored externalities, genetic abnormalities).
2. How much can I trust Milkman given such a basic and egregious error? Here is a summary of her 2021 book that is available on Toby Sinclair's website: