Science Anon user on an 4chan/anime wiki solves a complex math problem and no one knows how to cite them

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
(there is no actual news article for this, but I'm sure there will be one)

upload_2018-10-24_12-43-18.png


http://mathsci.wikia.com/wiki/The_Haruhi_Problem
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/superpermutators/j5y24bOemiM
https://bosker.wordpress.com/2018/10/20/superpermutations-lower-bound/
http://4watch.org/superstring/
https://twitter.com/robinhouston/status/1054637891085918209

upload_2018-10-24_12-37-22.png


upload_2018-10-24_12-40-25.png

upload_2018-10-24_12-41-10.png


upload_2018-10-24_12-39-21.png


upload_2018-10-24_12-38-33.png


upload_2018-10-24_12-45-0.png

https://forums.warpportal.com/index.php?/topic/52873-my-thoughts-on-the-mvp-changes/
 
I found this way to funny :lol: ... It reminds me a bit about the story about the episode of Futurama for which one of the writters of the show invented and demonstrated a real mathematical theorem to put in it. The fact that this theorem was also about permutation kinda helps to draw a connection between the two.

I really like this story and how it was a discussion about Haruhi Suzumiya that propped people to think about this problem. It's how math work in my opinion. It always begin with a problem. It doesn't matter if the problem sound stupid or not... Euler created the graph theory to solve a problem about bridges. These people worked on superpermutation to solve a problem about anime. It doesn't matter... all that matters is the fact that some new maths were created/discovered and it's amazing :)

Plus it doesn't surprise me in the least that Haruhi was the anime to prop this sort of discussion. It kinda makes sense if you think a bit about it :)
 
I don't if it technically feasible (modern math is so large and complex that specialists in different sub-fields often don't what's happening in other sub-fields), but I do hope one day there is will be paper that will cite Anonymous (2011) and T. Kaczynski (known for other work).
 
Reminds me of certain questions in Ramsey theory, albeit much less glamorous
de Bruijn did it better
 
I don't get it
Mathematicians argue about puzzles or thought experiments all the time. The puzzle in focus is: You're watching a TV series with ___ number of episodes, you're comfortable with watching the episodes in any order because why not, how many different ways could you watch the episodes out-of-order & show your work in how you reached your conclusion.

The anon is question gave some samples to fill in the blank(how many ways for a 3 episode series, a 4 episode series, etc.), the matching answers, and some confusing-to-plebs formula on how those numbers are related/the curve it sort of follows.
 
This is kind of funny because just last night I was watching a video about Andrew Wiles proving Fermat's Last Theorem. The video went into detail about how he was in his 30s and a maths professor at Princeton and had to work in secret for 6 years to prove the theorem.

If only he'd had 4chan...
 
“The best way to solve a problem is to make it somebody else’s problem, then incentivize them to solve it. “

In this case the problem landed in front of an autistic weeb who wanted to watch his colorful fan service in the most efficient way possible. Thus the problem was solved. No mathematician solved it because no mathematician had any real real world incentive for solving it. Whereas for the Weeb, solving n increased the amount of anime cleavage that could be beamed into his brain at the most rapid rate. Solution leads to quantifiable reward, failure leads to unwanted negative consequences (less underage cartoon schoolgirl cleavage) thus the problem gets solved in the most efficient way possible.

If you ever wonder how or why the Capitalism and The Western World work, or why Socialism always fails, re-read above. It’s the most perfect example of it I have ever witnessed. Horrifying, yet amazing at the same time.
 
Back