Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Software & Technology
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2012, 10:50 AM
sjb554's Avatar
sjb554 sjb554 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Studying for FAP
Favorite beer: Miller Lite
Posts: 1,175
Default First person to understand the 500 page proof wins!!

Pretty interesting story. The links to the actual proof are at the bottom of the article:

http://www.nature.com/news/proof-cla...primes-1.11378
__________________
HTML Code:
hi
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-11-2012, 11:13 AM
bloodninja bloodninja is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,471
Default

I understand it. What do I win?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-11-2012, 11:47 AM
sjb554's Avatar
sjb554 sjb554 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Studying for FAP
Favorite beer: Miller Lite
Posts: 1,175
Default

Explain it to me in 5 sentences...Your prize, ever-valuable awaits.......
__________________
HTML Code:
hi
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-09-2013, 01:31 PM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 47,815
Default

Quote:
Math even mathematicians don’t understand

On November 4 I published an article in the Ideas section about Shinichi Mochizuki, a mathematician who claims to have proved the ABC conjecture, one of the great unsolved problems in math. The only catch is that his proposed proof is written in mathematics so complex that literally no one in the world can evaluate its accuracy. Long, unintelligible tracts are not uncommon in mathematics and normally the math community chooses simply to ignore them — but in this case Mochizuki is so highly regarded that experts around the world have decided to puzzle it out, which could take years.

A few weeks later I received an email from a friend of a 90-year-old mathematician named Henry Pogorzelski, an emeritus professor at the University of Maine. The email explained that for the last half-century, Pogorzelski has toiled at a proof of the legendary Goldbach Conjecture and after decades of effort he believes he has it, though his work runs thousands upon thousands of pages, and no mathematicians can understand it or are even willing to invest the time to try to. Pogorzelski’s friend explained that he hoped I might write a story that would stir some interest in the professor’s work.

Though Pogorzelski is 50 years older and less internationally noted than Mochizuki, their careers have some surface similarities. After promising starts -- early in his career Pogorzelski worked under the famed Andre Weil at the Institute for Advanced Study— they devoted themselves to solving big “named” problems in mathematics. (One difference is that by the time he embarked on solving ABC, Mochizuki had already solved enough hard problems to build up considerable credibility with his peers; Pogorzelski had no similar track record at the time he embarked on Goldbach.)

Following the Institute for Advanced Study, Pogorzelski took a job at the University of Maine in order to have a quiet, out-of-the-way place to focus on the Goldbach Conjecture. He had already been toiling at a proof for 25 years when in 1988 the Bangor Daily News ran a story on him.

Pogorzelski’s situation then was much as it is now: He thought he had a proof but his writing was so voluminous and strange that he couldn’t entreat anyone to take it seriously. The Daily News article emphasized the immense personal toll this monomaniacal obsession had taken on Pogorzelski, who’d neglected his wife, by then deceased, and was not in contact with his only child. “I really thought I could get it in Maine,” he told the newspaper. “I worked day and night, neglected my family, gambled everything away on the problem. It pains me. I thought my family understood that I was doing it all for them but they did not.”

Last week a box from Pogorzelski arrived at my doorstep. It weighed about twenty pounds and contained nine volumes titled, “Transtheoretic Foundations of Mathematics,” along with a note from Pogorzelski’s current wife, Maha: “Pogo says his proofs are in his books. Good luck. ENJOY for the holiday.”

It is beyond me even to attempt to read Pogorzelski’s mathematics, but the preface to his volumes is accessible. There he explains that sometime in the early 1990s he came to understand that the approach to Goldbach he’d taken for the first three decades of his work was flawed and he set out on a new course. He realized he’d never complete this new project before his death so he decided to start the Research Institute for Mathematics (Maine) in order to take on graduate students whom he could train as “disciples” to carry on his work. In prose that sounds like a dispatch from a lost civilization, he concludes:

“After a number of years of lecturing and consecutively watering down my material, dreaming of passing on my Goldbach program to candidates. I was rather shattered to find that my disciples drowned in my Goldbach waterfalls. In consequences, I collapsed a bit from exhaustion for a while. Then I regained the confidence to carry on my program alone without having to rely on disciples. Eventually, a solution to Goldbach unfolded to me. I published the result in the third volume, IC, titled Goldbach Conjecture, Series I on Natural Numbers. Five years later (2002), I improved upon my solution and sent it to the Annals of Mathematics, which they acknowledged on Mach 12, 2002. And I never heard from them again.”

And so, a decade later he reached out to me. Since receiving Pogorzelski’s work I have been in touch with a number of professional mathematicians. Some remembered hearing his name years ago, others had never heard of him, and without exception all were skeptical that he’s achieved what he thinks he’s achieved. Not having read his work, they cited several a priori reasons for doubting its accuracy, including Pogorzelski’s lack of demonstrated achievement in mathematics and foundational issues with what they take to be Pogorzelski’s outside-the-box approach to the problem.

Several of them, too, articulated the same ruthless truth about their profession: that mathematicians who make big claims are obligated both to be right and to make themselves understood. Whether Pogorzelski has succeeded on the former point we may never know; he has certainly not, though, managed to achieve the latter.
Well if you can't understand it, you're not alone. Apparently mathematicians can't, either.
__________________
Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-09-2013, 01:53 PM
snikelfritz's Avatar
snikelfritz snikelfritz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Yep
Studying for Nope
Favorite beer: Yep
Posts: 27,409
Default

Sound a lot like actuaries IMO.
__________________
The universe is a cruel uncaring void, the key to being happy isn't the search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense and eventually, you'll be dead.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-09-2013, 02:16 PM
vjvj's Avatar
vjvj vjvj is offline
Note Contributor
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: IL
Studying for MFE
Posts: 7,295
Default

According to wikipedia, people are looking. A first mistake was pointed out in October.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-09-2013, 03:59 PM
Third Eye Third Eye is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 169
Default

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Petros_and_Goldbach's_Conjecture

Kinda sad, really.
__________________
If you can't sleep at night, it's not the coffee, it's the bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-09-2013, 04:32 PM
Egghead's Avatar
Egghead Egghead is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vjvj View Post
According to wikipedia, people are looking. A first mistake was pointed out in October.
Wouldn't that suck?

"You made a mistake on page 2. It screws up the remaining 498 pages."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-12-2013, 11:08 AM
Brad Gile's Avatar
Brad Gile Brad Gile is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Studying for whatever I feel like
College: Alumnus of Brown and UW-Madison
Posts: 11,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egghead View Post
Wouldn't that suck?

"You made a mistake on page 2. It screws up the remaining 498 pages."
With such a massive proof, it is almost certain that a flaw will be found. The original proof of Fermat by Andrew Wiles had a flaw that took a couple of years to fix. Number Theory is rife with propositions that are easy to state but are often very nasty to prove (or disprove).

This one is a monster.
__________________
Brad Gile, FSA, MAAA
Affiliate Member of the CAS
Dedicated Retired Actuary

Spoiler:
Obama sucks and we all know it-TDA


Spoiler:

That's been the funniest subplot of this whole thing, the people on the left attacking this bill for not being even more of a steaming pile. - erosewater
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:21 AM
mathmajor's Avatar
mathmajor mathmajor is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nowhere in particular
Studying for Japanese
College: B.S. Applied Math
Favorite beer: La Croix Grapefruit
Posts: 9,497
Default

I read the proof and could only think...

...cool story, bro...
__________________
FSA
Opinions are provided for entertainment purposes only and are no substitute for professional guidance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.45779 seconds with 9 queries