Crayolas, these crayons did make use of a sharpener? Pencils?...
fzrankzfrappa,
I hope that my pupils will have similar memories of me...
Crayolas, these crayons did make use of a sharpener?
Yes, the box (which had several tiers for the crayons, so it was jumbo-sized) had a little doodad on the side which you could use to sharpen the crayons. Not that I knew about this directly of course (I was not a terribly well-off kid, so I only heard the legends of the 64-Crayon Crayola Box).
The only interesting thing about him (Agnew namely...) is the spelling of his name, his last name actually!... As I am conceiving it now, the spelling of his first name was in fact a misfortune...
Could you expand on this for me please? (I mean, both points).
Me too. I'm afraid your attempt at arrogance, Cuncta, leaves much to be desired.
Yes, of course.
A spiral is not a straight arrow, quite the opposite... A spirograph creates (during its movement or its "tracking" by a pencil) a geometrical line, a curve which is not a straight line but a complex curve, a hard one to follow ... which complicates matters... A first name like Spiros gives your friends etc. the opportunity to use the nickname Spirograph which is not so advantageous for a professional of Politics, so he had to change his very first name.
Agnew wasn't his real last name of course ... That was A (g) NEW name, allegedly the last name of a person with something innovative... So much trouble for what, A-g-new (ambitious but dumb) spirograph?!? Moreover there is a french word, agneaux meaning lambs ... but he was neither an innovator nor a lamb (of the God...) or a man of Math, let's say some kind of geometrician...
Regardless I do like Geometry and all kinds of smooth (or multi-differentiable at least) curves ... and spirals, Spiro(graph)s are O.K. for the topic...
Name change from Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzpoulos no doubt.
>:)
Cuncta, I'm a double major with math and computer science in college (I'm a freshmen). I'm wondering whether, in your opinion, the Riemann hypothesis (you've heard of it I'm sure, I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything) has more to do with pure mathematics, mathematics in general, or physics? I see you're passionate about physics on your profile, so you'd be a good person to ask.
I'm not able to understand the Riemann hypothesis completely due to my math skills at the moment (zeta zeros are unfortunately still beyond my comprehension for the time being). Maybe you can simplify it a tad for me, put it in college freshmen terms?
Thanks.
87654321
I don't remember today the original last name of Spiros, I could find it at Google's Search but it's of no importance... All that is basically Tony's fault, he is in fact a somehow old boy who likes to bring in memory persons and names from his childhood. Agnew should have been a funny person, I guess! Anyway let him ... live on in History with the name of his choice!...
Check2008
there are a few well written "introductory" books about famous mathematical problems. One of them is John Derbyshire's "Prime Obsession" (this book was translated in(to) greek too with a similar title) which is not strictly written for specialists, however it's a very interesting book about Riemann Hypothesis, the world of Math and beyond... This book is written with the aim to help the reader understand enough about this issue, for more you have to take Complex Analysis lessons and beyond..., hhhmmm.... In Derbyshire's book you can find some references about Sir Michael Berry's (search Wikipedia) work on possible correlations between this Hypothesis and some condensed matter physics issues but the topic is very technical and very advanced...
In my opinion this kind of book is very useful for everybody, even for the specialist (in other areas of Mathematics!?!) but .... these specialists do not share my point of view, so they tend to know almost nothing about foreign territories and countries. As I see it, the view of a town (or the jungle...) from the airplane is worthy its time, especially if you need only a few days and a ticket of 20 Euros or so... Another good book is George Szpiro's about Poincare's "Conjecture" and especially Pennsylvania University physicist Gino Segre's "Faust in Copenhagen".
I can't speak (or think) about the true impact of a future solution of Riemann Hypothesis in the Science of Mathematics, you have to ask many great mathematicians and probably the future history of Mathematics!
I don't even know if Wiles' celebrated solution of Fermat's terrible "last Theorem" had (has) important "direct" scientific implications if any... but this event was certainly a great stimulus for many ambitious mathematicians ... and other scientists!!! Wiles' work on "Fermat" is not at all mathematically correlated to Perelman's work, however I do believe that Perelman's lonely determination was helped in some measure.
There will be also some victims ... but this is neither Wiles' nor Perelman's fault, let us put the blame on ... Devil! Anyway see post #160 (namely the previous post) also...
And let us go back to the game of Chess!!...
From Wikipedia:
"His parents were Theodore Spiros Agnew, a Greek immigrant who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos when he moved to the USA,[3][4] and Margaret Akers, a native of Virginia."
Jeez cunc, now you're blaming me for Agnew!...and in some kind of turquoise hue too (this is one somehow old boy who's not gonna take this kind of thing lying down). :)
What's wrong with turqoise hue!?! It's a beautiful color, that's for sure!...
Let us give ... Spiruses to the History of the Human Kind (where they essentially belong...) and get back to our objectives!...
#7
.........
I believe that Mathematics is much more "rich", more original than chess... However chess is much more hard, especially in the WCC level...
#8!
I suppose that the strongest grandmasters have to exhibit (display) the greatest "thoughts' density" during a difficult game, I mean the greater number of thoughts (in the game duration) per time unit!!!
I believe (just believe) that Riemann's, Poincare's, Kolmogorov's, Birkhoff's, Goedel's and even Nash's, Grothendieck's, Smale's, Falting's, Connes', Thurston's, Wiles' and Perelman's theories are much more rich in original and deep ideas (see posts #98, #100 etc...) than any game of modern chess but these mathematical geniuses (and great mathematicians eventually...) "used" many years, even a decade in order to deliver their complete work...
However the rise of e.g. the strongest Capablanca is a process that took more than a decade and this lengthy process was speeking for him during his five or seven hours' games in the 1922 London Tournament!...
But I insist on (?) my conjecture about the greatest "mental density" ... among ... human beings of course!!... This conjecture isn't about the "natural born fast thinkers" but it's about the eventual performance of very fast, even vertiginous (but not absolutely accurate) thinking! This should be a very important difference. But what is the true reason behind this superb performance, is it nerves, will power, "training" or what?
This is beyond human understanding, I presumed!
I prefer 'Chess is life'. I guess that would include mathematics but it covers all the bases.
Imagination is the creation in chess..imagination
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.