EVERY RUNNER IS SOMETIMES LONELY

EVERY RUNNER IS SOMETIMES LONELY

>arxiv.org/abs/1606.01783

GET IT WHILE IT'S HOT

I say before today's over, we see a blog post showing a flaw in the proof.

It's legit. I just checked with the computer.

>Combinatorics
MEME

Kek somebody edited wikipedia already

Why should I believe that? Arxiv has a lot of people claiming to have proved famous conjectures. You could see a few every week.

define "lonely"

>The paper has been withdrawn due to a mistake in the last line of the proof--it does not hold for n=0. Thanks to Terry Tao for pointing out this crucial gap

>dislikes combo

go to bed user, the adults are talking

That was fuckin fast. Show's over folks.

This thread is good bait for people who might help me prove the following conjecture:

Is it possible to draw chords on a circle such that all the pieces of the circle have the same area but are not pairwise congruent?

I doubt it. If you find it, leap on that opportunity to create a new Gomboc - patent and mass produce useless objects to materialist nerds.

how many chords?
straight chords?

Any amount of chords.

Straight.

I doubt a division of a flat circle would allow one to create a Gomboc or something like that.

Anyway yeah I highly doubt it's possible. For one, I have proven by exhaustion it cannot be done in 5 chords or less. And the more chords you use the less likely it is that you will able to divide the circle up equally. I can describe any equal division of the circle as a system of trigonometric equations, but these equations can only be solved numerically. That has me at a dead end of how to manipulate the system to prove what I want.

seems hard

>Terry Tao
The absolute madman.

>n=0
BTFO

Jesus Christ that's got to be embarrassing.

does anyone know what the last line of the proof was?

It's in the link in OP you inbred fag.

>n=0
So sure, factorial can be defined for n=0, but Autists won't let this be.