ITT: We post simple and beautiful math

I'm a brainlet and even I know what it means. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But for p=1 sin(pi/p) is zero.. so it isn´t actually >0. Where´s my mistake?

y=ax+b

>simple and beautiful
>clearly a joke about how math results are sometimes shown in unnecessarily complex and ugly ways

by inspection there's more than 1 prime, senpai

it may be complex but it's certainly not ugly
it's just a way of compacting many basic number theory sentences in one quantity, what's not to love about that ?

also, i seem to have answered without really looking at your point, in fact, it is easier to prove that 1 is not a prime

>Where´s my mistake?
Your "mistake" is assuming 1 is prime. It isn't, because mathfags are retarded.

Because there is no reason to use pi or sin. Can someone post that image showing the process of an engineer making 1+1 = 2 (or something like that) into a valid "engineering identity"? I think that would get my point across to you that the formula is both complex and ugly, and that there is nothing inherently good about "compacting many basic number theory sentences in one quantity." Here especially, it is inappropriate. In fact, it is so inappropriate, that it is clear to everyone involved in the mathematics community that its complexity and ugliness is meant as a joke.

yes there is, that's where you seemingly didn't get the point, or you got it but don't want to admit that the proof does a clever use of the quantity
the [math]\sin[/math] here is used because of its many properties, which serve the excellence of this "proof without words" :
- [math]\sin(x)=\sin(x+2\pi k)[/math]
-[math]\sin(\pi k )=0[/math]
where [math]k\in\mathbb{Z}[/math]
these, indeed, are basic properties of the where [math]\sin[/math] function but are essential in this proof
But if your argument is "why not just be happy with Euclid proof alone ?" then I will just answer "that's the point"

>that it is clear to everyone involved in the mathematics community that its complexity and ugliness is meant as a joke
If I were you I would avoid argument based on authority, if the proof shows a clever use of number theory, but is 2000 years late, then so what ?
it's just pretty, nothing to be flustered about right ?

Am I being trolled? Clever use?
It is literally just Euclid's proof but wrapped by the sine function. There is nothing remarkable about this, it is just silly, like working backwards and turning 1+1=2 into ln(e) - e^(iπ)= sum_(n=0 to infty) 1/2^n . I am not the only one who thinks this, read some of the comments on that StackExchange answer.
Also,
>argument based on authority
Authority is relevant here. If I am familiar with the math community and the AMM journal (which this was published in), then I probably have a better idea of what is intended to be serious and what is intended to be a joke therein.

If you guys saw the joke and thought, "Oh, haha, funny" then you would be reacting as expected. But your taking this as an actual interesting result speaks to your ignorance and is representative of a certain subset of math undergrads that are looking for something to be enamored with and say, "such beautiful~" before they understand what history is behind that adjective.
e^(iπ) + 1 is beautiful, and so is Fermat's Last Theorem and Cantor's diagonal argument. What OP posted is not.

What was this proof on again?

a=ΔΥ/ΔΧ

>It is literally just Euclid's proof but wrapped by the sine function.
yeah, I find that cool, what's the problem with that ?
the big part of Gödel theorem on mathematics consistency is based on "propositional logic but wrapped by integers and primes", to quote your terms, this theorem, nevertheless, is also considered as beautiful, but you seemed upset about reformulation of the same stuff

Agree. It's contrived and unappealing.

this is not comparable to Gödel's theorem, at all, if you're referring to the incompleteness theorems. in which case, i don't know what you mean by what you quoted or who you quoted
>what's the problem with that
there is no reason to wrap it in the sine function in the first place. nothing is made more illuminating. if anything, it's made more confusing, especially when one just presents the image in the OP without giving context. what is p? why is there an untrue statement in the image? there is nothing cool about the OP's image. stated properly, it's just a joke and that's what it was intended to be.

Well, I agree with the fact that, formulated like that, authority is somewhat relevant, but never as a way to show others how to think about that particular "result"
>If you guys saw the joke and thought, "Oh, haha, funny" then you would be reacting as expected.
What I do not agree with is this form of argument of authority, you seem to force your views on others about something that was published for fun in that particular, even then, I think you can see why some would take that as a joke, some as any kind of "delicacy", and some others as an inventive result, but it is not [math]meant[/math] to be considered as a joke, and only a joke, that is representative of some kind of mathematical community elitism
I clearly understand that this is absolutely no groundbreaking result of some kind, it adds to nothing, but, like I said earlier, it's just a cool way of re-writing Euclid theorem, that's all
Don't try to categorize people as specific subset of an more or less ignorant group, that just ought to show narrow-mindedness in a backfiring way, I may be ignorant on many subjects, but I'm certainly not absolutely ignorant, and I can learn too, so don't talk about "subset of math undergrads that are looking for something [...] before they understand what history is behind that adjective."
I may look a bit irritated writing that but it just makes me sad that literate people (apparently) like you could fall into such manners induced by what has to be the worst of Veeky Forums

there is indeed, nothing cool about the way OP presented the result, but with context, it becomes more clear
I agree with how it can be made less understandable, and that it shines light on nothing more, but I like the trick in it, that's it, it's a clever trick, I like that, to this, I find no problem.
And I didn't mean to compare that to the incompleteness theorems, I meant to show you that the terms quoted can be interpreted in various way which are debatable

I'll cut to why I'm concerned about the failure to recognize this as a joke, other things I want to respond to notwithstanding.
There's a quote commonly attributed to Descartes (though it probably wasn't him): "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company." Please do not misconstrue the OP's image as an actual beautiful result or everyone will be the worse. Perhaps you found the way the joke was made to be a bit clever, and that's fine, but understand that that sort of result is actively discouraged from being published in the mathematics community and was certainly intended to be a joke. We were acting like idiots but did not mean to attract idiots or make idiots.
Many people like to lurk around communities before getting involved in them, and they're not very likely to be susceptible to believing something idiotic since they're generally motivated by an interest in whatever that community is interested in. However, there are those who like to jump right in and try to fit in without fully understanding the community, and are more interested in saying "I'm part of this community" rather than being with people of a shared interest. I dislike those people, which is why I went on a small tangent about those people (and how your posts reminded me of them) in my last post.

Do people really have to discourage this kind of publication and is it really considered as a joke ?
I would like to think that all kinds of publications is encouraged in such a journal, even if it is of little interest, I would also like to think that nobody tried (successfully) a reformulation of that sort in the past, if someone did, then I would better understand the joke status of that result.
After all, maths is fun, and if you really want to argue about counterproductive publications in the mathematical community, talk to me when you've read batshit crazy books like Vive Euclide! (some book for beginners published by a guy trying to prove wrong the whole argument of Lobachevsky, Gauss, and Poincaré concerning the theory of Hyperbolic Geometry)
Also, to continue on your argument about communities, I would like to add that the concept of community, or groups in general, is something worth getting rid of, it's because of the feeling of belonging and the artificial pride that comes with it that communities keep their basic problems

You are naive, idealistic, and ignorant.

I suppose you are not the guy above, right ?
On what basis would you call me these names then ?