slothrop Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 A russian math nerd solved one of the most evasive mathematical problems and it may help scientists understand the shape of the universe. All that is fine and dandy, but look at the guy's picture. This guy was doomed to be a math nerd. Math Nerd Solves Problem I wonder why he did not accept the prize. Is he going to go "unibomber" on us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 He probably didn't show up because if he were to collect the "bounty" on solving one of the worlds great unsoloved math problems, the first person who saw him at the awards ceremony could tase him and collect the bounty on finding sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I wonder if he incorporated this theorum into his solution: / v <=> b:(cu) + h(M) Where: / is angle v is dangle <=> is proportional to b: is beauty of cu is cutie h is heat m is meat Therefore: The angle of the dangle is directly proportional to beauty of the cutie plus the heat of the meat. It really is one of science's great truths. There is a subset theorum that involves the stench of the wench and the mass of the ass, but we don't have the time to get into that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 A russian math nerd solved one of the most evasive mathematical problems and it may help scientists understand the shape of the universe. All that is fine and dandy, but look at the guy's picture. This guy was doomed to be a math nerd. Math Nerd Solves Problem I wonder why he did not accept the prize. Is he going to go "unibomber" on us? 749342[/snapback] The riddle Perelman tackled is called the Poincare conjecture, which essentially says that in three dimensions, a doughnut shape cannot be transformed into a sphere without ripping it, although any shape without a hole can be stretched or shrunk into a sphere. Just ball it up like you're making a snowball. It's messy but it works. Can I have some of the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 Just ball it up like you're making a snowball. It's messy but it works. Can I have some of the money? 749353[/snapback] I was thinking - didn't Homer simpson solve this doughnut riddle a long time ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 his eyebrows reek of 1970's porn bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 his eyebrows reek of 1970's porn bush 749361[/snapback] LOL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 his eyebrows reek of 1970's porn bush 749361[/snapback] My God, those are eyebrows! I thought they were caterpillars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 his eyebrows reek of 1970's porn bush 749361[/snapback] CLASSIC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 No, one of the greatest mathematical mysteries is why they sell hot dogs in packages of 8 , but buns in packages of 6! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 No, one of the greatest mathematical mysteries is why they sell hot dogs in packages of 8 , but buns in packages of 6! 749533[/snapback] Easy. Perelman proved that, as enclosed 3-manifolds, both packages of hot dogs and packages of buns homeomorphically reduce to a 3-sphere, ergo are equivalent. But a dozen Krispy Kreme glazed donuts, being toroid, do not in fact reduce to a 3-sphere. Therefore, we prove that donuts and hot dogs are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Easy. Perelman proved that, as enclosed 3-manifolds, both packages of hot dogs and packages of buns homeomorphically reduce to a 3-sphere, ergo are equivalent. But a dozen Krispy Kreme glazed donuts, being toroid, do not in fact reduce to a 3-sphere. Therefore, we prove that donuts and hot dogs are not the same thing. 749543[/snapback] Some of that answer you provided in a humorous fashion kinda like dennis miller I will need to google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 his eyebrows reek of 1970's porn bush 749361[/snapback] Actually, it's all a disguise...The hair, the brows, and the beard all look fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Actually, it's all a disguise...The hair, the brows, and the beard all look fake. 749554[/snapback] He looks like a wax sculpture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I wonder if he incorporated this theorum into his solution: / v <=> b:(cu) + h(M) Where: / is angle v is dangle <=> is proportional to b: is beauty of cu is cutie h is heat m is meat Therefore: The angle of the dangle is directly proportional to beauty of the cutie plus the heat of the meat. It really is one of science's great truths. There is a subset theorum that involves the stench of the wench and the mass of the ass, but we don't have the time to get into that here. 749347[/snapback] Reminds me of John Valby's: A mathematician named Hall had a hexahedronical shaped ball, The square of its weight Times his pecker's, plus eight Is his phone number -- give him a call.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 He didn't accept the award because he was too busy watching the roast of William Shatner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Some of that answer you provided in a humorous fashion kinda like dennis miller I will need to google. 749548[/snapback] Actually, that's very broadly what Perelman proved. It was written up in Scientific American a while ago. Which also proves that my one-legged spherical gecko theory wasn't that far off...since a one-legged spherical gecko and a "regular" gecko are both homeomorphically equivalent 3-spheres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Actually, that's very broadly what Perelman proved. It was written up in Scientific American a while ago. Which also proves that my one-legged spherical gecko theory wasn't that far off...since a one-legged spherical gecko and a "regular" gecko are both homeomorphically equivalent 3-spheres... 749585[/snapback] The thoughts that come from your mind sometimes HONESTLY I use the dictionary google ask my grandad and father on war history...To either know what you mean or brushup on history...Your a machine with knowledge, it is great that your gifted, but I have to do lotsa refrencing inorder to know what the hell your talking about sometimes, which helps me, but man you got synaptic lightspeed and a friggen warehouse of files between your ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I wonder if he incorporated this theorum into his solution: / v <=> b:(cu) + h(M) Where: / is angle v is dangle <=> is proportional to b: is beauty of cu is cutie h is heat m is meat Therefore: The angle of the dangle is directly proportional to beauty of the cutie plus the heat of the meat. It really is one of science's great truths. There is a subset theorum that involves the stench of the wench and the mass of the ass, but we don't have the time to get into that here. 749347[/snapback] The cubic of the pubic is equivalent to the angle of the dangle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 He looks like a wax sculpture. 749561[/snapback] Yep, he's not real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts