Graphs imo is one of the easiest topics there, just need to be able to manipulate the things in your head.Slide Rule said:What is the graphs topic like?
It looks very boring and tedious. Thoughts?
Then you better work your ass off and then hope for a difficult exam~ ReNcH ~ said:But what if you are one of the "dumber" ones?
i heard the examiners discovered this page while they were setting your exam http://www.claymath.org/millennium/ . rumour has it one of them was in need of cash, and they were hoping someone might be able to write down a solution.Trev said:can any1 clarify this? becoz i want assurance this years exam isnt guna b too hard heh
Now try getting an algorithm in P time to find prime factors of hundred digit numbers, so we can break RSA encryption easily.Slide Rule said:I've already solved P=NP - it was a pushiover.
You could have sat there for 3 months and get the same result.withoutaface said:I seriously sat down for three hours one time trying to prove there were no odd perfect numbers. I feel so dirty.
Indeed, although I may have come up with more incredibly ignorant methods to lead to the same null result...Templar said:You could have sat there for 3 months and get the same result.
pfft, that's easy.Slide Rule said:Re minds me of the time I spent an hour in a maths test in year 11 trying to prove sqrt2 was irrational.
Try proving pi is irrational because it's transcendental...I eventually went back to the method suggested in the question.Slide Rule said:Re minds me of the time I spent an hour in a maths test in year 11 trying to prove sqrt2 was irrational.
Problem with these questions is that they're so simple that a ten year old would undertand, but the knowledge to solve it is much more complex. Think of Fermat's Last Theorem, how it seemed to be a trivial number theory question and what it actually took to prove it.withoutaface said:Indeed, although I may have come up with more incredibly ignorant methods to lead to the same null result...
It's likely that it WAS a simple proof. Wiles' proof is FAR, FAR too complicated to have been the one Fermat had. Plus, Fermat didn't have computers.Templar said:Think of Fermat's Last Theorem, how it seemed to be a trivial number theory question and what it actually took to prove it.
Of course, surely Fermat did not invent all by himself the Taniyama Shimura conjecture, group theory, Frey curves...Slide Rule said:Wiles' proof is FAR, FAR too complicated to have been the one Fermat had. Plus, Fermat didn't have computers.
Just be aware that most of the problems in Mathlinks are very, very hard.buchanan said:
I'm curious. Can you point to the exact part?Slide Rule said:Parts of his proof could not have been done without computers, actually.