tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post7066447789063486133..comments2019-10-17T12:11:34.462-05:00Comments on Cosmic Yarns: The Man Who Knew Infinity: Why are Senior Mathematicians so Calm?Robert Scherrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17341214577362261827noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-32964329284317363242017-01-24T09:49:25.734-06:002017-01-24T09:49:25.734-06:00Thanks for the experience-based response you had t...Thanks for the experience-based response you had to The Man Who Knew Infinity. The level of mathematical insight and intuition Ramanujan possessed is phenomenal. Did you know that physicist and Mathematica inventor Stephen Wolfram helped with some post production for the film? In addition, Wolfram actually shares your interest in the science behind sci-fi. He recently wrote a blog that I believe would interest you. The topic is a consulting project he took on helping the filmmakers behind Arrival. Here's a link: .Wolfram Research Communicationsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-50879873136988772582016-10-06T13:22:46.407-05:002016-10-06T13:22:46.407-05:00There's no doubt that mathematicians and theor...There's no doubt that mathematicians and theoretical physicists, despite the superficial similarity between their two fields, think and work very differently.Robert Scherrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17341214577362261827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-45267356668461940782016-10-06T13:13:52.665-05:002016-10-06T13:13:52.665-05:00Loved the movie too. I like especially the strugg...Loved the movie too. I like especially the struggle to get Ramanujan to do the actual proofs after his intuition gave him the answer. By-the-way, as shown in the movie, his intuition was not always right.<br /><br />I have heard from my mathematician friends, one of whom left physics because you can never really know something is true. Physics "truth" is all "approximation" until the next, more detailed experiment. While if you prove something, at least within the suppositions of the proof, that will always be true (as you say, modulo actual errors). That clause I wrote, "within the suppositions of the proof" also says to me that the proof is an approximation...true and always true within that part of the space of all possible suppositions. Maybe the profession will find your proof useful, maybe not at all. Is that too utilitarian?bill e.g.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12756623609019643275noreply@blogger.com