Talk:Karl Mahlburg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Someone who understands this please add details!! --David Battle 03:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At first blush, this article looks totally unwarranted as most people know nothing about this problem he solved. I don't know anything about it myself, so I've tagged the page. I would just summarize the journalist's version of why this is significant, but experience reading journalist's versions of physics breakthroughs makes me reluctant to do this. --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
If extending a result from 5, 7, and 11 to all primes for a problem which has been considered by such note-worthy mathematicians doesn't make it significant, then I can't imagine anything that would.
There are now three external articles linked. If you want to expand the article there is plenty of source material (when I created it I was working from a single article in New Scientist). --David Battle 06:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I still think that the article itself doesn't establish the significance to someone unfamiliar with this problem. Sure, the external links are great, and they seem pretty convinced of the significance. I was really hoping the tag would attract some mathematicians who could do a good job explaining it, but it hasn't and I really don't want to just summarize articles about something I don't understand. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Mahlburg's paper has since been awarded the PNAS paper of the year, I think that should settle the question of article removal. I agree that the article doesn't really explain the significance of this work and I am not a mathematician so I can not either. I'd suggest two links... The commentary by Andrews and Ono that ran with the original article does explain the significance (at least to other mathematicians) and is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507844102 . Also I think that the link announcing the award would be better pointed at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=03282006 . This site links to the original paper. The one that's on there now causes a printer dialog to pop up for some reason. If somebody wants to link to the paper in question it is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506702102 but I'm not really that familiar with Wikipedia convention on original research so I'll let somebody else make that call. PS is the madison.com link broken? - DP-128.231.88.4 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MIT
This article http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/37/13569 says that he will have the "C. L. E. Moore Instructorship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology" starting this fall
