18 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 35.2 ms ] thread
Paper here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06137

I had the opportunity to take a harmonic analysis course in grad school. I passed it up. It was only tangentially related to my research at the time.

Original title is more informative than the edited one here.
here's a dumb question:

she's starting her Ph.D. this fall - hasn't she already achieved it? What is the theory behind expecting someone who has solved a decades-old problem to do some "second" thing to prove that they have extended the bounds of human knowledge?

Trying to do anything original and novel in math is extremely hard at any age. to do it at 17 is insanely talented. congrats
>One day, he proposed proving a special, much simpler case of the conjecture as a homework assignment. As an optional part, he included the original conjecture

There is a lesson there: always give people an opportunity to excel, if you can.

Great achievement. Now Princeton Math department will ask her to join their school for Ph.D.
[flagged]
While extremely talented, I am not surprised to find this coming from a teen. Major mathematical discoveries often have come from those in their mid 20’s with the greater discoveries being skewed towards the younger 20s and teens. I think this because pure mathematics is just so creative.
How often does someone produce work that is normally taught to people who are older than the person who discovered it?

Euler was 41 when he discovered his famous identity, the kind of thing people learn in school.

Even Newton was 21 when he invented calculus, the sort of stuff that you might find late teens learning.

Galois by a couple of years? He died at 20, and I suppose they teach that stuff sometime mid uni?

> The conjecture was widely believed to be true — if so, it would have automatically validated several other important results in the field — but the community greeted the new development with both enthusiasm and surprise: the author was a 17-year-old who hadn’t yet finished high school.

This article is quite poorly written. Case in point above. If the conjecture was believed to be true, refuting it would be news in itself, deserve more than half a sentence, and have nothing to do with the age of the refuter. It should have been simple to add a line about the "other important results" and not violate show not tell. AlsO I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the Spanish academy? The researcher is from Bahamas/USA, it's just the writer is from Spain?

"Ciaro says it required several tools, including fractals, and she had to arrange everything very carefully."

Article could at least spell her name correctly.

(comment deleted)
Anyone have a link to her supposed first paper on number theory? I have my doubt on her counter-example. It uses asymptotic methods rather loosely.