The Hodge Conjecture

Originally posted by demonseed
Invalid to me implies breaking a rule whereas what you are referring to is simply an error.

For example writing: "It's worth can be shown etc" is not merely inaccurate but invalid. The rules of the English language have been broken and to me that seems to come under the category of grammar.

It breaks the rules of English orthography, not the rules of the English language. Have you ever heard someone say "its" instead of "it's"?

Originally posted by Nordlys
It breaks the rules of English orthography, not the rules of the English language. Have you ever heard someone say "its" instead of "it's"?

Doesn't it break both?

Isn't it wrong from a grammatical point of view as well as from an orthographical point of view?

Originally posted by demonseed
Doesn't it break both?

Isn't it wrong from a grammatical point of view as well as from an orthographical point of view?

No. It's an orthographical error made due to a lack of grammatical awareness.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Yes, but a mistake in the use of an apostophe is not merely an aesthetic error - it invalidates the meaning.

Have you found your pin yet?

Originally posted by Nordlys
No. It's an orthographical error made due to a lack of grammatical awareness.

Ha ha. That's as close as we are going to get.

Originally posted by demonseed
Ha ha. That's as close as we are going to get.

Okay. So now we can go back to the Hodge Conjecture. 😀

Originally posted by Nordlys
Okay. So now we can go back to the Hodge Conjecture. 😀

No, no! Don't go! This is the only part of the thread I understand!

Originally posted by reader1107
No, no! Don't go! This is the only part of the thread I understand!

Well, you'd better read up on the subject then. How can you explain the basics of the Hodge Conjecture to your third-graders if you don't understand it yourself? 😕

Originally posted by Nordlys
Well, you'd better read up on the subject then. How can you explain the basics of the Hodge Conjecture to your third-graders if you don't understand it yourself? 😕

The scariest thing I do to them is write polynomials on the board, or an addition problem with a bunch of fractions having different denominators, or a ghastly division problem and say "This is big kid math." Then I point out that if they learn to multiply instead of avoiding it, they'll have a much easier time as they progress through school. But I'll be sure to throw in the Hodge Conjecture somewhere!

Originally posted by reader1107
The scariest thing I do to them is write polynomials on the board, or an addition problem with a bunch of fractions having different denominators, or a ghastly division problem and say "This is big kid math." Then I point out that if they learn to multiply instead of avoiding it, they'll have a much easier time as they progress through school. But I'll be sure to throw in the Hodge Conjecture somewhere!

All third-graders should learn the basics of multiplication, avoidance and the Hodge Conjecture.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I thought that Hilbert had shown (using a modified Dehn Invariant) that the Planck disturbance to be irrelevant?
I like the use of a Laplace transform here though. It might even be worth pushing it through Langlands reciprocity (there are some neat harmonic analysis representations in there).

Originally posted by Nordlys
All third-graders should learn the basics of multiplication, avoidance and the Hodge Conjecture.

Don't be silly. I remember we proved the Hodge Conjecture in second grade.

Originally posted by RookRAK
Don't be silly. I remember we proved the Hodge Conjecture in [b]second grade.[/b]

We dismissed it as irrelevant crapski in school - and again here.

Originally posted by RookRAK
Don't be silly. I remember we proved the Hodge Conjecture in [b]second grade.[/b]

We covered avoidance so well in second grade that we never got around to anything else after that.