Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Combinatorics at UCD

  • 31-07-2008 10:19pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭


    Right, here's a long shot:

    As an undergrad, I took a combinatorics course in UCD taught by Thomas Laffey. I'm just wondering if there's anyone else out there who has taken that course, since I'm trying to remember the name of a theorem we proved.

    The proof put a bound on the size of the Permanent of a matrix(that's the determinant without the "minus" signs, loosely speaking). Laffey described it as a "Black magic" proof, since it uses a lot of steps which don't seem like they would lead to a proof, yet after a very convoluted argument, somehow they do.

    I think it could be related to the van der warden conjecture, but looking that up, nothing rings a bell. If you took the class, you'd remember this proof, it was pretty freaky. I think Laffey described it as "one of the hardest proofs in modern maths".


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,081 ✭✭✭LeixlipRed


    "one of the hardest proofs in modern maths" in an undergrad course? Cool :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Didn't seem cool at the time...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Apologies for dragging up an old thread, just wondering did you have any luck with this OP? Proofs involving black magic, witchcraft etc always make for interesting reading :)

    I did some digging around but came up empty...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 timbrophy


    Have a look at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Permanent.html
    which might help.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭RoundTower


    I took the course - I vaguely remember him saying something like that but your description of the proof doesn't ring a bell


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    It was Bregman's theorem on permanents, he gave a version by Schrijver. I gave up and mailed him in the end.

    Wow, old thread!


Advertisement