Jim, re. a potential muffin paper (in the Intelligencer): I had this venue in mind from the start. But I don't know how coherent
the story is at this stage. David Moulton's proof about m,m+1 is great, but clearly it's just a start, and we don't even know yet whether S(km,kp) = S(m,p) for all k,m,p, which strikes me as a pretty basic thing not to know. Also, I'm worried that some of the arguments for specific pairs m,p are a bit tedious and wouldn't interest most readers once they've gleaned the general idea.
I agree beginning to end. At the same time, I've frequently imagined what an Intelligencer article
about muffins would be like (though my imaginings have changed form as the group's discussions have evolved). One thing I've pretty consistently leaned towards is including a discussion of the process by which this body of results has been evolving. That is, I think the role of math-fun should be openly acknowledged, and that something about the nature of the group should be said, both because the social process is interesting and because there are probably a fair number of people who should be in math-fun but aren't because they don't know about it; I suspect that the overlap between this body of people and the readers of the Intelligencer is significant.
(Or did Michael already "out" us in one of his columns?)
While I have (of course) mentioned individual funsters, I have never mentioned the mailing list, and I would be somewhat hesitant to do so -- though of course I'd defer to the opinions of Rich & other old-timers. (I'm pretty sure we don't want a thousand MI readers sending in subscription requests.) --Michael -- It is very dark and after 2000. If you continue you are likely to be eaten by a bleen.