Re: [math-fun] muffin problem
David Wilson asks:
Do all these muffin results justify a paper?
I think so.
Are they being collected anywhere?
I've been forwarding them all to Alan Frank (who asked the question in the first place), and I keep all my outgoing correspondence, so I have a very convenient archive of all muffin-conversations. Michael Kleber wrote:
If there is something coherent to say on the subject, I'd like to suggest (putting on my editor's hat) the Entertainments part of the Mathematical 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. 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?) Incidentally, I've been sending all the group's muffin-stuff to Alan Frank (who asked the question in the first place), and his response to the latest installment was
Thanks for keeping me posted on the muffin research. Personally, I'm just going to get my own muffin and eat the whole thing.
NOW he tells us... :-) Jim
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.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, James Propp wrote:
David Wilson asks:
Do all these muffin results justify a paper?
I think so.
One problem that would have to be addressed is the fact that there are at least four different normalizations that have been used by the various people working on muffin-cutting! Namely, letting the sum of all pieces be 1, letting the size of each muffin be 1, letting each muffin have size equal to the number of people, and scaling away the denominators so that the set of sizes form a relatively prime set of integers. David P. Moulton
Leaving aside the problems of normalization, I have a great title: "Do you know the Muffin Man?" (perhaps we might even use the cartoon from punch -- see the wikipedia reference below). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muffin_Man Victor On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, David P. Moulton <moulton@idaccr.org> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, James Propp wrote:
David Wilson asks:
Do all these muffin results justify a paper?
I think so.
One problem that would have to be addressed is the fact that there are at least four different normalizations that have been used by the various people working on muffin-cutting! Namely, letting the sum of all pieces be 1, letting the size of each muffin be 1, letting each muffin have size equal to the number of people, and scaling away the denominators so that the set of sizes form a relatively prime set of integers.
David P. Moulton
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (4)
-
David P. Moulton -
James Propp -
Michael Kleber -
victor miller