Did Conway pay the wager for either of the proofs to the The Angel Problem?
I'd check in on this every now and again when it was an unsolved problem and would like to know how the story ends. Anyone know more details?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
10$\begingroup$ This doesn't seem like a good MO question to me -- e.g. because it requires insider information. How are we supposed to decide whether a given answer is correct? (Also, have you tried asking Conway?) $\endgroup$– Pete L. ClarkCommented Feb 28, 2010 at 15:42
-
3$\begingroup$ It's a fair point you make but perhaps an article has been written somewhere that I am not aware of and then this would not really require insider information. If someone could provide a reference to such an article I would consider their answer to be correct. $\endgroup$– Q.Q.J.Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 15:55
-
17$\begingroup$ To me, this seems like a perfectly good question for MO -- it's a question about history of mathematics (I don't remember seeing this type of question excluded anywhere) and the answer could conceivably be included in a paper. Often the best answers to questions make use of insider information (this is what the community is for). It's certainly much better than those "What's your favourite book/theorem/lemma/etc...". $\endgroup$– Douglas S. StonesCommented Mar 1, 2010 at 0:06
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
Actually, until very recently, Conway didn't even believe his problem had been solved. (This despite the fact that multiple solutions have been published, some years ago by now, and the solutions had even been exposited at seminars at Princeton.)
Only a few months ago did a few graduate students at Princeton convince him that the problem was solved. He was particularly excited when he heard about the "nice devil" (who never kills a square that could have been visited before).
I have checked with Conway: the bet has not yet been paid. However, it will be soon. I will update this answer if and when it has been paid.
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks very much for your efforts, your k-power is high! $\endgroup$– Q.Q.J.Commented Mar 1, 2010 at 22:31
-
5$\begingroup$ I believe you, and agree that this is somewhat interesting to know. However, on general principle I feel like there's something a bit fishy about receiving information about John Conway from a pseudonymous dinosaur whose homepage is an internet comic! (By the way, it's a very addictive internet comic: I clicked on it a few weeks ago, and by now I have read all 1600 of them.) $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 2, 2010 at 14:59
-
$\begingroup$ @aorq: Any news? $\endgroup$– user112109Commented May 11, 2013 at 10:59
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
If I remember well Andras Mathe told me that the prize was supposed to be split to four parts which would have made it 25 each, so he decided to renounce his part.
-
8$\begingroup$ That sounds funny, as you don't cash these checks, you frame them! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 17:33
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
According to Wikipedia, neither the proof that the 4-angel can win, nor the proof that a 2-angel can win, has been awarded the $100 yet.
-
1$\begingroup$ Actually, it only says that it has not been confirmed. The fact that over three years has passed and the wikipedia page still says that is why I asked. $\endgroup$– Q.Q.J.Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 16:30
-
$\begingroup$ This would be a fairly significant result. I think it's safe to say that if a proof of either is found, this will become public knowledge rather quickly and trickle down to the Wikipedia page (regardless of the $100 payout). $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 17:00
-
2$\begingroup$ Cam: Proofs have been found. The question is, has the prize been paid? (And to whom?) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 17:03
-
7$\begingroup$ Ah. Then my comment is particularly ironic. :) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2010 at 17:31