36
$\begingroup$

I apologize for burdening MO with such a vapid, nonresearch question, but I have been curious ever since Suvrit's popular October 2010 Most memorable titles MO question if there were any "$E=mc^2$-titles," as I think of them—how Einstein in retrospect might have entitled his 1905 paper (instead of "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"!)—paper/book titles composed entirely of math symbols.

There are two close misses in the responses to that MO question: Connes et al.'s "Fun with $\mathbb{F}_{1}$", and Taubes's "${\rm GR}={\rm SW}$: Counting curves and connections." The only title entirely composed of math symbols with which I'm familiar is the delightful book A=B, by Marko Petkovsek, Herbert Wilf, and Doron Zeilberger. Can you identify others?

Please interpret this question in a weekend-recreational spirit! :-)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 24
    $\begingroup$ If Chaitin came out with a book called $\Omega$, that would be the last word in "$E=mc^2$-titles (sorry, couldn't help myself). $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts ♦
    Commented Jul 11, 2011 at 5:55
  • 46
    $\begingroup$ On "Fun with $\mathbb{F}_1$" it's worth noticing that the French for "1" is "un".. :) $\endgroup$
    – domenico fiorenza
    Commented Jul 11, 2011 at 14:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The "most memorable titles MO question" was only secondarily a request for examples of titles, but that secondary question was the only one that people answered, until after a large number of such answers had appeared. I think I posted at least two such examples that were favorable viewed, but then I posted something that was closer to the primary thrust of the question. I was severely and in fact abusively taken to task for not staying on topic, by someone who would have known that I was in fact on topic if he had read the question. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Hardy
    Commented Jul 11, 2011 at 19:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A few months ago, I ran across a preprint whose title consisted two simple figures separated by an equals sign. Of course, now I've forgotten the authors. $\endgroup$
    – JeffE
    Commented Mar 31, 2012 at 18:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jeff: Cool! Let's collectively try to track it down... $\endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Commented Mar 31, 2012 at 23:48

35 Answers 35

Reset to default
1
2
5
$\begingroup$

Not a paper, but Dan Freed's talk 4-3-2 8-7-6 about topological and conformal field theories.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Neat. Naturally if we allow talk titles then there's much bigger scope for this kind of thing; I've given a few such talk titles myself, including "$6561101970383!$" (see mathoverflow.net/questions/19170 ). $\endgroup$
    – Noam D. Elkies
    Commented Mar 28, 2017 at 14:39
4
$\begingroup$

Another new one on the arXiv:

which is a sequel to the paper in this answer to this question, itself a sequel to the paper in this answer, also to this question. Brendan McKay seems to be trying to manifest the value of $R(5,5)$ by converging on it with paper titles.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I have just noticed that nobody has mentioned so far the paper

714 and 715

by C. Nelson, D. E. Penney, and C. Pomerance.

This paper appeared in the second issue of vol. 7 (Spring, 1974) of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics; it is famous because it was precisely in its pages that the notion of Ruth-Aaron pair was first introduced.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

A new book just on the arXiv today:

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
2

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .