On: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Ol...

[ttul]

That was my thought. Why is it so damn complex? You’d think the solution would be simpler.

[rozap → ttul]

Sometimes complicated things are complicated.

[paulpauper → ttul]

the full equation for general relativity would take many pages to print, but Einstein notation makes it much shorter looking. This was not the case here.

[doelie_ → ttul]

Probably looks a lot simpler in A-normal form, with intermediates factored out.

[runeks → ttul]

> You’d think the solution would be simpler.

Why would I think that?

[ben_w → ttul]

It is. Some parts are repeated, the one which caught my eye was (zₐ’(rₐ)²+1)

[saalweachter → ttul]

I mean, if it was simpler it wouldn't have taken 2000 years.

[michaelcampbell → saalweachter]

I don't see the correlation here. Is every equation henceforth discovered guaranteed to be more complex than any before it? I hope not.