I didn’t need proof myself, but I suppose it’s comforting nevertheless to have it mathematically confirmed.
Phew. Finally. I was getting worried.
Now do Aphex Twin. No need to convert his music into numerical data either - am sure he would supply it if asked nicely.
was this really a worthwhile expenditure of effort? certainly mathematicians could have found something better to do with their time?
You really never know what mathematics discoveries can do. Number theory was an useless brach of mathematics, considered an useless endeavor of theoretical mathematics and basically a hobby. Until modern computation and the RSA algorithm gave number theory an use, and without it, the internet as we know it, couldn’t exist.
now you’re reminding me of that West Wing episode wherein they were asking what the point of investing in a superconducting supercollider was:
Discovery.
Not long after that episode aired, the Higgs-Boson was discovered at the LHC.
That episode aired in March 2002.
LHC began operating in 2010 and the Higgs Boson was confirmed in 2012.
The focus of the 2002 episode was on the SSC, the boondoggle of a collider that was being built in Texas and was cancelled in 1993.
One one hand, sure, this seems like a waste of time. On the other, I did get paid to get a masters in literature. So I don’t think I’m in a position to judge :P
i choose to believe that this is what maths nerds do in their spare time when theyre not using their abilities to cure cancer and stuff.
this sand is cold
fair, i guess? when i’m not professionally graphic designing, i shitpost star trek memes, although nobody can convince me that that’s not a worthwhile expenditure of my time :)
my kid reminded me of something similar one day… i was kinnda making fun of all these kids sitting around watching some guy play a video game… youtube or whatnot… it was a whole big genre i guess.
anyway i was having a problem identifying with this arrangement…lightly teasing them about watching this when my then 12 year old says ‘how is it different than sitting at/watching on tv any ballpark watching other people play those games?’ … he might as well have added ‘old man’.
for some reason, when it he put it like that it just kinda slapped some reality into me.
You may enjoy perusing the various winners of the Ig Nobel Prize.
Some fantastic stuff in there.
Is it worth the effort? Do they have anything better to do? I’d say the answer to both of those is “maybe”.
I personally enjoy these wild kinds of studies and hope they never stop.
Not to be rude, but hah.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
We know as well as anyone that math is the study of questions we can answer exactly, but which often aren’t very important. If you want to talk about something desperately meaningful talk to a philosopher (and keep talking, zing!).
Right now Platonism is the dominant way of thinking about pure math, and in it’s lens the questions are treated as literally separate from the material world.
Depends. Will this research allow creating AIs that can compose “in the style of Bach”, or even compose “ideal music”… and make a ton of money by selling it as a service to large music producers?
Coming soon: Song of the year, by [some figurehead] (composed and interpreted by AI)
He was! But he overused the harpsichord, in my very humble and unfounded opinion, and it hurts my ears to listen to a lot of his creation. I get why he did (the piano was still a very new creation, and the harpsichord could be more easily heard in concert halls), but it sure does pierce the eardrum these days.
To provide a dissenting opinion, I’ve always preferred harpsichords to pianos, which is one of the reasons I love Bach so much.
Pianos somehow sound simultaneously harsher than harpsichords with the off-putting initial clunk of the keys, and boringly muted in comparison.
Describing subjective art with numbers means it’s objectively good now! No. >.<
Math, and even merely counting, as applied to the real world always has a human element intangled with it, even though people like to pretend otherwise. Like, you can’t count apples without first deciding what an apple is, where the boundaries of that category are, and declaring them all to be equivalent for your purposes (e.g. one fresh apple = one barely still edible apple). The abstraction of it adds subjectivity.
Anyway the relationship of math with music is interesting nonetheless. It just doesn’t have to be about making art objective somehow.
