Freezbee

Intéressante, cette carte :

Aujourd'hui sur M6... enfin, hier :

Si cela peut intéresser quelqu'un, le Palais Bulle est à vendre :

Un argument de plus en faveur de la légalisation des drogues :

Fuite à la centrale nucléaire de Taishan : "Un emballement parce que c’est un EPR en Chine" Extraits (ja passe la partie sur Jadot qui ne présente aucun intérêt):

Lee Ross, Expert in Why We Misunderstand Each Other, Dies at 78

Attristé d'apprendre cette nouvelle : Françoise Hardy, ‘close to the end’ of her life, argues for assisted suicide

Tu aurais dû insister davantage. Moi mon copain c'est un des employés de la déchetterie de ma commune (qui est assez grande et très bien ventilée, Bretagne oblige). Depuis le début de l'obligation du port du masque je fais de la résistance et, au début, il me criait de loin : « le masque ! ». Il y a quinze jours, je l'ai croisé (toujours sans masque) et lui ai adressé un sourire. Il a amorcé un mouvement vers moi, puis s'est ravisé et a tourné les talons en haussant les épaules. Je l'ai eu à l'usure.

Un peu HS, mais quand je passe au supermarché je vois toujours à l'entrée des gens, jeunes ou vieux, s'asperger consciensieusement les mains de gel hydroalcoolique. On se croirait à l'église.

Mauvais présage ? Journée du 10 août 1792

Argh... grosse dissonance entre mes hormones et mes valeurs :

Un thread twitter de John Baez : John Carlos Baez ??????? ?????????? ???? A big question has always been: what do the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function *mean*? Until they correspond to some conceptually significant thing, it's hard to imagine proving they all lie on the line Re(z) = 1/2. (1/n) Pólya suggested that the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function should correspond to the eigenvalues of some interesting self-adjoint operator. Since then there's been a lot of work looking for this operator. This might give a physics-inspired proof of the RH. (2/n) Now Alain Connes and Caterina Consani claim to have an interpretation of Riemann zeta zeros along these lines! BUT - here's the catch - only the zeros that actually lie on the line Re(z) = 1/2. This might still be interesting. (3/n) They start by defining the concept of a "zeta-cycle", a circle whose circumference has a special property. The stuff here makes perfect sense to me *except* for the definition of the operator Sigma_mu, which I'd need to read the whole paper to understand. (4/n) Then, they claim to prove that the circumferences of these "zeta-cycles" are integer multiples of the imaginary parts of the Riemann zeta zeros that lie on the critical line Re(z) = 1/2. (5/n) Connes and Consani are very good mathematicians and they're not claiming to prove the Riemann Hypothesis so I give them a good chance of being right, though anyone can make a mistake. The big question would then be: how significant is this result? (6/n) Connes and Consani have been working on the RH since at least 2007 - maybe longer? - and have created quite an impressive pile of beautiful ideas. This paper is different, because some discoveries were made with the help of computer calculations. (7/n) So, while I don't understand this stuff very well, my interest is piqued. They seem to be "coming down to earth" with their research program, since now they're actually computing things - and they have a candidate for what a nontrivial Riemann zeta zero actually MEANS. (8/n) I wish some people who've been following Connes & Consani's work more closely would comment. Obviously ANY approach to the RH is a long shot. I'm more interested in the details of their work than the chance it'll work. Here is the paper: arxiv.org/abs/2106.01715 (9/n, n = 9) Spectral Triples and Zeta-Cycles We exhibit very small eigenvalues of the quadratic form associated to the Weil explicit formulas restricted to test functions whose support is within a fixed interval with upper bound S. We show both … https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.01715 • • •

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Footage proves bats were kept in Wuhan lab

Le CEMA tire sa révérence :