"they pulled some unorthodox moves to finally break Ingham’s bound"
Why is taking methods from other fields an unorthodox move? I come from an engineering background an there it is the common case. The usage of harmonic analysis is a staple in many fields (audio, waves, electrical analysis, statistics) and of course the algorithms are pure math under the hood. If I want to find a reaccuring structure in an underlying system, wouldn't it be normal to try different plotting techniques and choose the one that suits my problem best?
"Save for Maynard, a 37-year-old virtuoso who specializes in analytic number theory, for which he won the 2022 Fields Medal—math’s most prestigious award. In dedicated Friday afternoon thinking sessions, he returned to the problem again and again over the past decade, to no avail. At an American Mathematical Society meeting in 2020, he enlisted the help of Guth, who specializes in a technique known as harmonic analysis, which draws from ideas in physics for separating sounds into their constituent notes. Guth also sat with the problem for a few years. Just before giving up, he and Maynard hit a break. Borrowing tactics from their respective mathematical dialects and exchanging ideas late into the night over an email chain, they pulled some unorthodox moves to finally break Ingham’s bound."
This quote doesn't suggest that the only thing unorthodox about their approach was using some ideas from harmonic analysis. There's nothing remotely new about using harmonic analysis in number theory.
1. I would say the key idea in a first course in analytic number theory (and the key idea in Riemann's famous 1859 paper) is "harmonic analysis" (and this is no coincidence because Riemann was a pioneer in this area). See: https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/16bh3mi/what_is_the_b....
3. One of the citations in the Guth Maynard paper is the following 1994 book: H. Montgomery, Ten Lectures On The Interface Between Analytic Number Theory And
Harmonic Analysis, No. 84. American Mathematical Soc., 1994. There was already enough interface in 1994 for ten lectures, and judging by the number of citations of that book (I've cited it myself in over half of my papers), much more interface than just that!
What's surprising isn't that they used harmonic analysis at all, but where in particular they applied harmonic analysis and how (which are genuinely impossible to communicate to a popular audience, so I don't fault the author at all).
To me your comment sounds a bit like saying "why is it surprising to make a connection." Well, breakthroughs are often the result of novel connections, and breakthroughs do happen every now and then, but that doesn't make the novel connections not surprising!
Unorthodox is maybe a bit strong, but what they're saying is that it's a novel application of an existing technique from another field. Fairly often you will see big breakthroughs like this in maths, where someone has the insight to see that there are parallels between two seemingly unconnected areas of maths, and you can use ideas from one area to give you insight in to the other area.
The tricky bit is that these connections between areas are not usually obvious, so to see the similarity can require a considerable step in understanding.
It’s kind of silly. Just a reporter reporting. You could say that every discovery in mathematics involves some “unorthodox” move, since the orthodoxy is all that is known so far.
In those party circumstance drinks containing caffeine (energy, coke) are often consumed by kids. Those drinks usually also contain lots of sugar which is known by the people. It could be that the "sugar rush" rather comes from the caffeine than the sugar, but the people put it on the sugar.
Is there any functional difference to the EP-133? Interestingly It seems that they have different operating systems.
https://teenage.engineering/downloads