The Cambridge 2013 Results Day Discussion Thread

I feel like trolling this by replying with the AM-GM inequality...

On a side note, $e^{i\pi }+1 = 0$ is the most aesthetically pleasing one you will ever get but I'm a big fan of De Moivre's in general. I love how something which is fundamentally to do with complex numbers can be used to solve a lot of things involving no complex numbers whatsoever, such as summing sines and the like.

Well since I prefer the polyhedral Euler formula over the complex one anyday and that's already been said now.
$\displaystyle W = \int_{k< \Lambda}^{} [Dg][Da][D \psi][D \Phi] e^{\big\{ i \int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \big\{\frac{m_p^2}{2}R - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}^a F^{a \mu \nu} + i \psi^i \gamma^{ \mu} D_{\mu} \psi^i +( \overline{ \psi}_L^iV_{ij} \Phi \psi_R^j + h.c.) - |D_\mu \Phi |^2 - V( \Phi )\big\}\big\}}$

Out of interest what is everyone's favourite equation ?

$y=mx + c$

Behold its beauty.

P.S. What is yours? Apologies if I have missed you already saying.

I can't decide....

I mean the simplicity of $\Delta S_T \geq 0$

Or the revolutionary nature of $\displaystyle \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi (x, t) = \hat{H}\Psi (x, t)$

Both have #swag. I know my friend's favourite is the first one.

What were the equations?

(Also, stealing this idea...)

I'd describe the first as elegant and the second as sexy/playful.

I have absolutely no idea - I heard the words but they meant nothing to me. Serious maths and I parted company quite a while ago. On the other hand I probably could name you a favourite piece of medical equipment, favourite (non-dirty) anatomical name and have spent far too long debating my "desert island drugs" list.

I can, however, offer you a maths joke:

All the exponentials go to a party. $x^2$ notices $e^x$ sitting in the corner looking sad, so he goes over to ask what's wrong. $e^x$ says "I just feel so lonely," so $x^2$ suggests "Well, why don't you try to integrate a little more?" to which $e^x$ cries "But it won't make any difference!"

I can't decide....

I mean the simplicity of $\Delta S_T \geq 0$

Or the revolutionary nature of $\displaystyle \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi (x, t) = \hat{H}\Psi (x, t)$

How is that possible?

Or the revolutionary nature of $\displaystyle \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi (x, t) = \hat{H}\Psi (x, t)$

That LHS needs a rotation of pi/2 in the complex plane

...and I hope you're not lactose intolerant because the second half of that word is DAIRY!


Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Has anybody any idea how the pooling algorithm for graduates works, and what the chances are to end up at Hughes Hall, Wolfson or one of the other nasty places? The admissions statistics only indicate the numbers of the open applications. Is it likely that those who've chosen two of the old colleges as preferences are being considered for colleges of the same kind/style?

I do not mean these colleges are nasty by the way, but I hugely prefer old architectural wonders/traditions over the boring and unattractive style of the new colleges. And I am desperate to get to know my fate .

(I chose Trinity and Gonville&Caius, but was unsuccesful)

Well since I prefer the polyhedral Euler formula over the complex one anyday and that's already been said now.
$\displaystyle W = \int_{k< \Lambda}^{} [Dg][Da][D \psi][D \Phi] e^{\big\{ i \int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \big\{\frac{m_p^2}{2}R - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}^a F^{a \mu \nu} + i \psi^i \gamma^{ \mu} D_{\mu} \psi^i +( \overline{ \psi}_L^iV_{ij} \Phi \psi_R^j + h.c.) - |D_\mu \Phi |^2 - V( \Phi )\big\}\big\}}$

The algorithm is not made public and as far as I'm aware your initial college choice has no bearing on what colleges are likely to consider or take you from the pool.

It's more likely a mature college will take a mature candidate than a general college. But this is simply because mature colleges have a greater demand and so are able to pick from the pool first (before general colleges).

Out of interest what is everyone's favourite equation ?