i and j are different. If you recall 3d had j terms. There is one interesting thing, j invariant. Well j(i) = 1728. True in crystals. And wonder of wonders Ramanujan did explain 1729. Next number. Great he was. Ramanujan was. Now, there is no doubt whatsoever.
i and j are different. If you recall 3d had j terms.
ReplyDeleteThere is one interesting thing, j invariant.
Well j(i) = 1728. True in crystals.
And wonder of wonders Ramanujan did explain 1729. Next number.
Great he was. Ramanujan was.
Now, there is no doubt whatsoever.
Expecting next number. That's what it is. That makes number field.
ReplyDeleteRamanujan was a genius of high order. There was never an iota of doubt.
ReplyDeleteFrom the movies on Ramanujan, #PythaShastri would have been better than Ramanujan at Cambridge.
ReplyDeleteRamanujan is a bigger genius than # PythaShastri.
ReplyDelete