Viewing Single Post From: How Much Of Cytographic History Can You Believe?

Viewing Single Post From: How Much Of Cytographic History Can You Believe?
jdege	Dec 21 2006, 03:11 PM
Elite member Posts: 263 Group: Admin Member #246 Joined: December 7, 2006	Donald Dec 21 2006, 06:48 AM The reviewer is correct, Singh is not as accurate, and certainly not as thorough as Kahn. However, I think he's overestimated the importance of the errors. The review was published in the "Notices of the American Mathematical Society". The reviewer writes: "The mathematical basis for the initial Polish success was the well-known fact that the cycle type of a permutation is invariant under conjugation: when one writes the permutations t and s t s^-1 as the products of disjoint cycles, the same lengths appear with the same multiplicities." Perhaps in his circle that's a well-known fact. But when I asked around the lunchroom the other day, it didn't seem to be in mine.
	When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

How Much Of Cytographic History Can You Believe? · Debates