[HN Gopher] New math revives geometry's oldest problems
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New math revives geometry's oldest problems
        
       Author : pykello
       Score  : 140 points
       Date   : 2025-09-26 22:57 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | OgsyedIE wrote:
       | It's been a while since I left math for industry but I once heard
       | that the shape and contents of "the space of all problem sets and
       | solution sets for enumerative geometry on arbitrary n-manifolds"
       | is something that is amenable to investigation through something
       | called Gromov-Witten theory. I did a quick number of searches on
       | GW theory just now and cannot decipher the results so I still
       | don't know if that claim had any merit to it but a sanity check
       | suggests there's no obvious computational reason that it couldn't
       | be true for n=2 or 3.
        
       | hn-ifs wrote:
       | I enjoyed reading that, but understood absolutely none of it.
        
         | dmbche wrote:
         | Same - I get the gist, but "how many lines lie on a cubic face"
         | doesn't make sense as a question to me, what is a "line" in
         | this context? I struggle to understand the issue as my only
         | understanding is that the face is divided by line width which
         | determines how many lines, but that's nonsensical and non
         | interesting.
         | 
         | As an aside (again, as a layperson) I've had this feeling with
         | most Quanta articles, it's interesting and I feel like I get
         | the gist but that's all. Kinda like it's both too simplified
         | and touching on too deep concepts to tie together the article.
         | 
         | Sorry for the rambling.
         | 
         | Edit0: how many _straight_ lines _going through the whole
         | length of the face it is on_ on a cubic surface. Honestly, I
         | just hadn 't really pictured a cubic surface to start with -
         | that was the main part. Had that picture been higher up I think
         | I would have liked the article right away! Thank you peeps
        
           | OgsyedIE wrote:
           | Google is actually still fairly decent for this kind of
           | query. Just type:
           | 
           | 27 lines on a cubic surface
           | 
           | Into the search bar and go to the image results. It will
           | 'click' mentally in practically no time at all.
        
           | ecesena wrote:
           | There's a picture at the bottom. I think the text there is a
           | bit more clear (maybe?): you have a cubic surface and want to
           | see if there's any "straight line" that lives/lies on the
           | surface. It turns out there's 27 lol.
        
           | gsf_emergency_2 wrote:
           | YouTube and wikipedia are better than quantmag for this
           | 
           | (Clebsch or Klein surfaces)
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_surface#/media/File:Cleb.
           | ..
           | 
           | https://youtu.be/lLBOiiFs87Q
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clebsch_surface
           | 
           | https://nathanfieldsteel.github.io/2019/10/15/27-Lines.html
        
         | jandrewrogers wrote:
         | For the articles from Quanta where I have a lot of prior
         | knowledge, which is decidedly a small fraction of them, I think
         | they mostly do a good job of accurately conveying the gist. It
         | gives me more confidence in the articles that are outside my
         | wheelhouse.
         | 
         | Quanta is one of the few examples in popular media I can think
         | of where the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect does not seem to be
         | operative. Or at least, if they are shoveling slop then they
         | have a preternatural ability to hide it.
        
       | nenenejej wrote:
       | A circle can be in or out, so two states. 2 ^ 3 = 8.
       | 
       | Not a proof but just something visual I noticed.
        
         | xandrius wrote:
         | That would imply that given the number of points (in this case
         | 3) there would always be an answer.
         | 
         | For, example would it hold if we put the restriction to 4, 5 or
         | 10 points?
        
       | ufocia wrote:
       | "Slide whichever circle is smaller entirely inside the bigger
       | one, and now the answer is zero: You can't draw any lines that
       | touch each circle only once."
       | 
       | This sounds false. If the smaller circle is at the edge of the
       | larger one, it is still entirely inside the larger one while a
       | tangent line could touch both of them at the edge.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-27 23:01 UTC)