Borsuk–Ulam theorem Puns

Hello everybody !

I was just watching the video about the stolen necklace problem (which is fantastic by the way) and at some point, Grant mentions an electrical engineering paper that mentions this problem. I was really interested by this and wanted to look it up but somehow the link is dead and points to nowhere now :(

Does anyone here remember the paper ? Or can help me find it ? I've been doing google research for about half an hour now :P

Thanks a lot !

EDIT : to be more precise : this is the video and he talks about the paper at about 3:30. The dead link to the article is : https://www.csail.mit.edu/publicationslcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-255.pdf so it seems like some MIT research think... maybe

I've had it's basics explained to me but it still doesn't make any sense in my head. Doesn't it assume that the temperature/pressure of the earth is a gradient from the equator to the pole which isn't necessarily true?

My understanding is, the US first developed this design. The Brits then basically got the design details from the US. But the French, Russians, and Chinese...did they independently arrive at the 2 stage radiation implosion idea? Do they all use similar techniques for the interstage, spark plug, boosting, etc? Sorry if this is too much to ask. I was trying to find a very interesting post I read here over the past year, how the Soviet idea was original in a complementary way to the Ulam Teller idea...I can't find the thread...something about they came up with the box first....There are some great posts here, but I have trouble finding them. Sorry if this is repetitive!

The quote is from the following exchange by Stanisław Ulam and Paul Samuelson (emphasis mine):

>Ulam: "Name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial."
>
>Samuelson: "That [comparative advantage] is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

Most Polish translations of this conversation I've encountered so far are similar to the one from Wikipedia:

>Polski matematyk Stanisław Ulam poprosił pewnego razu Paula Samuelsona – ekonomistę i laureata nagrody Nobla – by ten wymienił choć jedną teorię sformułowaną na polu nauk społecznych, która byłaby prawdziwa i jednocześnie nie byłaby banalna lub oczywista.

Why were 'banalna' and 'oczywista' used? AFAIK, triviality and obviousness/non-banality are not exactly equivalent. The 'non-trivial' part in Samuelson's quote is also translated as 'nie oczywista' in most versions.

Is using 'nie trywialna' wrong in this context?

Edit: typo.

My boss asked what I was doing with my measurements and calculator - I proudly showed her. The new bulbs are a perfect “X” in the dining room. Thank you to the math teachers of Lake High School. 🤘

I know it means, "I hope your food is delicious". But I also heard it is used for well-wishing or as a thank you.

In what context would this be used? Like, if someone is taking an important exam in college? Or if you have a nice conversation and want to thank them for talking with you?

Edit- thanks everyone 💗

Basically a theorem that says “all but some number of cases” satisfies the theorem