A Case Study in Mathematical Research: The Golay-Rudin-Shapiro Sequence

From MaRDI portal





How to write the usual ``politically correct mathematical paper? The rule is well-known: hide all intuitions; reverse the way you found the results by giving a Bourbaki-like sequence: definition-lemma-proposition-theorem-corollary-remark; do not mention any idea that did not get through, etc. In the delightful paper under review the authors revisit some of their own results [\textit{J. Brillhart} and \textit{P. Morton}, Ill. J. Math. 22, 126-148 (1978; Zbl 0371.10009); and \textit{J. Brillhart}, \textit{P. Erdös} and \textit{P. Morton}, Pac. J. Math. 107, 39-69 (1983; Zbl 0505.10029)]. But, instead of doing the usual, the authors explain the ideas, intuitions, trials, and even failures they encountered. The paper is intended to give students the flavour and fun of research in mathematics, but colleagues might well enjoy the paper even more! For a reader not familiar with the subjet of this paper (the Golay-Rudin-Shapiro sequence), we will say the following: define \(u(n)\) to be the number of (possibly overlapping) 11's in the binary expansion of the integer \(n\), let \(a(n)= (-1)^{u(n)}\), and let \(s(n)= \sum^n_{k=0} a(k)\). Is it true that \(s(n) >0\) for all \(n\geq 0\)? Now take a pen, a piece of paper, and let your imagination dream. After a while, read the paper under review and enjoy.











This page was built for publication: A Case Study in Mathematical Research: The Golay-Rudin-Shapiro Sequence

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4345020)