Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda

@VincentGranville Alright, if one of your prime examples of your contributions to proving the normalcy of $\sqrt{2}$ is a StackExchange answer by another user, and your own work is all unpublished (except some extracts of basic Python code), then I think claiming that you have contributed more than anyone else to the subject is not only wrong, but also quite insulting.

@VincentGranville What is the "empirical correlation metric"? Do you have a link to these results?

@VincentGranville Maybe my question was unclear; I am not asking what your goal is to prove, but rather what you have proved (if you have indeed done more than anyone else on the subject, then this should surely be easy to produce an example of?). I fail to see what mathematics is new in the paper you linked.

@VincentGranville "If there is one person who made the biggest advances towards proving anything substantial regarding the normalcy of $\sqrt{2}$, that would be me." A strong claim indeed (especially when followed by accusing others of arrogance). What have you proved regarding the normalcy of $\sqrt{2}$?

@GHfromMO Doesn't the abstract explicitly say Zhang's constants are effective?

@AlexM. Breaking news: Polymath project invents time machine to improve another one of Zhang’s bounds.

I’ll be very annoyed if this result doesn’t get published before the end of the year.

Is it popcorn popping time yet?

It's great to see a new nomination (especially from someone as qualified as David Roberts)!

(Although saying this to the current list of people in the room is preaching to the choir, I suppose!)

I am quite concerned about the small (to put it mildly) pool of candidates at the moment. I hope all the readers (brought here by the activity) keep possible nominations in mind, including yourselves, and encourage others to do so too.

Slightly more relevant* topics.

@TheAmplitwist Thank you! Please keep up the good work here (hopefully with slightlyore topics in the future…)

Bouzari, I cannot delete anyone’s comments or nominations but my own.

@Buffy Finite numbers are older (already known/studied) concepts to anyone taking an introductory class on set theory. So Answer 1 is, by your own standard, a perfectly valid definition, and one you can find in many introductory books on set theory (while noting that, of course, it is not the definition used to define finite sets e.g. within ZF set theory).

@A.I.Breveleri As good as his gardener may have been, Martin Gardner is even easier to miss :-)

@Acccumulation I don't know what it means for a part of the sky to "consist of an eyeline", but either way what you wrote first is not true.

The Greek word galaktos come from laktos, meaning milk. So "the Milky Way Galaxy" is just saying "the milky milky thing", which is surprisingly catchy.

@Acccumulation That's not true. The Andromeda galaxy, which is visible with the naked eye, is not part of the Milky Way galaxy.