well, gb explained what it was that KK does versus saying that’s he has a bunch of medals (and therefore, the shiznit) … i appreciate the explanation & agree w/ gb that except for medical stuff, blurbs about other sciences are just so blah

If you are expecting the answer, “No,” then I won’t disappoint you I was hoping to post a better explanation by simply getting Kedlaya to do the explaining; i.e. throwing in a link to a nicely descriptive page entitled “Some things I am interested in” on Kedlaya’s website, but that link seems to have vanished. On a lighter note: it’s kinda futile to get a mathematician to explain why some math is the next best thing after Jesus Christ and sliced bread; most reasonable mathematicians are dispositionally incapable of doing so.

Or, at any rate, they will not be able to do so in very few words. I felt that a more detailed exposition (which might amount to a separate article) would not be appreciated, hence the rather telegraphic stub @ #9. Having said that, I don’t see why you are so grumpy. My comment @ #6 was about the inaccurate reporting of Kedlaya’s work; would you rather see a clearly misleading statement like, “Kedlaya is an MIT mathematics professor who specializes in polynomial equations…” stand uncorrected ? Of course, you might’ve been expecting a comment on why Kedlaya’s peers “think he is the shiznit” but, as I’ve explained, the purpose of my stub was merely to correct a factual point in Amardeep’s post.

http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2007/91379.php

Now look at the webpage of another Math god: http://math.nyu.edu/faculty/varadhan/. Srinivasa Varadhan is one of the foremost probabilists in the world. Compare and contrast.

C’mon guys, math is not that arcane that it cannot be reported accurately!

GB also said in #9

“…who is interested in zeta functions associated with algebraic curves. The original zeta function of Riemann can be used to study the distribution of prime numbers. It is of interest not just to number theorists but also to computer scientists. The notion of “primeness” can be generalized to a setting where polynomials play the role of integers, and this yields a whole class of new zeta functions. These functions form a part of Kedlaya’s mathematical interests.”

Seriously GB, is that the best you can do to explain what KK does? If that the case then comment #4 is probably not true.

Rev.Bayes seems to have made more of an effort to bring out the fact that KK’s peers think he is the shiznit. Much more educational to us unwashed masses at these general interest blogs.

Shankar, I saw the typo on “Monica,” but I was too lazy to redo the whole puzzle, grab the screen and then post it again.

I thought 4 across would be obvious. Think “Sepoy.”

6 across is easy if you are a bollywood fan.

Are, I just realized 12 across is a mistake — the word I had in mind actually doesn’t have a necessary Desi connection (just Trini).

I may have to do an updated/ fixed puzzle after all. Forgive me, this was my first try!