Mathematician Theorizes a Crystal As Beautiful As A Diamond

Roland Piquepaille writes "Why are diamonds so shiny and beautiful? A Japanese mathematician says it's because of their unique crystal structure and two key properties, called 'maximal symmetry' and 'strong isotropic property.' According to the American Mathematical Society (AMS), he found that out of all the crystals that are possible to construct mathematically, just one shares these two properties with the diamond. So far, his K4 crystal exists only as a mathematical object. And nobody knows if it exists — or if it can be synthesized."

Re:I'm sure...

[splodus]

My wife and I share your views; we lived together blissfully for 19 years before marrying one month before the birth of our first child.

In the UK a father has no rights over his child unless he is married to the child's mother when he or she is born. He is, however, legally responsible for supporting the child. He can apply to the courts for rights, but even if he is successful those rights can be taken away following an application by another party at a later date.

There have recently been some minor changes to the law (for example, it's now possible with the mother's consent, to have the father's name recorded on the child's birth certificate) but overall the law in the UK is heavily biased in favour of the mother unless mother and father are married. And after a separation, the courts usually side with the mother, and frequently grandparents, against the father.

The only reason we married was because it was the only way to ensure I had legal responsibility for our children in the event of a tragedy.

Compared to our love and commitment to each other, our marriage license is a pretty insignificant piece of paper that cost nearly a hundred quid that could have been put towards our child's university fund...

 

Re:That's not right

[Nazlfrag]

Simple difference, I don't want to boycott bittorrent because it is used for piracy, I do want to boycott diamonds because they contribute to human misery.

What you do not realize....

[Anonymous Coward]

The diamond companies screwed the native people in Northern Canada too. When BHP opened up their mine they asked some of the native elders for a name in their language. They said call it Ekati, so the company did. Much later after the mine had been named the elders were asked what is the maeaning of Ekati?. They simply said Ekati means "I Take" spelled backwards.

Re:I'm sure...

[Corporate Troll]

Well, the above story was "my story"... Every word of it. Worked just fine. Been married to her since June 2005. I know it isn't all that long, but for now it works.

That said, the American women I have talked to tend to get wet only by the idea of a big rock. Personally, I find them bland and uninteresting (the diamond-only rings, can't be sure about American women *grin*) Actually, the "together shopping for a ring" was perhaps as romantic as it comes. It really is fun.

So, perhaps, do take my story with a grain of salt. I'm European, she's European. My way will probably not work in the US. I hope it does, though...

Re:That's not right

[LWATCDR]

"Even so, if you buy a diamond that is not technically a "blood diamond", you are still supporting the market for diamonds and raising the price of those blood diamonds. And unless you are admiring your "good diamond" in private, you are supporting the culture of diamond-lovers."

I just don't see it. Taking the time to make sure that you are not buying a blood diamond will increase the value of the diamonds that are legally produced. Making the effort to buy an Australian or Canadian diamond seems like a worth while ideal. As far as not showing it off why not. When people say how nice it tell them that it is an Australian or Canadian diamond and why they are better than blood diamonds. It would seem to me that you would do more to stop the trade in conflict diamonds by purchasing diamonds from alternative sources and the telling people why than buy not buying them at all.
Frankly I think sapphires, rubies, and emeralds are prettier than diamonds but that is just personal preference.

Re:I'm sure...

[Kelbear]

I was enjoying the theory your wiki-link offered up. About half-way through I realized I was engaged in the male geek equivalent of a "How to Trap a Man" article in a women's magazine. Except ours comes complete with graphed functions with optimal utility points.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man made stones are still having trouble getting past .5 carats when I last checked."

My (now husband) bought me an Apollo diamond engagement ring over a year ago (November 2006) that's .61 carats I'm not sure if they had larger ones at that point in time as this one is of dimensions that don't make it just awkward to wear while working and doing daily activities. If back then they were doing over .5 carats they must be doing so currently. I agree with you though on it being about what she wants, my husband knew that if he was going to propose to me with a diamond I would honestly only accept manmade/cultured/whatever you wish to call it or a plain band and not a mined diamond, or an imitation diamond (I know my preferences aren't similar to most women).