User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 6:55:57 AM EDT
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/28/mathematician-century-old-secrets-unlocked/?intcmp=features
While on his death bed, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan cryptically wrote down functions he said came to him in dreams, with a hunch about how they behaved. Now 100 years later, researchers say they've proved he was right.
"We've solved the problems from his last mysterious letters. For people who work in this area of math, the problem has been open for 90 years," Emory University mathematician Ken Ono said. ... Ramanujan believed that 17 new functions he discovered were "mock modular forms" that looked like theta functions when written out as an infinte sum (their coefficients get large in the same way), but weren't super-symmetric. Ramanujan, a devout Hindu, thought these patterns were revealed to him by the goddess Namagiri. Ramanujan died before he could prove his hunch. But more than 90 years later, Ono and his team proved that these functions indeed mimicked modular forms, but don't share their defining characteristics, such as super-symmetry. The expansion of mock modular forms helps physicists compute the entropy, or level of disorder, of black holes. I remember reading about this man in 7th grade in my math book. He was an incredibly fucking brilliant person on a practically incomprehensible scale when it came to math. He didn't have much in the way of access to mathematical teaching and had to reinvent the wheel for himself on many occasions when it came to theorems and formulas that the rest of the mathematics world knew well. There is a famous anecdote between him and the man that brought him to England to study. Ramanujan–Hardy number 1729
Main article: 1729 (number) The number 1729 is known as the Hardy–Ramanujan number after a famous anecdote of the British mathematician G. H. Hardy regarding a visit to the hospital to see Ramanujan. In Hardy's words:[91] “ I remember once going to see him when he was ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi cab number 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." ” The two different ways are 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103. Generalizations of this idea have created the notion of "taxicab numbers". Coincidentally, 1729 is also a Carmichael number. It reminds me of Neo in The Matrix, when at the end, he can see the world in computer code. 
Anyway, so you have fucking morons in the world that do their best to screw it all up (look at some of our congressmen and women for example) and this guy dies when he probably had an incomprehensible amount of knowledge and understanding he could have shared over his lifetime had it been longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:00:05 AM EDT
[#1]
His brain used all of his body's resources too early.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:09:36 AM EDT
[#2]
Some of us are happy when we can balance a check book.
My son is not a genius, but I believe he's incredibly smart with math. He used to get in trouble for just writing the answers down and not showing the work. These were hard (to me anyway) complex problems. We'd ask him why he just didn't show the work and he'd look at us incredulously and say, "can't you see it?" That guy must have been amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:09:51 AM EDT
[#3]
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:18:14 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: We can't all be Astronauts..."No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:21:33 AM EDT
[#5]
How old was he when he died?
Also, advanced mathematics and I have never been friends. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:23:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? While it is a trivial piece of information, the fact that he could be told a number and within seconds deduce that in his head is amazing. Comparing you with him and math is like comparing an eagle's vision to a person that requires cokebottle glasses to be able to get around the house. I don't mean that as an insult. Remember the guy that mentioned the cab number thought nothing of the number and he himself would be considered a very intelligent mathemetician. I know being smart is useless if you don't apply it, but he did apply his skill/knowledge and what is sad and the point of this thread is that he died before he could make more and potentially larger contributions to mathematics. Imagine if Einstein died when he was 20 or 30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:26:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
His brain used all of his body's resources too early. His brain jumped out at the last minute and sucked a few other heads dry too. Then we elected one of those president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:30:46 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? To be able to know that instantly is kinda amazing. Numbers and patterns are interesting to me, at least. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:36:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? To be able to know that instantly is kinda amazing. Numbers and patterns are interesting to me, at least. I am amazed by people like that. I can barely keep count of how many AR Magazines I have. By the time I get to the end I have to stop and think, did I already count that can? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:38:05 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:41:13 AM EDT
[#11]
well hell i knew that why didnt someone ask? I thought is was common knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:42:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... What did the hand say to the face? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:42:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? While it is a trivial piece of information, the fact that he could be told a number and within seconds deduce that in his head is amazing. Comparing you with him and math is like comparing an eagle's vision to a person that requires cokebottle glasses to be able to get around the house. I don't mean that as an insult. Remember the guy that mentioned the cab number thought nothing of the number and he himself would be considered a very intelligent mathemetician. I know being smart is useless if you don't apply it, but he did apply his skill/knowledge and what is sad and the point of this thread is that he died before he could make more and potentially larger contributions to mathematics. Imagine if Einstein died when he was 20 or 30. That was what I was thinking. He was amazingly intelligent. We would be way further than we are if he had not died so young. He is like dynamite, whereas some of our other leading mathematicians are like pick axes and sledgehammers when you are trying to tunnel through granite...........sure, they both may get there........but one gets there a hell of a lot faster...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:42:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? While it is a trivial piece of information, the fact that he could be told a number and within seconds deduce that in his head is amazing. Comparing you with him and math is like comparing an eagle's vision to a person that requires cokebottle glasses to be able to get around the house. I don't mean that as an insult. Remember the guy that mentioned the cab number thought nothing of the number and he himself would be considered a very intelligent mathemetician. I know being smart is useless if you don't apply it, but he did apply his skill/knowledge and what is sad and the point of this thread is that he died before he could make more and potentially larger contributions to mathematics. Imagine if Einstein died when he was 20 or 30. I get all of that, but my thought is, in less terse verbiage, what is the purpose of mathematical solutions such as this? Is there a practical application for it, or is it merely art to be appreciated? If it is just art, meh. I suppose, if he would have explained his algorithm for doing such calculations in his head I could appreciate it more. Nevertheless, to what purpose is such a thing used? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:42:57 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Considering that he home-schooled HIMSELF in rural India, yes, he was amazing. There's a section about him in the book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. It's almost unbelievable what this guy did on his own.Some of us are happy when we can balance a check book. My son is not a genius, but I believe he's incredibly smart with math. He used to get in trouble for just writing the answers down and not showing the work. These were hard (to me anyway) complex problems. We'd ask him why he just didn't show the work and he'd look at us incredulously and say, "can't you see it?" That guy must have been amazing. P.S. Get your kid into advanced classes, ASAP, that will really challenge him or he'll be bored with school and won't reach his potential.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:43:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:45:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Look up Vedic Math on the web some amazing easy to learm methods and shortcuts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:50:08 AM EDT
[#18]
This is important? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:52:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? While it is a trivial piece of information, the fact that he could be told a number and within seconds deduce that in his head is amazing. Comparing you with him and math is like comparing an eagle's vision to a person that requires cokebottle glasses to be able to get around the house. I don't mean that as an insult. Remember the guy that mentioned the cab number thought nothing of the number and he himself would be considered a very intelligent mathemetician. I know being smart is useless if you don't apply it, but he did apply his skill/knowledge and what is sad and the point of this thread is that he died before he could make more and potentially larger contributions to mathematics. Imagine if Einstein died when he was 20 or 30. I get all of that, but my thought is, in less terse verbiage, what is the purpose of mathematical solutions such as this? Is there a practical application for it, or is it merely art to be appreciated? If it is just art, meh. I suppose, if he would have explained his algorithm for doing such calculations in his head I could appreciate more. The list of applications for math is long, but to name a few: Computer Science Encryption Communications systems Optics Physics Economics Biology There is no purer description of the universe than math. It's never just art. Just about everything that you know about Newton, or Maxwell, or Einstein, or Heisenberg, or Dirac, or Feynman, or Hawking has been expressed in a mathematical equation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:55:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. Math is the absolute cornerstone of physics and most sciences. When discoveries of mathematical systems come about, we benefit in ways you never see. Every major technological advance of mankind can be linked back to someone who figured it out with math on a peice of paper. While many of us are unable to comprehend or appreciate these complex computations, they benefit us all none the less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:56:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. You're typing this on a computer, and asking why numbers and computations are important? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:57:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... What did the hand say to the face? *SLAP* CHARLIE MURPHY! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:58:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. You're typing this on a computer, and asking why numbers and computations are important? Why'd you just hit me? That was last week! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:00:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
His brain used all of his body's resources too early. His brain jumped out at the last minute and sucked a few other heads dry too. Then we elected one of those president. You should get your ODS treated. In a thread about a mathematical prodigy, you managed to work Obama into your useless reply. This is getting really old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:03:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
This is important? I guess to you it's not. That's cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:05:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. Math is the absolute cornerstone of physics and most sciences. When discoveries of mathematical systems come about, we benefit in ways you never see. Every major technological advance of mankind can be linked back to someone who figured it out with math on a peice of paper. While many of us are unable to comprehend or appreciate these complex computations, they benefit us all none the less. Quoted:
The list of applications for math is long, but to name a few: Computer Science Encryption Communications systems Optics Physics Economics Biology There is no purer description of the universe than math. It's never just art. Just about everything that you know about Newton, or Maxwell, or Einstein, or Heisenberg, or Dirac, or Feynman, or Hawking has been expressed in a mathematical equation. Quoted:
You're typing this on a computer, and asking why numbers and computations are important? No, but thanks for the snark. I get all of that guys, I really do, but I suppose it is my own ignorance (and cynicism) that blinds me to the possible use of such a computation. "Unlimited energy and faster than light travel is within our grasp, gentlemen, but for the fact that we need to figure out the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in three different ways. Sonofabitch!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:06:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
His brain used all of his body's resources too early. His brain jumped out at the last minute and sucked a few other heads dry too. Then we elected one of those president. You should get your ODS treated. In a thread about a mathematical prodigy, you managed to work Obama into your useless reply. This is getting really old.
Obama wasn't even born then. FDR on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:08:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Well Motormouth, the equations this guy described on his deathbed have applications in theoretical physics. No one knew that until decades after his death.
That's what people are trying to explain about math; even seemingly trivial things often turn out to be useful in unexpected ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:10:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? So what? So what??? This must be Math Fail Day at ARFCom. Here is your "so what": Give me a proof that 1729 is the smallest representable sum of two cubed sets. The two sets are specific numbers, rather than just any old sets of cubed numbers you have lying around your garage. Therefore, your mathematical proof will require that you establish a.) exactly what those cubed numbers are, and b.) proof that 1729 is the smallest number you can possibly do this with. You have to work this out in your head and you have two seconds. Go... Yeah sure, but tell me why first. You're typing this on a computer, and asking why numbers and computations are important? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:11:48 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? I can't even comprehend what he means by the sum of two cubes in two different ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:15:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
quote tree I get all of that guys, I really do, but I suppose it is my own ignorance (and cynicism) that blinds me to the possible use of such a computation. The number itself is not "really" significant. It was used as a mark of his ability. The genius he shared the cab gave some thought to the number, but did not see any significance. His ability to pull relations and significance of numbers from his head with almost zero fore thought, are what make him amazing. His skills were used for much greater things, this was just an anecdotal highlight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:18:43 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? Those numbers had me stumped. Then I wrote it the right way: 13+123=93+103. I'm out! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:23:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? Those numbers had me stumped. Then I wrote it the right way: 13+123=93+103. I'm out! Thanks, because my brain was frying tring to figure it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:32:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
His brain used all of his body's resources too early. His brain jumped out at the last minute and sucked a few other heads dry too. Then we elected one of those president. You should get your ODS treated. In a thread about a mathematical prodigy, you managed to work Obama into your useless reply. This is getting really old. I thought he was talking about Carter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2012 8:38:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." 1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103 I'm sure the man was brilliant, but, seriously, "the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways?" So what? Those numbers had me stumped. Then I wrote it the right way: 13+123=93+103. I'm out! Thanks, because my brain was frying tring to figure it. Yeah I think someone forgot the ol' exponent caret. Those numbers cubed woulda been large.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
