mommy:”what do you say if a stranger offers you chocolate?”

child:”Yes!”

mommy:”No, think again”

child hesitates.

child:”please?”

FWIW: bullet 1, as you quote it, doesn’t sound different from today. In both cases, it is common.

bullet 3, also doesn’t sound different from the myriad parenting books and columns I’ve read. Safety and stranger hysteria are so common they don’t even need to be mentioned.

Bullet 2: is it legal to take a vacation without the kids? really? What country? I simply don’t believe it.

]]>The Wiki article in Hebrew is good, not so in English.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A2

]]>If there were, then I’m pretty sure it would factor through geometry and representation theory: the Shintani zeta function machinery (and likewise Bhargava, Shankar, and Tsimerman’s “slicing” approach) allows you to take geometric properties and turn them into statements about secondary poles. But if there is no geometry to begin with, then there is no real way to get started.

Along these lines, please allow me to advertise a forthcoming paper of Taniguchi’s, where he reproves many of the analytic properties of the (binary cubic form) Shintani zeta function in a very simple way which cleanly illustrates what is going on.

There are some formal similarities between Florea’s argument and Shintani zeta function arguments (more so to Shintani’s work, than to e.g. my paper with Taniguchi). Also Florea gets at the central value via the approximate functional equation — which means that she turns into her problem into a “more honest” counting problem, which I think could well have a geometric interpretation. So I wonder if there is one!

Unfortunately, I don’t think that anything in the theory of Shintani zeta functions will help you go looking for it.

]]>