Connect with us

Published

on

Here at Live Science, we love numbers. And on Pi Day — March 14, or 3/14 — we love to celebrate the world’s most famous irrational number, pi, whose first 10 digits are 3.141592653. 

As the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, pi is not just irrational, meaning it can’t be written as a simple fraction. It is also transcendental, meaning it’s not the root, or solution, to any polynomial equation, such as x+2X^2+3 = 0.

Pi may be one of the best-known numbers, but for people who are paid to think about numbers all day long, the circle constant can be a bit of a bore. We asked several mathematicians to tell us their favorite non-pi numbers. Here are some of their answers.Tau

People often eat pie on pi day. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

You know what’s cooler than one pie? … Two pies. In other words, two times pi, or the number “tau,” which is roughly 6.28.

“Using tau makes every formula clearer and more logical than using pi,” said John Baez (opens in new tab) , a mathematician at the University of California, Riverside. “Our focus on pi rather than 2pi is a historical accident.”

Tau is what shows up in the most important formulas, he said.

While pi relates a circle’s circumference to its diameter, tau relates a circle’s circumference to its radius — and many mathematicians argue that this relationship is much more important. Tau also makes seemingly unrelated equations nicely symmetrical, such as the one for a circle’s area and an equation describing kinetic and elastic energy.

But tau will not be forgotten on Pi Day! As per tradition, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will send out decisions at 6:28 p.m. today. A few months from now, on June 28, it will be Tau Day.Natural log base

The natural log is expressed as the symbol “e.” (Image credit: Shutterstock)

The base of natural logarithms — written as “e” for its namesake, the 18th-century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler — may not be as famous as pi, but it also has its own holiday. So, while 3.14 is celebrated on March 14, natural log base — the irrational number beginning with 2.718 — is lionized on Feb. 7.

The base of natural logarithms is most often used in equations (opens in new tab) involving logarithms, exponential growth and complex numbers.

“[It] has the wonderful definition as being the one number for which the exponential function y = e^x has a slope equal to its value at every point,” Keith Devlin (opens in new tab) , emeritus professor and former director of the Stanford University Mathematics Outreach Project in the Graduate School of Education, told Live Science. In other words, if the value of a function is, say, 7.5 at a certain point, then its slope, or derivative, at that point is also 7.5. And, “like pi, it comes up all the time in mathematics, physics and engineering,” Devlin said.Imaginary number i

The imaginary number i. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

Take the “p” out of “pi,” and what do you get? That’s right, the number i. No, that’s not really how it works, but i is a pretty cool number. It’s the square root of -1, which means it’s a rule breaker, as you’re not supposed to take the square root of a negative number.

“Yet, if we break that rule, we get to invent the imaginary numbers, and so the complex numbers, which are both beautiful and useful,” Eugenia Cheng (opens in new tab) , a mathematician at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, told Live Science in an email. (Complex numbers can be expressed as the sum of both real and imaginary parts.)

The imaginary number i is an exceptionally weird number because -1 has two square roots: i and -i, Cheng said. “But we can’t tell which one is which!” Mathematicians have to just pick one square root and call it i and the other -i.

“It’s weird and wonderful,” Cheng said.i to the power of i

The number i raised to the power of i is actually a real number roughly equal to 0.207. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

Believe it or not, there are ways to make i even weirder. For example, you can raise i to the power of i — in other words, take the square root of -1 raised to the square root of -1 power.

“At a glance, this looks like the most imaginary number possible — an imaginary number raised to an imaginary power,” David Richeson, a professor of mathematics at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania and author of the book “Tales of Impossibility: The 2,000-Year Quest to Solve the Mathematical Problems of Antiquity (opens in new tab) ” (Princeton University Press, 2019), told Live Science. “But, in fact, as Leonhard Euler wrote in a 1746 letter, it is a real number!”

Finding the value of i to the i power involves rearranging Euler’s identity, a formula relating the irrational number e, the imaginary number i, and the sine and cosine of a given angle. When you solve the formula for a 90-degree angle (which can be expressed as pi over 2), you can simplify the equation to show that i to the power of i equals e raised to the power of negative pi over 2.

It sounds confusing (here’s the full calculation (opens in new tab) , if you dare to read it), but the result equals roughly 0.207 — a very real number. At least, in the case of a 90-degree angle.

“As Euler pointed out, i to the i power does not have a single value,” Richeson said, but rather takes on “infinitely many” values depending on the angle you’re solving for. (Because of this, it’s unlikely we’ll ever celebrate an “i to the power of i day.”)Belphegor’s prime number

Belphégor’s prime number, named after a demon, is a palindromic prime with a 666 hiding in the middle. (Image credit: Louis Le Breton/Dictionnaire Infernal)

Belphegor’s prime number is a palindromic prime number with a 666 hiding between 13 zeros and a 1 on each side. The ominous number can be abbreviated as 1 0(13) 666 0(13) 1, where the (13) denotes the number of zeros between the 1 and 666.

Although he didn’t “discover” the number, scientist and author Cliff Pickover (opens in new tab) made the sinister-looking number famous when he named it after Belphegor (or Beelphegor), one of the seven demon princes of hell in the Bible.

The number apparently even has its own devilish symbol, which looks like an upside-down symbol for pi. According to Pickover’s website, the symbol is derived from a glyph in the mysterious Voynich manuscript, an early-15th-century compilation of illustrations and text that no one seems to understand.2^{aleph_0}

There are many types of infinities, and 2^{aleph_0} is a number that describes the size of a particular infinite set.

Harvard mathematician W. Hugh Woodin (opens in new tab) has devoted many years of research to infinite numbers. It’s no surprise, then, that his favorite number is an infinite one: 2^{aleph_0}, or 2 raised to the power of aleph-naught, also called aleph-null. Aleph numbers are used to describe the sizes of infinite sets, where a set is any collection of distinct objects in mathematics. (So, for example, the numbers 2, 4 and 6 can form a set of size 3.)

As for why Woodin chose the number, he said, “Realizing that 2^{aleph_0} is not aleph_0 (i.e., Cantor’s theorem (opens in new tab) ) is the realization that there are different sizes of infinite. So that makes the conception of 2^{aleph_0} rather special.”

In other words, there’s always something bigger: Infinite cardinal numbers are infinite, so there is no such thing as the “largest cardinal number.”Apéry’s constant

Apéry’s constant is an irrational number that begins with 1.2020569 and continues infinitely and shows up in physics equations describing magnetism and the electron. (Image credit: Ian Cuming/Getty Images)

Harvard mathematician Oliver Knill (opens in new tab) told Live Science his favorite number is the Apéry’s constant (zeta(3)), “because there is still some mystery associated with it.” In 1979, French mathematician Roger Apéry proved that a value that would come to be known as Apéry’s constant is an irrational number. (It begins with 1.2020569 and continues infinitely.) The constant is also written as zeta(3), where zeta(3) is the Riemann zeta function when you plug in the number 3.

One of the biggest outstanding problems in math, the Riemann hypothesis, makes a prediction about when the Riemann zeta function equals zero and, if proven, would allow mathematicians to better predict how the prime numbers are distributed.

Riemann’s Zeta function. (Image credit: Furfur)

Of the Riemann hypothesis, renowned 20th-century mathematician David Hilbert once said (opens in new tab) , “If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be, ‘Has the Riemann hypothesis been proven?'”

So what’s so cool about this constant? It turns out that Apéry’s constant shows up in fascinating places in physics, including in equations governing the electron’s magnetism and orientation to its angular momentum.The number 1

The number 1 has many interesting properties, such as being the only number that is neither prime nor able to be factored into two numbers. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

Ed Letzter (opens in new tab) , a mathematician at Temple University in Philadelphia (and father of former Live Science staff writer Rafi Letzter), had a practical answer:

“I suppose this is a boring answer, but I’d have to choose 1 as my favorite, both as a number and in its different roles in so many different more abstract contexts,” he told Live Science.

One is the only number by which all other numbers divide into integers. It’s the only number divisible by exactly one positive integer (itself, 1). It’s the only positive integer that’s neither prime nor composite.

In both math and engineering, values are often represented as between 0 and 1: “100%” is just a fancy way of saying 1. It’s whole and complete.

And, of course, throughout the sciences, 1 is used to represent basic units. A single proton is said to have a charge of +1. In binary logic, 1 means yes. It’s the atomic number of the lightest element, and it’s the dimension of a straight line.Euler’s identity

Leonhard Euler was a Swiss mathematician, and his identity ties together three fascinating numbers: pi, natural log and i. (Image credit: Jakob Emanuel Handmann/Wikimedia Commons)

Euler’s identity, which is actually an equation, is a real mathematical jewel, at least as described by the late physicist Richard Feynman. It has also been compared to a Shakespearean sonnet.

In a nutshell, Euler’s identity ties together a number of mathematical constants: pi, natural log e and the imaginary unit i.

“[It] connects these three constants with the additive identity 0 and the multiplicative identity of elementary arithmetic: e^{i*Pi} + 1 = 0,” Devlin said.The number 0

Zero may have many useful properties, but it was a surprisingly late concept to emerge. (Image credit: Fernando Trabanco Fotografía/Getty)

If we’re already talking about how awesome 1 is, then why not throw in the even weirder and cooler number 0? For most of written human history, the concept of zero wasn’t all that important. Clay tablets from ancient Babylonian times didn’t always distinguish between numbers like 216 and 2106, according to the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (opens in new tab) . 

The ancient Greeks began to develop the idea of using zero as an empty place indicator to distinguish numbers of different magnitudes, but it wasn’t until roughly the seventh century that Indian mathematicians, like Brahmagupta, began describing the modern idea of zero. Brahmagupta wrote that any number multiplied by zero is zero, but he struggled with division, saying that a number, n, divided by zero just comes out as n/0, rather than the modern answer, which is that the result is undefined. (The Maya had also independently derived the concept of zero by A.D. 665.) 

Zero is extremely useful, but it is a very tricky concept for many people to wrap their heads around. We have examples such as 1 horse or 3 chickens in our day-to-day lives, but using a number to represent nothing is a larger conceptual leap. “Zero is in the mind but not in the sensory world,” the late Robert Kaplan, a Harvard math professor, told Vox (Kaplan died in 2021). Still, without 0 (and 1), we wouldn’t be able to represent all of the digital binary code that makes our contemporary world run. (Data on computers is represented by strings of 0s and 1s.)The square root of 2

This painting by Raphael depicts philosophers from the school of Athens, including Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras, who was credited with discovering the square root of 2. (Image credit: mikroman6/Getty)

Perhaps the most dangerous number ever conceived, the square root of 2 supposedly led to the first mathematical murder in history. The Greek mathematician Hippasus of Metapontum is credited with discovering it in the fifth century B.C., according to the University of Cambridge (opens in new tab) . While working on a separate problem, Hippasus is said to have stumbled on the fact that an isosceles right triangle whose two base sides are 1 unit in length will have a hypotenuse that is √2, which is an irrational number. 

According to legend, Hippasus’ contemporaries, members of the quasi-religious order known as the Pythagoreans, threw him into the sea after hearing about his great discovery. That’s because the Pythagoreans believed that “all is number” and the universe only contained whole numbers and their ratios. Irrational numbers like √2 (and pi), which can’t be expressed as a ratio of whole numbers and go on forever after the decimal place, were seen as an abomination. 

These days, we’re a little calmer about √2, often calling it Pythagoras’ constant. It starts off as 1.4142135623 … (and, of course, goes on forever). ) Pythagoras’ constant has all sorts of uses. Besides proving the existence of irrational numbers, it is used by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to define the A paper size. The 216 definition (opens in new tab) of the A paper states that the sheet’s length divided by its width should be 1.4142. This means that a piece of A1 paper divided in half by width will yield two A2 pieces of paper. Divide an A2 in half again, and it will produce two A3 pieces of paper, and so on.Slice of pi

NASA uses a truncated estimate of pi that only includes 15 places after the decimal point. That’s all the agency needs to get everywhere they want to go in space. (Image credit: NASA/JPL)

Sometimes, the number cooler than pi is…a truncated version of pi. At least, that’s the case for NASA and scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California. For interplanetary navigation, JPL uses the number 3.141592653589793, according to JPL’s Chief Engineer for Mission Operations and Science, Marc Rayman (opens in new tab) . At that level of accuracy, Rayman said, NASA can get everything it builds wherever it needs to go.

To see why, it’s helpful to do some number-crunching. The most distant spacecraft from Earth is the Voyager 1 spacecraft, which is more than 14.6 billion miles (23.5 billion kilometers) distant from us. At this distance, you can calculate a circumference of a circle that is roughly 94 billion miles (more than 150 billion km) around, yet adding extra decimal places to pi only shaves off a half-inch (1.2 centimeters) of error from the calculation, Rayman said.

Even if scientists wanted to calculate the radius of a circle the size of the known universe to the accuracy of a width of a hydrogen atom, it would only need 37 digits after the decimal point to reach that accuracy, Rayman said.

So what’s cooler than pi? A slice of pi.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Eddie Murphy: I’ll get an Oscars trophy eventually – when I’m old and have no teeth

Published

on

By

Eddie Murphy: I'll get an Oscars trophy eventually - when I'm old and have no teeth

Eddie Murphy has told Sky News he doesn’t ever expect to win awards – but will happily accept an honorary Oscar when he’s 90.

Murphy is one of the biggest stars in comedy after starting out on Saturday Night Live (SNL) in 1980 and starring in a number of big franchises from Beverly Hills Cop to Shrek.

His latest project is heist comedy The Pickup, centred on two security van drivers. Keke Palmer and Pete Davidson star alongside him.

Pete Davidson, Eddie Murphy and Keke Palmer in The Pickup. Pic: Amazon MGM Studios
Image:
Pete Davidson, Eddie Murphy and Keke Palmer in The Pickup. Pic: Amazon MGM Studios

Murphy says award recognition was never something that shaped the projects he chose.

“The movies are timeless, and they’re special, so for years and years those movies play and the movies have commercial success.

“So you make a lot of money and people love it, so you don’t even think about ‘I didn’t win a trophy!’ The response from the people and that the movie has legs, that’s the trophy.

“You know what I’ve earned over these years? One day, they’ll give me one of those honorary Oscars. When I’m really old. And I’ll say thank you so much for this wonderful honour. I’ll be old like that and I’ll have no teeth. I’m cool with getting my honorary Oscar when I’m 90.”

Murphy, 64, has only been nominated once – for Dreamgirls in 2007, when Alan Arkin won the best supporting actor Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine.

Murphy’s co-star Palmer says she considers Murphy an icon in the industry, and The Nutty Professor was a true display of his artistry.

Eddie Murphy as Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Eddie Murphy as Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor. Pic: Reuters

“I feel like recognition and [being] underrated and all this stuff, it annoys me a little bit because I think impact is really the greatest thing, like how people were moved by your work, which can’t really be measured by an award or really anything,” Palmer says.

“It’s very hard to make people laugh, and so when I think about it like The Nutty Professor, Eddie was doing everything, and I swear that the family members were real people.

“He didn’t camp it to the point where they weren’t realistic. His roles had integrity, even when he was in full costume. And I do think that’s something that should change in our industry. Comedy, it should be looked at just as prestigious as when you see somebody cry, because it’s that hard to make somebody laugh.”

Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson in The Pickup. Pic: Amazon MGM Studios
Image:
Eddie Murphy and Pete Davidson in The Pickup. Pic: Amazon MGM Studios

Recalling his time on the 90s comedy, Murphy says he’s still in disbelief of what they achieved in making the film with him playing seven characters – Professor Sherman Klump, Buddy Love, Lance Perkins, Young Papa Klump, Granny Klump, Ernie Klump and Mama Klump.

“You can only shoot one character a day. And the rest of the time you’re shooting, I’m talking to tennis balls where the people were sitting.

“So to this day when I watch it, I’m like, wow, that’s a trip. But we were able to mix all that stuff up and different voices and make it feel so that you don’t even feel like when you’re watching it, someone have to tell you, hey, you know, those are all one person.”

The film won best makeup at the 1997 Academy Awards.

Security guards buddy comedy

Palmer says their new project, The Pickup, is responsible for one of the most memorable moments of her life when she mistook Murphy’s acting for real praise.

“First of all, Eddie gives me this big speech before I do the monologue, where he’s like, ‘this is not playing around. This is a pivotal point in the movie’.

“I’m crying in the scene, and then it comes to the end, and Eddie’s [clapping] like, and I’m literally like, ‘oh my gosh, thank you so much’. And he’s like, ‘I’m acting’. When I tell you, it was so crazy, yeah. That’s like one of my most memorable moments in life.”

Keke Palmer and Pete Davidson star in The Pickup
Image:
Keke Palmer and Pete Davidson star in The Pickup

Davidson is excited to see how the UK puts its own stamp on SNL, the show where both he and Murphy got their start on-screen.

“It’s a smart idea to have SNL over there because it’s not that it’s a different brand of comedy, but it is a little bit. A lot of the biggest stuff that’s in the States is stuff that we stole from you guys, like The Office or literally anything Ricky Gervais does.

“This is the first time I’ve ever heard anything American going to the UK, so I think it’s great. I think it’s great to have two opposite sorts of takes on things, but both be funny. That just shows you how broad comedy can be, you know?

The Pickup is out on Prime Video now.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money – it may end up doing the opposite

Published

on

By

Why Rachel Reeves may want to rethink one of her pivotal policies

What do we do about the non-doms? 

It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.

Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.

Then that all changed.

Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”

The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.

If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.

Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters

With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.

So, how worried should she be?

The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.

However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.

Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.

Property sales

Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.

Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.

This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.

Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT
Image:
Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT

“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.

“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.

“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”

Lack of options for non-doms

But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.

This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.

In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.

In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.

Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Are taxes going to rise?

The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.

Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.

So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.

Have Labour crossed a red line?

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.

The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Rachel Reeves would hate what you just said’

Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.

“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”

With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.

Continue Reading

US

Trump and Putin’s first meeting in years does not necessarily mean a ceasefire in Ukraine

Published

on

By

Trump and Putin's first meeting in years does not necessarily mean a ceasefire in Ukraine

It could be diplomatic dynamite.

The first meeting between a sitting US and Russian president in more than four years, following one of the bleakest periods in the history of their countries’ bilateral relations.

But a PutinTrump summit does not necessarily mean there will be a ceasefire.

Ukraine war latest: Kremlin aide’s full statement on Trump-Putin talks

On the one hand, it could signal that a point of agreement has been reached and a face-to-face meeting is needed to seal the deal.

That has always been Russia’s stance. It’s consistently said it would only meet at a presidential level if there’s something to agree on.

On the other hand, there might not be anything substantive. It might just be for show.

More on Donald Trump

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Good chance’ Trump will meet Putin soon

It might just be the latest attempt by the Kremlin to diffuse Donald Trump’s anger and dodge his deadline to end the war by Friday or face sanctions.

It would give Trump something that can be presented as progress, but in reality, it delivers anything but.

After all, there has certainly not been any sign that Moscow is willing to soften its negotiating position or step back from its goals on the battlefield.

Tellingly, perhaps, it’s this latter view which has been taken by some of the Russian press on Thursday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have not met face to face since the US president returned to the White House. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have not met face to face since the US president returned to the White House. File pic: Reuters

“Putin won” is the headline in Moskovsky Komsomolets regarding the Kremlin leader’s meeting with Witkoff.

The state-run tabloid quotes a political scientist, Marat Bashirov, who claims Putin “bought time” ahead of Friday’s deadline.

“It is noteworthy that in his rhetoric [on sanctions] Trump did not mention Russia at all,” the paper notes.

Komsomolskaya Pravda is similarly dismissive.

“Donald Trump has two simple interests in connection with Ukraine: to earn money for America, and political whistles and the Nobel Peace Prize for himself,” it says.

“Russia has its own interests,” it adds, “securing them is what Vladimir Putin will seek at a meeting with Trump.”

At this stage, the most likely location is the United Arab Emirates. Putin met the country’s president in the Kremlin today, and afterwards said it would be a “suitable location”. It felt like a strong hint.

And the UAE certainly makes sense.

It’s played mediator for a number of the prisoner swaps between Russia and Ukraine; it has good relations with the US (and was one of Trump’s stops on his recent Middle East tour); and most importantly for Moscow, it’s not a member of the International Criminal Court. So Putin doesn’t have to worry about being arrested.

But if NBC’s reports are correct, that a Putin-Trump summit is conditional on the Russian president meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, then the summit may not happen at all.

Read more on Russia and Ukraine:
Trump went from frustration to a possible Putin meeting in hours
What could a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine involve?
India hints it will keep buying Russian oil – despite Trump threats

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Until now, Putin has refused to meet Zelenskyy, despite numerous demands from Kyiv, because he views him as illegitimate.

The Kremlin said the prospect of a trilateral meeting between the leaders was mentioned by Witkoff on Wednesday, but the proposal was left “completely without comment” by Russia.

Continue Reading

Trending