I'm quoted in the New Scientist article "Deep meaning in Ramanujan's 'simple' pattern", but what did I really say?
If you've ever been interviewed by a journalist, then you know well that the comments you make go through a substantial evolution process before
they make it into print, usually with horrifying results if you care at all about correctness of statements ... and
in Mathematics we care a great deal about such things! Just to clarify then (since I have been asked):
No, I am not actively trying to apply Ono's methods in my own research.
Rather, I commented that the new results (mentioned in the New Scientist article) will generate much excitement in the Partition Theory community,
and the test of their significance will be the extent to which the underlying methods may be applicable
elsewhere in Mathematics, and in particular Number Theory. My opinion is that there may be some such scope in modular forms, but I do not expect any implications in my
own areas of interest.
The article is worth reading, and I certainly have not been badly misquoted! There's just a slight misinterpretation available
that, for those who know my own research interests, would seem rather surprising!