Slashdot Mirror
Imagining Numbers
Much of modern mathematical literature is structured with crisp, scripted precision. First there is theorem one, then theorem two, which leads to theorem three, which could only be followed by theorem four, and so on until we reach theorem n. If you want to learn the mathematics of complex numbers (a +bi), then classic texts (this or this) will get you there.
Some may like this logical progression, but it leaves others cold in the same way that crisp, modern architecture by Mies van de Rohe leaves some craving a more layered, fractured, ornate, organic and just plain fun place to live and work. Less isn't more, as Robert Venturi said, less is a bore.
If you happen to feel a chill when churning through an assembly line of theorems, you might enjoy the treatment of Mazur, a professor at Harvard who seems to spend as much time reading poets like Rilke or Stevens as he does examining old mathematical texts. Mazur is not the kind of machine that turns coffee into theorems-- he's too busy stopping to smell the rhetorical flourishes.
The book isn't aimed at mathematicians per se. The publisher, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux specializes in mainstream literature and that's probably the best pigeonhole for this book. Mazur wants the reader to understand how to think about imaginary numbers, not evaluate some integrals -- and that reader could really be anyone with the desire to think about mathematical things. The book is simple enough to be accessible to most who will be interested in it.
In many ways, Mazur attempted a much harder task than just teaching complex analysis. It's one thing to learn how to find the roots of polynomials, but it's another thing to try to help people get a feeling or an intuition for the square root of minus fifteen. Integers are easy to understand and even feel by counting out things, but imaginary numbers don't seem to exist. Mathematicians have spent many years trying to find the best metaphors and structures to understand how to find answers for all polynomials and it's never been an easy struggle.
The best part of the book is, without doubt, the historical treatment of how other mathematicians confronted the question of irrational and complex numbers. These ideas have always been hard to grasp and it took time to evolve the most compact and consistent nomenclature.
If you're interested in mathematics as more than just a mechanism that churns out answers, you'll probably enjoy the book. It's a light, friendly, philosophical expedition looking for a way to make imaginary numbers work in our minds.
Peter Wayner is the author of Translucent Databases , a book on how to imagine databases that hold no information yet still do useful work. You can purchase Imagining Numbers from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
FP?
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). And just like with Afgh
uhm... how about this: you live your life and you let others live theirs.
I got nothin'.
Once again the president has shown himself to have courage and clarity of mind in taking the brave actions against Saddam and his henchman.
The spineless anti-war assholes will be shown the error of their ways when Baghdad is liberated and joyous citizens celebrate the overthrow of the murderer Hussein.
When the truth comes out insignificant countries like France will grovel under the foot of American might.
Our European enemies are truly jealous and frightened of American economic and military power. They are praying for our humiliation in Iraq. Alas all you cowards will be shown how the most powerful country in the history of the world takes care of business when it decides to.
The old and decrepit countries of Europe will be swept aside like the worthless little worms they are. They hate the US because we don't give a shit what they think and refuse to follow their appeasing actions.
African countries are more honorable than those scum contries of Old Europe.
The world brightest and best clamor to come to the US, because they know it is the greatest country in the world. Europe gets the left over scum like Arabs and Turks. It will be truly comical when the day arrives when the Arabs and Turks outnumber the natives in loser countries like France and Germany.
Sorry assholes, but you will not like what you are about to see in the next few days.
God bless our great leader President Bush!!
So what's the connection to Beowulf clusters? What kind of computational power do these "numbers" things have?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The finalists have been announced for the 2003 Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Prize (minor insignificant country division) in Pyongyang NORTH KOREA by Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Il. They are:
1)Germany
2)Ghana
3)Guinea
4)Mozambique
and twenty time winner
5)France
Good luck to these cowardly backwards countries!
The Resignation Speech of Robin Cook (British Member of Parliament)
17 March 2003 9.44 pm
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner-not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for thi
don't forget Russia and China would have VETOed the resolution/ultimatum too!
but yes, it's so easy to bash a 'small' country like France.
"Oh and by the way do you have any current examples of where France has helped us in this generation?"
they helped US in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and for probing (French Secret Services are very well implemented in Middle East), and for Kosovo (they are the largest army in place in Kosovo nowadays), and I should say Iraq in 1991 !
I don't know what stocks you are picking but mine are doing great now a days.
Since when did you become the center of the financial universe? Were you really so desperate to argue the point that you couldn't have looked at the New Yorl or FTSE indexes?
"The death toll was staggering. The full extent of the Dresden Holocaust can be more readily grasped if one considers that well over 250,000 -- possibly as many as a half a million -- persons died within a 14-hour period"
And technically, it isn't terrorism when the government does it. Right?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Have you read the news lately? There little comment is not fairing well with there careers. They have already appologies for there comment. But yet radio stations continue to pull them off the air.
You use this example as a defence against the arguments?! What planet are you living on? Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech, possibly one of the most American traditions? Do people only get Freedom of Speech if you agree with them?
Because of the French we lost our chance at a second round of diplomacy
No, because of a bunch of bone headed and downright wrong moves by the US and UK, you lost your chance at diplomacy. We still havn't seen any evidence of WMD (Other than the ones we sold to Iraq in the 80's of course!), no evidence of links to Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden, no evidence of anything that Iraq has been accused of in fact.
What has happened is that Bush and Blair have backed themselves into a corner. They we so sure of themselves six months ago that they were sure Iraq was doing bad things. Turns out that the U.N inspectors found nothing wrong, and the U.S investigations have shown no links to terrorism. Bush and Blair can't loose face; they've threatened and rattled their sabre and damnit, they're going to have their war!