Slashdot Mirror


Pure Math, Pure Joy

e271828 writes "The New York Times is carrying a nice little piece entitled Pure Math, Pure Joy about the beauty and applicability of pure math as carried out at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute. There is an accompanying slideshow of pictures of mathematicians in action; I particularly loved the picture titled Waging Mental Battle with a Proof."

315 comments

  1. Ah yes... by Joel+Bruick · · Score: 5, Funny

    The joy of pure math. Second only to the joy of pure self-mutilation.

    1. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The joy of pure math. Second only to the joy of pure self-mutilation

      I thought it went: "The joy of pure math. Second only to the joy of sex." Oh, wait, this is Slashdot...nevermind!

    2. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the joke, but then again, as you said, this is Slashdot.

    3. Re:Ah yes... by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, like mathematicians get laid...

    4. Re:Ah yes... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      The joy of pure math. Second only to the joy of pure self-mutilation.

      Interesting, can you write down a proof for that?
    5. Re:Ah yes... by opaqueice · · Score: 1

      Weird that in an article about mathematics, all the people quoted (not counting Erdos) are physicists... Overbye must be too lazy to update his address book.

    6. Re:Ah yes... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some of them must ... otherwise where do the little mathematicians come from?

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    7. Re:Ah yes... by Rocky · · Score: 1

      He could.. but it wouldn't fit in the margin...

      --
      "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
    8. Re:Ah yes... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      >where do the little mathematicians come from

      Very disappointed parents.

    9. Re:Ah yes... by sto+237 · · Score: 1

      Well, first you propose that the joy of pure math is second to something other than the joy of self-mutilation. Then you try to find a contradiction.

    10. Re:Ah yes... by Baikala · · Score: 1

      yea right, fu''ng Fermat

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
  2. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What? I don't understand. No registration? OMG.

  3. Visualizing the solution... by calebb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very cool article! I liked the statement: "Nobody knows when some abstruse bit of math will float off a blackboard at a place like this and become a..." It reminded me of the radiant primes observation

    I imagine it will be a method similar to this that helps us discover the first billion digit prime number, not some brute-force method. Speaking of prime numbers & slightly off-topic, on 5/31/2003 there was an eclipse (solar) over Norway from 4:43AM to 6:41AM. 5, 31, 2003, 443 & 641 are all prime...

    1. Re:Visualizing the solution... by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Funny
      Speaking of prime numbers & slightly off-topic, on 5/31/2003 there was an eclipse (solar) over Norway from 4:43AM to 6:41AM. 5, 31, 2003, 443 & 641 are all prime...

      Heh heh... If you noticed that then you would've failed this too. A while back my girlfriend showed me a question from a Mensa test that clued me in to what that organization is all about:

      Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10

      Well, anyone who knows a prime from a hole in the ground would choose (e), but the correct answer was (f), 8. And why? Because it is the only "symmetrical" number, as printed on the page!

    2. Re:Visualizing the solution... by j3110 · · Score: 1

      8 is the only cube too, silly /.er

      10 is semetrical vertically, pretty much.

      --
      Karma Clown
    3. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So when there are two correct answers, one involving some sort of mastery of basic math, and a subtle answer involving typography, Mensa chooses the latter? That seems very wrong to me.

    4. Re:Visualizing the solution... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How about this one:

      What is the next in the sequence of:
      1,2,4,...

      My answer was . The sequence is the largest number of separate enclosed areas it is possible to make by adding a single straight line to a circle. (i.e. 1 for no lines, 2 for one line, 4 for two lines)

      I hate this kind of question, because it is possible to design a sequence such that any number comes next, so any test which includes the possibility of incorrect answers is just plain wrong. Of course you should have to justify your answer, but since the IQ tests are multiple choice...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like you've been working in Domino's longer than you've been working in binary. :)

    6. Re:Visualizing the solution... by backdoorstudent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is correct that any number can come next in that sequence or any other. This is called the Matiyasevich-Robinson theorem.

    7. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who used to find it fun to grab Mensa intelligence tests and search for "alternate correct answers" or "arguably ambiguous questions" I can assure you this sort of thing happens all the time... Take a question from their website sample test for example:

      Which word of four letters can be added to the front of the following words to create other English words?

      CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE

      Well, "HASTE" pretty much gives the answer away. But wait, what is a postbox, postcode or postbag? I could make a guess as to what they are, but I've never heard ANY of them used before. As it turns out, all three of those terms are exactly what they sound like, but are generally used in the U.K. or Australia. For example "postcode" did not enter Webster's American Dictionary until 1967. I filed this one under "biased towards other nationality or experience with foreign lingo".

      It's hard to create an unbiased test intelligence, I agree. But I do expect those who write the tests to be smarter than the average genius and actively looking for slip ups like words that are colloquialisms of smaller areas or lists that contain one symmetric and one prime number and asking which is unique.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    8. Re:Visualizing the solution... by awol · · Score: 1

      Well, anyone who knows a prime from a hole in the ground would choose (e), but the correct answer was (f), 8. And why? Because it is the only "symmetrical" number, as printed on the page!

      And even worse that answer isn't right either. Even assuming that the 8 was type faced nicely, it still has vertical and horizontal reflection symmetry and rotational symmetry order 2. 10 has horizontal reflection symmetry so it is all just a crock

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    9. Re:Visualizing the solution... by paugq · · Score: 1

      Do you have a written notes of it? Could you please send me them? Thank you.

    10. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      No no, it should have been (j) because it is the only one in BINARY! *Sheesh*!

    11. Re:Visualizing the solution... by oobar · · Score: 1

      This just in: Mensa Test Shown To Effectively Test For Ability To Take Mensa Tests, Not Much Else.

    12. Re:Visualizing the solution... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Uh, forgive me, but why is this is THEOREM?

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    13. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a similar manner to the one above, I had a question asked of me which considered a square matrix with numbers given for most, but not all, elements. One was required to give the correct number for a specific missing elements. I was able to match at least 2 distinct patterns which would each give a different answer. Given time, I might have found more. Only one answer was allowed as correct at the time of marking.

      Mensa appears to have more to do with people asserting their intellectual superiority over others than anything else. Very bright and intelligent people, yes, but I wish they would stop believing that they are something special.

    14. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Because somebody proved it (the two guys whose name goes with it).

    15. Re:Visualizing the solution... by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      I imagine it will be a method similar to this that helps us discover ...

      I imagine it will be a method similar to this which will help us discover what type of cheese the moon is made of, and why the surface of it resembles rock.

    16. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, usually these retrospective observations about primes have very little predictive value, and often reduce to really trivial facts (or else widely accepted conjectures). This radiant observation looks like it only tells you some regions are 2-3 times as likely to have primes than others, and that's utterly useless. In order to get a billion digit prime, you'll need an observation that tells you there is a 10^10000000 times better chance of finding a prime in some region.

    17. Re:Visualizing the solution... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I hear ya, its like, hears is a question with 5 correct answers, you are only smart if you happen to guess the one we chose.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Visualizing the solution... by rutger21 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can use some sort of rule: "the less complex explaination for you data is the right answer".

      So, if the explaination for the data "The sequence is the largest number of separate enclosed areas it is possible to make by adding a single straight line to a circle" is compared to "previous times two", the latter is less complex and thus "better".

    19. Re:Visualizing the solution... by alanshitface · · Score: 1

      Symmetrical in what font?

    20. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      What is the next in the sequence of:
      1,2,4,...


      The correct answer is of course 6, that being the sequence representing the ages of my children.

    21. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sequence actually goes 1, 2, 4, 8, 16. So you would suppose that the next term is 32. But you would be wrong. The next term is 31.

    22. Re:Visualizing the solution... by Blitzshlag · · Score: 1

      Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10

      Incorrect, since you posted in italics, the 8 is not symmetrical.

    23. Re:Visualizing the solution... by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      "Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10"

      The odd one out is the unlucky person who fails this test. Mensa is but an elaborate role-playing game. The goal is recreate the parent-child relationship. The people who get to pass this test get to feel superior, they play the role of the parent, and the odd one out who fails this test gets to feel inferior, he plays the role of the child.

  4. Waging mental battle with a proof by pytheron · · Score: 4, Funny

    What this picture doesn't show is the analogue clock just above the blackboard.. they aren't thinking.. just clock-watching !

    --
    "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
    1. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by goodchef · · Score: 1

      I think the funniest part is the guy wearing black socks with white tennis shoes.

      --

      "Inflammable means flammable? What a strange country!" -Dr. Nick, The Simpsons

    2. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by reyalsnogard · · Score: 1

      Those aren't black socks .. he's just wearing a conforming white ski mask and gloves.

    3. Re: Waging mental battle with a proof by gidds · · Score: 1
      You're probably right - I'm sure more real maths is done by writing on blackboards, paper, or whatever, than by sitting and staring.

      Not that pure thinking isn't import to, of course. It's probably like coding: the actual coding is done at a keyboard, even if the important ideas come elsewhere.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    4. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by BWJones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, this is the deal with science and making it attractive to folks, so they see the importance of it. How do you impart the feeling of accomplishment and how efforts of pure thought impact the world?

      I thought this photo essay did an admirable job of conveying what thinking for a living is like, yet how does one make this approachable to the general population? I had a conversation with a film director once sitting in an airport (forget his name), but he was asking me what it was like to be a scientist and how one would impart that feeling in film. I responded that he would probably be best by following a scientist for a couple of weeks and shooting lots of time with rather tired looking individuals who had much passion for what they do but who spend lots of time thinking, applying for grants, staring through microscopes, writing code, writing papers, giving talks and talking with colleagues and above all, no matter what they are doing (eating, running, showering etc...), they are thinking. How do you impart that on film? I had some ideas, but he was probably thinking of an action movie.

      All told however, this article with the accompanying photo essay was well worth the time spent, it would have been nicer to have a more in depth article however.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    5. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bill: so Bob, have you noticed that cute blonde in your 10:00 am Algebra class ?
      .
      Bob: Oh yeah ! I am going to try and convince her that .5" is actually equal to 1".
      .
      Frank: You guy's are so childish - lets smoke another bowl.

    6. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or maybe conveying the concept of thought requires a medium which requires the audience to think, i.e. a book, as opposed to film, where the audience can sit and choose whether to be force-fed an image (which will convey less than the printed word) or ignore the screen (which will also convey less than the printed word).

    7. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know .. I am working on a ph.d. in computer science at uc berkeley myself. I am a systems guy, but every time I walk by a room with some theory professors and students they all are just silent and staring off into space.

      It's weird :-)

    8. Re:Waging mental battle with a proof by PimpNinjaWannaBee · · Score: 0

      I dont know if its scary or just weird that you write analogue clock. Why not just "clock"?

  5. Is this really true? by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in explaining the world, as the physicist Eugene Wigner once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.

    I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.

    1. Re:Is this really true? by Manhigh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that Mathematicians largely arent the philanthropists that scientists are.

      However, seeing as how every science consists largely of mathematical models, the ends justify the means, so to speak.

      In other words, while a mathematician isnt looking for a way to make a longer lasting lightbulb, his or her ideas eventually work their way into science and engineering applications, even if it takes decades to happen.

      --
      "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
    2. Re:Is this really true? by wmspringer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eventually, the math turns out to be useful for something. I doubt that knowing a 100-digit prime number would have been any use whatsoever a hundred years ago, but these days I don't even need to tell you how useful they are.

      So what if the mathematicians work primarily because they enjoy math? So what if the practical applications that come of it are just a side effect? We still get those benifits; does it really matter that those benifits weren't the primary purpose of doing the work?

    3. Re:Is this really true? by aaron240 · · Score: 1

      Advances will necessarily come from whatever knowledge they gain while satisfying their urge to discover patterns. Why should they have to be motivated by helping the world? As it stands now, the world gets what it needs and the math guys get what they want. What's the problem?

    4. Re:Is this really true? by Joel+Bruick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This isn't restricted to mathematicians. There are people working in every field who are motivated by things other than furthering society or understanding the world. Money, of course, is the primary one, but there are certainly others.

    5. Re:Is this really true? by Jaalin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mathematicians do it for the beauty. Society funds them because what is beautiful to a mathematician often turns out to be useful in many other ways. The NSF is paying me to do math research this summer, and honestly I don't care if what I'm doing has any relevance to anything -- I'm just doing it because what I'm studying is really cool and beautiful. But it may turn out that something I find is useful for something else that I never even thought of. This is what happened in large part with number theory -- many of the underlying results were discovered i nthe 1800's and early 1900's, and only later turned out to be useful in cryptography. You can't predict what will be useful and what won't.

    6. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      I would argue that even if they are interested in helping understand the world, "society" (by which I presume you mean "government") shouldn't fund them.

      But let's assume for a moment that helping to understand the world is a reason for society to fund something. Why would you care about their motivation, as long as they are helping to understand the world? What if they're motivated by beautiful answers, but the outcome is world peace. Do you care?

    7. Re:Is this really true? by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      Because they're able to create beauty, like artists and writers and musicians do. Not all human activity should be measured with money, even if money is needed to make it happen

    8. Re:Is this really true? by foonf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      These are two separate things. Many people are attracted to the natural sciences, and even engineering disciplines, not because of a desire to improve the world, but because they find pleasure and abstract beauty in those fields. Yet undeniably work in those areas can lead to benefits for "society", and therefore people doing research in those areas are funded, even if their personal reasons for doing the work have nothing to do with those benefits. Likewise with mathematics, many ideas thought of as purely abstract and disconnected from practical application have turned out, later on, to be useful tools in understanding various real-world phenomena.

      It is totally unscientific and ultimately counter-productive to close off areas of inquiry because at the time they are undertaken no one can know exactly what the consequences will be. And ultimately the motivations of the people involved are irrelevant; we know based on history that there could turn out to be uses for it in the future, even if neither "we" (the society making the decision to support the research), nor those doing the research, can see any at this time, and this potentiality alone should justify providing support.

      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
    9. Re:Is this really true? by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.

      Guess what? It gets worse.. it's not only the mathematicians, but just about anyone and everyone involved in fundamental research.

      I know I am.. I do theoretical chemistry.. and although I'd love to see something useful come out of what I do, I cannot see any immediate uses for my work.

      The point is: It's the foundation research, the fundamentals, that lead to the big, *big* innovations. Although it might not seem useful at the time, it may (or may not) turn out to be very very important in the future. However, by it's nature, we can't know which research is going to pay off in practical terms.

      Einsteins work on stimulated emission probably didn't look very useful back in 1910 either, but it lead to the devlopment of the laser, which noone could've predicted at that time.

      That's why we need to fund this stuff.

    10. Re:Is this really true? by Sprunkys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the sheer beauty of it.

      Asking why you should fund mathematics is asking why you should fund art. Who ever got cured by art?

      I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is the beauty of it.
      It's like the sunset outside my window, it's like Dido's new single emerging from my speakers. Today I spent studying for my thermodynamics exam and even the simple mathematics used therein is beautiful. Wednesday is my Quantum Mechanics exam and if it weren't for the beauty of the mathematics of the Schrödinger equation it would be a whole lot less intruiging. I make that exam for the joy and beauty I find in the mathematics and physics, not because it makes your cd player work.

      Beauty. That is why you should fund mathematics. The fact that it helps society is a secondary concern. But hey, that's just my opinion. And that of the Pythagoreans, to name a few.

      Beauty can be found in more things than a painting or Natalie Portman. It's in logic, in mathematics, hell, it's even in code. It's in patterns, it's in reason, it's in deduction as much as it's in nature, an individual or a thought.

      --
      "We live in our minds, and existance is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality" Ayn Rand
    11. Re:Is this really true? by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they're able to create beauty, like artists and writers and musicians do.

      This is a poor analogy. Artists, writers and musicians put their art works in places that the general public can find them. Society would never pay to create "beauty" that is impenetrable to almost anyone who does not spend full time in the field. Even "modern art" is shown in museums that millions of people go to every years. The better argument in defense of mathematics is its utility. I'm glad that mathematicians find beauty in what they do but I wouldn't offer to pay for it if I didn't think it was likely to be useful to me or my descendants.

    12. Re:Is this really true? by Jonathan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what if the mathematicians work primarily because they enjoy math? So what if the practical applications that come of it are just a side effect? We still get those benifits; does it really matter that those benifits weren't the primary purpose of doing the work?

      Well, I guess I'm somewhat annoyed by the way Hollywood likes to present scientists -- as people similar to the way the article described mathematicans -- that is people that just like puzzles, not worrying about the consequences, even if it means creating some evil world-destroying weapon in the process. That always struck me as a rather offensive stereotype.

    13. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why I don't particularly care too much about pure theoretical and other academician environments such as this.

      I think that science is first and foremost a method for understanding and thus eventually harnessing and manipulating the world around us. As you said, such things can result of course in great benefits to all.

      Of course in the end the question is, "Who is funding this?" If such exercises are funded by any tax dollars than I am assuming that those who see such tax funding as good will then have no problem with my tax funded beer drinking, target practice and wild orgy experiments. Each can be turned into an "applied" field much like mathematics CAN, as research generated by the drinking relationship to unsafe actitivies that would not normally be undertaken (by a sober fellow) can help somewhere I am sure. Who cares, I am not applied... I am theory.

    14. Re:Is this really true? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the most part, we're in it because we want to know. Maybe you think that's a selfish reason, and maybe it is, but when we discover something we immediately share it with the world. The enduring gifts of mathematics are that it extends the boundaries of what is possible with current technology, while presenting us with direction for the future.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    15. Re:Is this really true? by Roelof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that Mathematicians largely arent the philanthropists that scientists are.


      Thus mathematicians aren't scientists.
    16. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it isn't completely true. Some mathematicians call themselves "applied mathematicians," and they dedicate themselves to connecting math with the practicality of the real world. But it is also true that many mathematicians do math for the sake of math. But why is this a problem? Art and music can be looked at in the same point of view. Music won't necessarily cure cancer, and art probably won't help chemical manufacturing. But areas like math, music, and art, for the sake of it, can bring incredible human satisfaction. Humans are the only creatures we know of that are capable of such things, so why deem math for the sake of math as a bad thing? If you followed your reasoning, I guess we shouldn't fund the arts because they have no *practical* use. Math is an incredibly creative and challenging field, that brings people an incredible amount of happiness. But it also happens that math can have many practical applications, so even if it math is practiced with only math in mind, scientists may find applications for the new math, which can help save the world!

    17. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is likely true, but on a profit and loss sheet this shows up as a loss for a long time. It is a hard sell that someday there might be a benifit(MONEY) to the MBA's and lawyers that seem to control the world.

    18. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a mathematician, I can assure you that it is really true. Most people I know see no problem with this. The problem is that mathematics education is severely lacking of late, and as a result we get people with short sighted views like yourself.

    19. Re:Is this really true? by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      You're welcome not to pay for it of course. I didn't intend an analogy, I honestly think there are some things worth doing for the hell of it, not because they are useful.

      PS Excuse me if this sounds a bit stroppy, but you really should avoid the scare quotes. Nasty.

    20. Re:Is this really true? by elizalovesmike · · Score: 1

      Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.

      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world

      I think the deduction you make is a false one.

      Depends somewhat on how you define "the world" but certainly "the world" includes numbers.

      I don't need my mathematicians to be secret altruists nor public ones; it's a no-op either way. If the mathematicians are engaged fully in the task of discovering connections between primes, patterns in primes, et al., whether they do so with magnanimous thoughts in mind is really beside the point. The point is what they discover. Or absent that the point is what they lay the groundwork for that will enable future discoveries.

      You are dangerously close to making the same mistake that would have precluded centuries worth of number theory discovery that has laid the groundwork for at least one prominent public-key cryptography system, today.

      Remember: you can't always know what something will be useful for until you understand that something. And understanding it and its vagaries and corollaries can take a long time, indeed.

      --
      Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
    21. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly a poor analogy at all, my friend.

      Not all new work in mathematics is inaccessible. Matter of fact, some of the most beautiful creations of the past century or so not the complex, inscrutably hard-to-read proofs like Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

      Consider Godel's proof. The basic idea behind it is so simple that even a kid could understand it. Yet it turned the mathematical world on its head.

      You can also look at Ramsey Thoery. While there are some incredibly arcane and impenetrable areas that a hardcore mathematician can go into, the basic idea is simple enough in English: The Party Problem.

      As for utility-- well, I'm sure you realize that for a long time, nobody DID pay mathematicians to do their work. Fermat was a lawyer and a political figure who did math as a (very serious) hobby. Archimedes was paid for creating war machines and weapons-- not math. Gauss was employed in astronomy, which served as an impetus to creating some of his mathematics. Ferro was a paper maker.

      The idea here is that it really doesn't MATTER if the public pays for the work of mathematicians. We'll do it anyway, because we love it.

    22. Re:Is this really true? by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

      I thought the aforementioned Radiant Primes site was pretty neat, and about as "penetrable" to a layperson as your average expressionist piece.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    23. Re:Is this really true? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Silly me. I thought the quest for patterns in and of itself helped one understand the world.

    24. Re:Is this really true? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Mathematicians do it for the beauty.

      That sounds like one of those cheezy bumper sitckers about how different professions have sex.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Is this really true? by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      i am a PhD student in maths... and obviously i will disagree with you. but i have a reason... we may not WANT to change/understand the world; but it happens!!!

      surprise surprise, but the maths we create is used by physicists (about a 50->100 year time lag), which in turn is applied and picked up by engineers/chemists/biologists (another 10->50 year lag) which ends up being some new device or revolution for society to play with. you kill off maths, you kill off science as a whole.

      perfect examples involve ANY piece of electrical equipment, communications, medical care and transport.

      parent is a troll and is very VERY short sighted (see his home page ;-)).

    26. Re:Is this really true? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it pisses people off that they have to do a hard job, maybe one that they don't even like, that is high-pressured and requires them to produce results on time, just to earn a living. Mathematicians, by contrast, seem to get it easy, just being paid to sit around all day thinking, and "if they help society then so much the better".

    27. Re:Is this really true? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      surprise surprise, but the maths we create is used by physicists (about a 50->100 year time lag), which in turn is applied and picked up by engineers/chemists/biologists (another 10->50 year lag) which ends up being some new device or revolution for society to play with. you kill off maths, you kill off science as a whole.

      Well, math is important, but some engineers/chemists/biologists aren't exactly mathematically illiterate you know...

      parent is a troll

      No, it's just that I don't dig that whole "the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody" vibe.

      very VERY short sighted (see his home page ;-)

      Yeah -10.25 right, -4.0 left. :-)

    28. Re:Is this really true? by samhalliday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      thats bollocks, artists are a million times more arrogant about their work than mathematicians. mathematicians are just dying for people to want to look at what they do... i'd give an arm and a leg to be able to properly explain to people what it is that i do, but i cant without them first understanding basic differential geometry and group theory. its like expecting an american person to understand a japanese poem without ever learning japanese. its a different language and character set.

      artists are the most backstabbing bastards on the planet when it comes to enjoying each others work, and if you dont know who is "so cool" to be into this week, they will reject your conversation at a blink of an eye. try talking to a real artist about di vinci or the turner prize (or basically anyone/thing who we as the public are subjected to), and get nothing but "you are sooo not cool" looks form them. then try talking to a mathematician about euclid and try to pry yourself out of the conversation! artists disassociate themselves from society by choice, mathematicians are rejected and want back.

      btw, check out arxiv.org; every math/physics release in the last 10 years has been put there free for anyone to look at; last gallery i went to, i had to pay £5 at the door.

    29. Re:Is this really true? by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      Well, math is important, but some engineers/chemists/biologists aren't exactly mathematically illiterate you know...

      believe me, pure math is a whole different ball game to the kind of maths the applied world uses. i do mathematical physics, and even our way of lookign at, say, group theory and topology is COMPLETELY different to the way the purists talk about it. ive seen applied group theory and even IT is totally different to the way we look at it. there are many MANY levels of translators, and i still believe may time-lag guesses are pretty accurate. you are a pharmacist, i knew pharmacists at undergrad and postgrad level who did what they called "quantum mechanics", which was (what i hear) cutting edge stuff in their field [i.e. last 20 years], but to me as a physicist, it looked REALLY dated.

      -10.25 right, -4.0 left

      its slashdot, aren't we all ;-)

    30. Re:Is this really true? by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      oh, but you are right smallpaul, grandparent really did pick a shitty analogy ;-)

      (sorry for sounding rude then, me is a bit bitter against artists, and since you still call the stuff in galeries "modern art", im guessing you've never came across a real artist... you dont want to!)

    31. Re:Is this really true? by elizalovesmike · · Score: 2, Informative

      "the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody"

      You're screwin' up the causal relationships again.

      Pure math isn't a thing of beauty because discoveries yielded by it may have no *immediate* practicable value; nor is it a thing of beauty because it may be sourced in something other than a desire to solve an immediate problem.

      It's a thing of beauty because it has produced fascinating finds with respect to the relationships between various prime numbers and relatively prime numbers (Euler's Totient function). Modular exponentiation is fascinating--how this works with primes (i.e. 3^1 mod 7 = 3; 3^2 mod 7 = 2; 3^3 mod 7 = 6; 3^4 mod 7 = 4; 3^5 mod 7 = 5; 3^6 mod 7 = 1; 3^7 mod 7 = 3 and it all REPEATs) -- so is fast exponentiation, exponential inverses, modular inverses, Fermat's little theory etc.

      That some of these finds combine to yield one-way (trapdoor) functions that can take advantage of the inability (for now!) to factor large numbers and provide a secure pub key system is a bonus of monumental importance. And one that was only just recently (past 30 years or so) realized.

      You can never know if a thing will be useful or not without understanding the essence of that thing; and there again "useful" is clearly a time-limited function... As one cannot perfectly predict future needs and future landscapes, one cannot perfectly determine at any one point of time whether current work in number theory will be with or without practical value. Though what's so wrong with discovery for discovery's sake! Isn't that part of the reason we are here?

      --
      Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
    32. Re:Is this really true? by danila · · Score: 1

      But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of fast food chains in feeding the hungry, as the clown Ronald McDonalds once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most employees say they are in it for the money itself, for the delirious quest for salary, the thrill of the paycheck and the lure of beautiful green backs.

      Does that mean we should fire everyone working for McDonalds and start looking for people who are really interested in how hungry their next client is and what is his favourite food?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    33. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're interested in helping understand mathematics. Whether that has any practical application is another thing. I'm a scientist, not a mathematician, but I don't do science for the practical benefits either. I do it to illuminate certain questions.

    34. Re:Is this really true? by call+-151 · · Score: 1
      In some cases, it is a question about long-range versus really long-range thinking and the specialization needed to get to the frontiers of research. As pointed out elsewhere, number theory is a great example. A great deal of mathematical research from the 18th century continuing up until now is focued on prime number distribution, generation and detection. For centuries, people said- What good are prime numbers? Physical measurements such as length have no difference if they are prime or not, so why worry about primes? Mathematicians responed that they were studying prime numbers for their own sake, for there are a number of intrinsically beautiful facts about primes. (In some sense, productive research mathematicians have more in common with artists than engineers.) Of course now that primality is an important tool in crypto, mathematicians who had been studying what was often thought of as the purest of the pure math are now suddenly greatly desired for the applications to encryption.


      So basically that episode has saved the butts of all mathematicians. If someone asks me about the applications of my theorems, I can say that right now thery are just beautiful and interesting for their own sake, but wait around two hundred years or so, and you may see how earth-shattering my results are!


      So when it comes to funding research in mathematics, some of the money goes to fields which clearly have applications, but some of it goes to fields which don't currently have applications, but seem remarkably interesting or beautiful in their own right.

      --
      It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
    35. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mathematicians also have their fads and areas of reasearch that are "so cool". Knot theory was popular in the early part of this century. Number theory is arguably the sexiest mathematical profession going right now, with algebraists coming in as a distant second (we can thank Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman for this, I think). Research into calculus was hot when it was a politically charged issue-- you dedicated your papers to Leibniz or Newton, and placed yourself in one camp or the other.

      Mathematicians have been known to be as backstabbing as any artist. Look at Newton, who had relatively minor charges against one of his contemporaries trumped up into a capital case. Erdos was robbed of co-author credits on a particularly neat proof when the other mathematician became jealous. Hell, look at the stories that surrounded Pythagoras!

      Please, Sam. From one mathematician to another-- learn some fucking history. Mathematicians are just like other people-- they're imperfect, they're uptight sometimes, and they sometimes let their personal problems affect their work.

      (As for giving an arm and a leg to let other people understand your work-- believe me, I understand. It doesn't help to discuss "knots" and "braids" that have really different definitions than what the audience is expecting...)

    36. Re:Is this really true? by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      From one mathematician to another-- learn some fucking history

      yes, but you must admit that with mathematicians the backstabbing is not so big a thing as it may be with artists. sure, ive heard backstabbing stories, but they are few and far between; in art, its pretty much commonplace. i agree.. we are but mortals, we get angry, we lose our rag. but what i am saying is that it is not a sound part of maths-culture to be backstabbing. those that do are shunned.

      the maths lives, but mathematicians die. this is the complete opposite to what happens in art.

      re knots and braids... try explaining "rings" ;-)

    37. Re:Is this really true? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      "a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people"

      Bah, opportunist...

      Kidding ;)

    38. Re:Is this really true? by heikkile · · Score: 1
      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      Smells like a troll, but I answer: Mathematicians produce new ways to model things. Mathematical methods and models have proven to be useful in almost all sciences. What today seems like pure "useless" math may well tomorrow find an application in some totally unexpected ways. Where would engineering be without geometry? Physics without calculus?

      Even when math fails to find a solution to some "totally irrelevant" problem, great things can come out of it. Gödels proof that not everything can be proved has turned out to have profound philosophical consequences, and inderctly lead us to chaos theory and better thromostates. Who would have expected that from some failure of proving a theorem???

      --

      In Murphy We Turst

    39. Re:Is this really true? by forkboy · · Score: 1

      Guess they shoulda paid more attention in math class then, huh?

      I have no pity for people that pursue business or marketing degrees then whine that they're not happy in corporate cubicle-hell. Go back to school or STFU.

      Regardless, mathematicians still have to produce results too, in the form of proofs, theorems, papers, and/or teaching. Saying that they're being "paid to sit around all day thinking" does a disservice to the fact they're doing as much "work" as the guy writing marketing proposals all day. They just happen to love what they're doing, that's all. And their work just might have the overall effect of bettering mankind, even if it's 50 years down the road. (As opposed to making a few fat rich white guys fatter and richer)

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    40. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Einsteins work on stimulated emission probably didn't look very useful back in 1910 either, but it lead to the devlopment of the laser, which noone could've predicted at that time.

      That's why we need to fund this stuff."

      Its a good point; even if you believe that mathematics needs to yield real world applications in order to be justified, it would be short cited to restrict research to topics with anticipated applications.

      However, I think research in mathematics should be encouraged for more idealogical reasons. We enrich our culture whenever we add to our knowledge of anything. This is why we support the study of fine arts, literature, history, anthropology etc. We do not demand applications from these subjects; the payback is less tangible than that.

      Pure mathematics gives us beautiful truths that are valuable in themselves even if they don't penetrate into the popular culture. The fact that pure mathematics provides a rich resevoir of knowledge that is heavily exploited by all fields of science and engineering should not be construed as its sole justification.

      Anyway, when it comes to funding, you'll find it much easier to get support for research under the banner of applied mathematics or engineering than for research in pure math. The money available for the latter is probably more akin to that of the humanities than it is to that of the applied sciences. And that is fine, but there is no cause to whine about money being wasted on research in pure mathematics.

    41. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mathematicians are artists first and foremost -- see Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology -- but often also of great utility, which is just a side effect, more or less, to the extent that you fall closer to the 'pure' end of the pure-applied spectrum.

    42. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Asking why you should fund mathematics is asking why you should fund art.


      Actually, I'm curious about that one, too.

    43. Re:Is this really true? by SlayerDave · · Score: 1
      I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.

      This is a pretty trollish statement that overlooks a few obvious facts about "society". First, society, by which I mean the American federal government, funds all sorts of things that don't help to understand the world. For instance, the federal government gives nonprofit groups, primarily churchs, tax-exemption. These groups certainly do not help to understand the world, in a scientific sense. The government also funds public television, public radio, and arts, via the NEA. These activities don't help to understand the world. Also, the government funds a substantial amount of research in applied science via the defense department and the various branches of the military. Though much of this research is "basic", the obvious hope is that this research will pay-off in advanced military technology, not "understanding the world"

      Second, I think that mathematics alone is the one science that contributes the most to our understanding of the world. There are the obvious, innumerable applications of mathematics in science and engineering. But applied mathematics presupposes the availability of a bulk set of theorems, proofs, definitions, etc. from pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is the only scientific venture that contributes timeless, unchanging truth. Mathematical facts are not based on empirical evidence, which is mutable, but on immutable logical truth. Mathematical truths are erected upon rigorous logic, not the faulty and error-prone business of empirical scientific observation. These truths are true in a real and abstract sense; they never fade with time. If the discovery of permanent, immutable truth is not a contribution to our understanding of the world, then I don't know what is.

    44. Re:Is this really true? by antiquark · · Score: 1

      Richard Feynman once said:

      "science is like sex, sometimes something useful comes from it, but thats not the reason we do it"

      It's not the motive that is being funded, it's teh end result that is being funded.

    45. Re:Is this really true? by PrimeEnd · · Score: 1
      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      Where did you get the silly idea that mathematics isn't part of the world? It is every bit as "real" as quarks or the big bang. What's more, the half life of a mathematical "truth" is much, much longer than that of "truths" in other sciences.

    46. Re:Is this really true? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I honestly think there are some things worth doing for the hell of it, not because they are useful.

      Okay, how would you propose society decide when to fund these things that are worth doing just for the hell of it? Let's say I decide that it would be beautiful to quilt the most elaborate quilt in history but I don't intend to show anyone else. I'll create it, enjoy it and then destory it. Should the government fund it because I am creating or discovering beauty? If yes, the government is going to go break helping people to find their inner beauty. If no, then you obviously think that the work I create must be useful to society perhaps as art or philosophy or science or entertainment, but useful somehow. Similarly, mathematics must be useful to expect government support. Higher mathematics is clearly not a roaring success as a source of beauty or entertainment for 99% of the population so we must fund it on some other basis: as science or philosophy. Perhaps you are happy to fund it merely as a form of art but mathematicians would destroy the mathematics industry if they tried to sell it to the general public on that basis.

      That said, it would be quite short-sighted to only fund mathematics that it immediately useful. We fund mathematics speculatively and hope that some percentage turns out to be useful in the long run.

    47. Re:Is this really true? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that artists were better than mathematicians. I said that everybody who is publically funded needs to demonstrate that their work is useful. Art is useful as art (i.e. engages the senses and triggers critical thought). Mathematics is demonstrably not very useful in this way because the more advanced it gets, the fewer people can follow it and appreciate its beauty (this is also true to an extent for modern art and yet the Tate Modern sees thousands of guests per year so modern art is not a complete failure). Or to put it another way: a mathematician could make a wonderful proof that is only understood (enjoyed) by one other person on the planet and that proof would nevertheless be a success becuase it would be available when someone needed to build on it a hundred years from now. Conversely, if a work of art interests only one other person then it is hardly worthy of public support.

    48. Re:Is this really true? by MrRage · · Score: 1

      How do you think the computer you are writing your comment on came into existence?

    49. Re:Is this really true? by dracken · · Score: 1

      I am reminded of Feynman's related quote. A grad student complained that theoretical physics didnt have much application - for which Feynman is said to have replied "Theoretical physics is like sex. It has a few practical applications - but thats not why we do it"

    50. Re:Is this really true? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Mathematicians sure as shit don't do it for the money ... how many rich mathematicians do _you_ know?

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    51. Re:Is this really true? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Probably yes, because then the stuff might actually resemble food.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    52. Re:Is this really true? by rastos1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Funny nobody brought this up yet:

      After discovering the basic principle of electromagnetic induction in 1831, Michael Faraday was asked by a skeptical politician what good might come of electricity. "Sir, I do not know what it is good for," Faraday replied. "But of one thing I am quite certain - someday you will tax it."

    53. Re:Is this really true? by njj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      This is an important question, and in my opinion has two particularly valid answers.

      The first of these is the one that usually gets advanced - that (as with other pure scientific disciplines) we just don't know what `useless' knowledge might turn out to be useful or vital in fifty year's time. This is all well and good, and a perfectly decent reason to study something.

      The other one, which I've come to believe more strongly over the past few years, is that which is often advanced in support of arts funding - that it benefits a society greatly (often in intangible and undefinable ways) to study and research things whether or not they have any practical use.

      This is a point which, in the UK at least, a succession of education ministers have either missed or fundamentally disagreed with over the past few decades.

      Last month, Charles Clarke, the current Secretary of State for Education made some very disturbing comments about how he didn't see the point in spending taxpayers' money on maintaining a group of ``mediaeval seekers after truth''.

      He was initially misquoted as saying he didn't see the point in the study of mediaeval history, which rightly got a lot of historians angry, but a later statement clarified that he actually didn't see the point in studying any subject which didn't have a direct positive contribution to UK industrial or economic interests. Which I find even more disturbing - it's understandable (even ok) for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have such a viewpoint, but I like to think that the Secretary for Education should at least see some worth in all of the education system.

      A friend of mine (an eminent evolutionary and reproductive biologist who's also helped design aliens for people like Anne McCaffrey, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, and co-written a couple of books with Terry Pratchett) once said

      ``Most people think that the end-product of a PhD is a neatly-typeset hardback thesis. It's not - the end product of the PhD is the person who's done the PhD''

      which I rather agree with. Studying or researching any subject changes the way you look at the world - often for the better. It teaches you new or variant modes of thought which you can then apply (often unconsciously) to other areas of interest.

      For example: A former office-mate of mine now works for the NHS Breast Cancer Screening Service. The topic of her thesis (permutation group theory) is irrelevant to what she does now. But I find it tremendously reassuring to know that there are people that well-educated, and who have been trained to such a high level in thinking clearly and carefully, involved in something that important and worthwhile.

      nicholas
    54. Re:Is this really true? by Pig+Bodine · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.

      In most cases society doesn't fund them to do mathematical research. Research grants among pure mathematicians are not so prevalent. They earn their keep teaching math to (mostly) scientists and engineers and then prove theorems in whatever time that leaves open.

      Even aside from the argument that mathematics is intrinsically beautiful like music, art or literature, it doesn't make practical sense to expect everyone to have an eye on applications of their work. People have to specialize if they hope to learn enough to accomplish anything these days and a mathematician who also becomes enough of an expert in curing diseases to let that guide new mathematical research probably won't have time to prove new theorems.

      Letting mathematicians do math so that everyone can pull out what theorems they might apply in their own field has been pretty effective historically.

    55. Re:Is this really true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      modern art is about 50 years old now. its the term used to describe the art movement from the 30/40s? through to the 60s. the tate modern in london houses only a small proportion of "new" art, which nobody can decide upon a name for; i think some people like to call it "contemporary", but i hear that is old fashioned now...

      whereas "art history" (which is what you clearly mean by art... everything up to modern art) may be accessible to all, i really really doubt that MOST (but not all) "now" stuff is accessible to the general public... (just because they can get in the building, does not make it accessible).

    56. Re:Is this really true? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      >>If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them?

      1) It's cheap. Much cheaper than other sciences. No linear accelerators or anything. I think this is why the USSR was so big into math.

      2) You never know when some seemingly pointless discovery, actually becomes practical. Nash didn't know his game theory work would ever become so widely used. Ancient Greeks didn't know their work would every become practical.

    57. Re:Is this really true? by D-Killer · · Score: 1
      >>But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in explaining the world, as the physicist Eugene Wigner once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.

      >I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc

      Both wrong. As a mathematician I can assure you that we're in it for the hot chicks, cha-ching and bling bling.

    58. Re:Is this really true? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > > Mathematicians do it for the beauty.
      > That sounds like one of those cheezy bumper sitckers about how different professions have sex.
      ... Like mathemeticians do it with large numbers?

    59. Re:Is this really true? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > ... different professions have sex. ... Like mathemeticians...

      Insert CR after sex (no, I don't know how to do that either). Why does slashcode decide that "..." means "fuck up the formatting that I had because obviously, if I put it there I don't want it there?"

    60. Re:Is this really true? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you followed your reasoning, I guess we shouldn't fund the arts because they have no *practical* use

      Umm, I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I don't think we *SHOULD* fund arts. Being an artist is just like any career choice. If you can't make a living selling your art, maybe you should do something else -- maybe you're not good enough. Or maybe you could have another job at the same time -- hell, live in your parents' basement, work at McDonalds for 3 days a week. That leaves plenty of time for art, and meanwhile not taking my tax dollars for something I don't consider useful (I will point out that me finding something unuseful is not at all saying it shouldn't exist, just that I shouldn't be forced to pay for something that I have no interest in.)

    61. Re:Is this really true? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > whether they do so with magnanimous thoughts in mind is really beside the point

      You seem to be saying "the (attitute of the) ends justify the means" in a roundabout sort of way, which gave me this thought:
      Okay, this is a terrible analogy, but couldn't this train of thought be brought into current events? I.E., the highly questionable war the U.S. was involved in ended with the overthrow of a dictator who abused his people. The method that was used, however, was of questionable ethics (read: not magnanimous). But since the end result was "positive" (also arguable, but whatever), does that now mean that there was no problem going to war?

    62. Re:Is this really true? by elizalovesmike · · Score: 1

      That's not really what I'm saying.

      What I'm saying is that I don't (emphatically don't!) want to see some litmus test executed on mathematicians whereby in order for their work to be supported, those mathematicians have to be claiming to (and prove?) that they are operating out of some altruistic motives and not because (a) the work merely interests them or (b) some other rationale.

      To my mind, it's irrelevant if the mathematician hopes to save the world or merely hopes to do his job very well. What matters is the quality of work that individual does (and, to a lesser degree, the quantity).

      I don't think this is necessarily an "ends-justifies-the-means" rationale because I'm saying the "means" shouldn't be defined as "the mathematician's inner feelings/strivings." The means are the methods the mathematician utilizes to arrive at his findings.

      Now if the mathematician's methods themselves were sinister, then this could morph into an "does the ends justify the means" question.

      A better counter example to what I brought up is: in Nazi Germany there were said to be many scientists and engineers who had very highly honed mathematical/scientific, etc. abilities. By each of these scientists/mathematicians/engineers separating from the ethics behind what their work was leading to, Nazi Germany was allowed to flourish.

      This is the worst-case logical end of having a policy where, in general, we don't ask our mathematicians/scientists to have an emotional/personal/even political relationship to what they are doing. Because, of course, their work will provide advances and, certainly history has shown, those advances can have nefarious results.

      So, in closing, this is why I think it's VERY important for students of math/science/etc. to have learned history and learned it well. To have taken an ethics course. To have pondered right and wrong in some formalized (or directed) manner. It's also why there's General Ed requirements even for degrees in math/science that ensure that the students are forced to engage some of these topics such that they develop a context for understanding the implications of their work.

      There again, even understanding that one's work could have terrible consequences, as Einstein recognized re: the A-bomb, should NOT preclude that work from happening, though. The A-bomb may have saved millions more lives than it took (Japanese and American, alike) considering how the war would likely have waged on without its detonation.

      But even this is *not* quite like the Nazi Germany example.

      --
      Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
    63. Re:Is this really true? by elizalovesmike · · Score: 1

      But even in the Nazi Germany example, we still don't need for the mathematician/scientist to have *altruistic* motives, we just need for him to know when his work is leading to nefarious consequences.

      And again, upon realizing (in the instance where it is) that said person's work is leading to *potentially* nefarious consequences (upholding/extending Nazi Germany, developing the A-bomb), another decision/estimation has to be made: are the consequences of my work leading to necessarily nefarious consequences?

      In the case of Nazi Germany, the answer would have had to have been, "yes."

      In the case of developing the A-bomb, perhaps the answer is a bit more debatable -- especially if you accept the notion that the A-bomb saved lives. This rationale is almost one you have to accept *overall* for weapons development. Undoubtedly if the US's weapons proliferation had been at a slower rate than the USSR's, then we might be speaking Russian right now or at the very least communism might have spread extensively. Certainly, developing weapons that are used to halt the spread of communism would not be a nefarious exercise. Whereas perhaps developing weapons with the intent of spreading communism might have been.

      --
      Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
  6. That's the nice thing about math by wmspringer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't actually have to be useful for anything now; in the academic setting you can research from obscure branch of mathematics just because you find it interesting.

    1. Re:That's the nice thing about math by EnsignExtra · · Score: 1

      Yes, but may be useful later--like primes. Was there a practical use before RSA? Yet still pursued for their beauty...

    2. Re:That's the nice thing about math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only partly true. In the academic setting you do not get to research anything you may feel like researching. There is pressure to contribute to some major(or "hip") field of mathematics. This is largely motivated by reputation. If you are researching something that no other mathematicians(or very few) are actually interested in, then you will find your career to be rather difficult. This starts when you write your thesis; it must be something that hiring committees will be interested in, otherwise you won't get hired at any schools. Then when you get hired, it may be with the assumption that you will continue to contribute to the area in which your thesis was written. I know quite a few mathematicians who do research in specific areas to "pay the bills," while having pet interests that they work on when there is time.

  7. Milking Theory by Chromodromic · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There's four links to two sites. This is called "Milking Theory", where for every set L of sites there exists 2^L links that may be made in a Slashdot post.

    In "Milking Theory" if a 2^L solution is constructed, the post is said to be "milked". It is only possible to exceed 2^L links on rare occasions, and then the post is said to either be "Microsofted" or "SCOed" depending on the nature of the post itself.

    Milking Theory is most commonly researched and practices by a group of theoreticians known as "Karma Whores".

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
  8. Fish by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

    I like the picture where someone is drawing a fish on the blackboard while others are doing math.

    Who knew that I had a future in advance mathematics when I was doodling in my math notebook during class? : )

    They took the pic just as he was about to draw the eye...

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Fish by Jaalin · · Score: 1

      I remember doing a graph theory problem set on a bus on my way back from a fencing tournament (I'm on my school's fencing team) -- one of my teammates looked over my shoulder and said something along the lines of "Your homework is drawing pictures? Can I take this class?" I told him sure, as long as you've satisfied the prereqs, which are multivariable calc, linear algebra, and discrete math (recommended). He was an economics major, so didn't end up taking it :-). I think I was in the process of drawing K_7 on a torus. Graph theory is such a great subject.

    2. Re:Fish by bsrokc73013 · · Score: 1

      You can see more of his pictures at this link below: http://www.msri.org/media/photography/ed_alcock_sp ring_2003/index_html

    3. Re:Fish by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      He was probably trying to think of a new name for a variable, looking at how the English, Greek, and a good chunk of the Cyrillic alphabets are already used. Hell, they've already started trying to turn letters upside-down to come up with new symbols...

      A friend of mine devised a new symbol he called "pac," which looked a lot like a certain yellow dot-eating disc...

    4. Re:Fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're all so skinny

      don't fat people do math anymore ?

    5. Re:Fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it works the other way round: The famous mathematician Hausdorff's (at least any math student* will know him) notebooks are full of doodles.

      * ... who has seen topology or geometry ...

  9. Karma Whoring, Reg sucks by jonman_d · · Score: 1, Informative

    Pure Math, Pure Joy
    By DENNIS OVERBYE

    A mathematician, the Hungarian lover of numbers Paul Erdos once said, is a device for converting coffee into theorems. Here, then, are a few glimpses into the Truth Factory. The Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, sustained mostly by the National Science Foundation, sits on a hill above the University of California at Berkeley, where it attracts people from around the world for stints of up to a year to lose themselves in subjects like algebraic geometry or special holonomy.

    Advertisement

    Consider it an embassy of another world, a Platonic realm of clarity and beauty, of forms and relations, where the answers to questions not yet asked already exist.

    Higher mathematics -- as opposed to what we do every April 15 -- has been relevant ever since Archimedes leaped out of his bath shouting "Eureka!" more than 2,000 years ago. Nobody knows when some abstruse bit of math will float off a blackboard at a place like this and become -- often decades later -- a key tool in cryptography, biology, physics or economics (as in "A Beautiful Mind").

    Take string theory, a mathematically labyrinthine effort to construct a so-called theory of everything out of the notion that the fundamental elements of nature are tiny strings flopping and wriggling in an 11-dimensional space-time. It has been called a piece of 21st-century physics that fell by accident into the 20th century.

    In their quest to negotiate this labyrinth, string theorists have made a hot topic of something called Riemann surfaces, invented by the German mathematician Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 150 years ago, but they have also helped blaze new fields of mathematics.

    "Since our theories are so far ahead of experimental capabilities, we are forced to use mathematics as our eyes," Dr. Brian Greene, a Columbia University string theorist, said recently. "That's why we follow it where it takes us even if we can't see where we're going."

    So in some ways the men and women seen here scrutinizing marks on their blackboards collectively represent a kind of particle accelerator of the mind.

    But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in explaining the world, as the physicist Eugene Wigner once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.

    "Math is sense," said Dr. Robert Osserman, a Stanford professor and deputy director of the institute, quoting from the play "Copenhagen." "That's what sense is."

  10. terrible journalism by andy666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    could someone please explain the point of this article ? like most nytimes science article it seems to have zero content. it would be nice if for a change they explained something about mathematics

    1. Re:terrible journalism by aaron240 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I wonder if nytimes is really the place to throw down some actual math? They would probably say the article is just a way to inform people about this odd group of researchers. Then, we would hope it generates more interest in math and then people would go get books, for example, on math.

    2. Re:terrible journalism by andy666 · · Score: 1

      i'm not asking for hard math. just content other than a mathematician that quotes a terrible play about mathematics written by a non-mathematician.

    3. Re:terrible journalism by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Pure math is math unsullied by notions of practicality.

    4. Re:terrible journalism by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      Pure math is math unsullied by notions of practicality.

      But it does have a tendency to find application in all sorts of fields and become "dirty". Does it make the article wrong?

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    5. Re:terrible journalism by rifftide · · Score: 1

      It's not every day that you can read in the New York Times, a pitch being made to acquisitions editors of major trade book publishers.

  11. It's GOOD PRADEEP HUNTING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pradeep, solving the unsolvable. Man, I love that movie...

    Pradeep:HOW ARE YOU TO BE LIKING THOSE APPLES SIR?

  12. Slahsdot reproduces NYT in it's entirety. by igbrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, not in it's entirety, and not it is a serious problem, but it would be nice if the editors could make sure that each Sunday, we don't see so many postings from a single news source. Maybe some sort of summary each Sunday on interesting stories in the NYT Sunday Edition.

    Pure Math, Pure Joy
    Does Google = God?
    Harry Potter and the Entertainment Industry

    1. Re:Slahsdot reproduces NYT in it's entirety. by Joel+Bruick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. NYTimes.com mirror.

  13. a recent experience with matrices by somethinsfishy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd never studied linear algebra until recently when I had to learn just enough to work through the inverse kinematics of a robot arm. Actually, I never really got along with Mathematics very well anyway. But looking at how matrices can solve all kinds of problems just by drawing zig-zags through rows and columns of numbers made me wonder whether the problems they model or the problems themselves came first. As I was learning the little bit of this math that I did, it started to seem to me that the Math has an independent existence, and a somewhat mysterious set of relationships of correlations and causalities connected to but not dependant on physical nature.

    1. Re:a recent experience with matrices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      made me wonder whether the problems they model or the problems themselves came first

      Generally, most classical mathematics was inspired by real-world problems. Geometry, for instance (literally "earth measure") came about as a way to mark off crop boundaries that got washed away after the river periodically flooded. But I'd say that since the golden age of mathematics (about 18th century), new mathematics has been created primarily for its own sake. Often the only "applications" are in proving theorems in other areas of mathematics as opposed to real-world problems.

    2. Re:a recent experience with matrices by khallow · · Score: 1
      Generally, most classical mathematics was inspired by real-world problems. Geometry, for instance (literally "earth measure") came about as a way to mark off crop boundaries that got washed away after the river periodically flooded. But I'd say that since the golden age of mathematics (about 18th century), new mathematics has been created primarily for its own sake. Often the only "applications" are in proving theorems in other areas of mathematics as opposed to real-world problems.

      Actually, computer science, genetics, and industrial control problems proved a fruitful field for new math. Some math was also developed to better explain existing pure math theory (eg, differential forms, categories, group and ring theory). By saving the time of a bunch of mathematicians, these concepts are solutions to real-world problems.

  14. If it's in the NYT.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How do we know that this "math" thing they write about even exists?

  15. It's not that obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you do need to tell me just how useful a 100-digit prime number is. Beyond the supposed beauty of such a number (I personally don't see the beauty of it, but then again beauty is a really subjective term), what's the point? What are prime numbers useful for in daily life? I know trig is useful for rendering 3D graphics and surveying, calculus is used for launching things into orbit and aerodynamics stuff, algebra is useful for financial calculations and stuff, but I've never figured out what prime numbers are useful for, other than spending unused CPU cycles finding them.

    1. Re:It's not that obvious by wfberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, you do need to tell me just how useful a 100-digit prime number is. Beyond the supposed beauty of such a number (I personally don't see the beauty of it, but then again beauty is a really subjective term), what's the point? What are prime numbers useful for in daily life?

      Nothing. Ab-so-lutely nothing. Promise never to use them??

      (installing a network sniffer right now)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    2. Re:It's not that obvious by wfberg · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are prime numbers useful for in daily life?


      Searching 1976 to present...



      Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
      "prime number": 1238 patents.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    3. Re:It's not that obvious by KDan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very large prime numbers are the basis of the RSA asymmetric encryption algorithms which you trust your credit card numbers and other private information to.

      Anyway, I'm almost thinking you're trolling because the rest of your post demonstrates some sort of keen-ness for over-simplification. Maybe you're just not out of secondary school yet, but for your information, trig, calculus and the rest are useful for a lot more stuff than what you mention. All the different areas of maths often intermingle in any physical subject.

      For the interesting tidbit of information, there has yet to be a mathematical discovery which has not found practical applications. Even group theory, which at first was thought to have nothing to do with physics or any engineering sciences, was found to be very applicable to some extremely interesting problems of fundamental physics (describing the symmetries of fundamental particles).

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    4. Re:It's not that obvious by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
      "prime number": 1238 patents. [uspto.gov]


      Ah! So prime numbers are useful for getting patents.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:It's not that obvious by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

      Results of Search in 1976 to present db for: "prime number": 1238 patents.

      Damn, if only it was 1237 patents, and I guess it would be too much to hope that there would only be one dupe.

    6. Re:It's not that obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... there has yet to be a mathematical discovery which has not found practical applications.

      What's the practical application of Galois Theory?

    7. Re:It's not that obvious by swillden · · Score: 1

      For the interesting tidbit of information, there has yet to be a mathematical discovery which has not found practical applications.

      How about transfinite numbers?

      Many, many mathematical discoveries have found no practical applications. Which is not to say that they won't. Or will. There's just no way to know.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:It's not that obvious by KDan · · Score: 1

      Galois theory is linked to Group theory and has applications in Field theory.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    9. Re:It's not that obvious by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Transfinite numbers are very useful.

      The discovery that there are different classes of infinites numbers forms the basis of modern set theory, from which one can derive a simple and effective measure theory and the Lebegue integral.

      The Lebegue measure is use *everywhere* in physics and applied mathematics.

      Besides, how would one manage the Hilbert Hotel without them?

    10. Re:It's not that obvious by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Galois Theory largely responsible for demonstrating that there is no general formula for the quintic? If the solvability of the quintic (and hence, all polynomials of higher degree) wasn't an important question that needed to be answered, I don't know what is.

  16. Waging mental battle without a proof by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    "I particularly loved the picture titled Waging Mental Battle with a Proof."

    I loved it too.

    Nothing beats looking at a bunch of stoners chilling out, staring into space, and maybe hallucinating about a proof.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  17. oh come on... by andy666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    the picture "Waging Mental Battle with a Proof" is really silly. those guys need a good beating.

  18. To put it another way by xant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Being interested in helping the world" is not the same thing as "helping the world". An ox is not interested in helping plow the farmer's field, but the farmer still feeds it.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    1. Re:To put it another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what was the point in that non-productive semanticism?

  19. One of life's simple pleasures by mofochickamo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Reading this article reminded me off all the math courses I have taken from primay school through university. I can remember feeling frustrated while dueling with especially hard problems, but the satisfaction of solving them quickly made me forget the pain.

    This article also reminded me of a good book (story wise, not much math) that a lot of you have probably read. It's called Fermat's Enigma. If you haven't read it you should. It's a really good book and an easy read. I might even make you want to read a real math book again ;)

    --
    Honk if you're horny.
  20. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +5 funny. Thanks for the laugh

  21. I also love the last picture.... by greppling · · Score: 2, Funny
    i.e. this one.

    Look how seriously the guy on the right side is watching a fish being drawn...

  22. You can trust the NYT by CausticWindow · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work in the maths department of a University, and yes.. it's very much like this. We sit around all day in small groups, staring at blackboards, "battling with proofs". Just like in that wonderful movie with the violent australian, "A Beautiful Mind".

    No.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:You can trust the NYT by dracken · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep and ofcourse everybody knows that mathematicians do it smoothly and continuously or discretely in groups and in fields. Interesting lifestyle :P

    2. Re:You can trust the NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiwi

    3. Re:You can trust the NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he is not violent. He is just misunderstood.

    4. Re:You can trust the NYT by hobit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I work in the maths department of a University, and yes.. it's very much like this. We sit around all day in small groups, staring at blackboards, "battling with proofs". Just like in that wonderful movie with the violent australian, "A Beautiful Mind".

      No.

      I'm a computer scientist who does a bit of theory. By far the very best, most enjoyable and most rewarding thing I've done as a graduate student is work on proofs. Usually in small groups, often on a blackboard (although I prefer having colors so a white board is much prefered). There is a fair amount of reading involved but it can be fun...

      Nowdays I teach, which I enjoy, but occasionally do some math where all I do is sit around and think. Now if I could just find someone to do the write-ups (which I hate). I don't do anything horribly insightful (although some of it has been published) but it is fun!

      --
      As Nietsche famously said, "If you stare too long into the Abyss, 1d4 Tanar'ri of random type will attack you."
  23. Coffee into theorems by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Blockquoth the article:
    A mathematician, the Hungarian lover of numbers Paul Erdos once said, is a device for converting coffee into theorems.

    Erdos himself was a device for converting speed into theorems. Ironically he lived to be 83 years old, prolifically creating new math until the very end.

    Like all of Erdos's friends, Graham was concerned about his drug-taking. In 1979, Graham bet Erdos $500 that he couldn't stop taking amphetamines for a month. Erdos accepted the challenge, and went cold turkey for thirty days. After Graham paid up--and wrote the $500 off as a business expense--Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it. - Paul Hoffman, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers

    My guess is that more mathematicians use amphetamines than is commonly acknowledged. This is how some older mathematicians try to keep their "edge".

    BTW have you computed your Erdos Number?

    1. Re:Coffee into theorems by ajs · · Score: 1

      A great many probably take them under perscription as well. Amphetamines are perscribed commonly (along with other stimulants) to treat Attention Def... hmmm... a shiny thing!

    2. Re:Coffee into theorems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine is 3.

  24. nice... by Quai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    HTML in the topic is a nice touch... :)

    --
    --
    1. Re:nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doh, wrong article! Sorry

  25. How about RSA. by YahoKa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RSA turned out to be a combination of different parts of number theory that turned out to change our world. Who would have thought that this and this would turn into something this amazing. Don't let anyone dismiss pure math...

  26. My God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am having a hard enough time passing basic college math. No thanks!

  27. Dumb question to "test" someone. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How arbitrary is that?

    How is e) (prime) less valid than the solution?

    How about g) (The only number greater than 29)?
    How about a) because its the "bad luck" number in Chinese culture (Too bad you missed out on that one, "white devil")?
    How about j) (Because today is Sunday and I feel like its the correct answer)?

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    1. Re: Dumb question to "test" someone. by gidds · · Score: 1
      There are other, more plausible answers, too.

      For example: 4 is the only one which takes that number of letters when written in English. 30 is the only who that's the number of days in a month. And so on.

      (Presumably, they were talking about horizontal or rotational symmetry? Otherwise, depending on the font, '30', '10', and '18' might also qualify. In fact, in some fonts, '8' wouldn't qualify for rotational symmetry...)

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    2. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the members of mensa are so clever, how come there are so many of them?

    3. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      Yes. How come. Say that to yourself. Doesn't it sound stupid? Try using why are.

    4. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by kazad · · Score: 1

      "How come" does sound colloqial, but I consider it shorthand for:

      If the members of mensa are so clever, how [did it] come [about that] there are so many of them?

    5. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belong to mensa cubed. There's only one of us.
      Mensa squared was unstable, they all thought the smartest thing was to act stupid. G ahead, ask me anything.

    6. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      How arbitrary is that?

      Ahhh, and now you've uncovered the secret of Mensa. Their criteria for selecting members is just as arbitrary as any other club. Mensa's is simply more pretentious.

    7. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      G ahead, ask me anything
      Here's my question:
      What does "G ahead" mean?
      Was it a warning/observation about a Gangster up ahead, or was it a misspelling of "Go ahead"?
    8. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a typo. My keyboard sticks, because of cigarette ashes. It's intensely nerve-wracking to be in mensa cubed.

      Anything else?

    9. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by thedji · · Score: 1

      For a second there I thought you meant the Mensa question was the dumb one!

      The idea is to test lateral thinking abilities.

      --
      ... and then there were none
    10. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >The idea is to test lateral thinking abilities.

      More like testing "mind-reading" abilities.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    11. Re:Dumb question to "test" someone. by sunemesis · · Score: 1

      Did anybody notice that the "30" is vertically symmetric? So was the correct answer, "8 is the only one which is doubly symmetric?"

      Wrong again, Mensa.

  28. Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is the odd one out: (a) 4 (b) 15 (c) 9 (d) 12 (e) 5 (f) 8 (g) 30 (h) 18 (i) 24 (j) 10

    Well, anyone who knows a prime from a hole in the ground would choose (e), but the correct answer was (f), 8. And why? Because it is the only "symmetrical" number, as printed on the page!


    Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.

    Tor

    1. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you point us to the authoritative "hierarchy of simplicity?"

    2. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you point us to the authoritative "hierarchy of simplicity?

      No. I think the best way is to imagine that you have to explain both alternatives to somebody who is completely clueless, and see which is quicker and easier to explain.

      Of course this method does not always work, but I think that in this case most would agree that the symmetry alternative is simpler.

      "See if, you turn the paper, the 8 still looks the same. It is the same if you look at it from either direction. If you put a mirror in the middle it does not change. If you look at the other numbers, this does not happen; look!"

      "See, the 5 is a prime number. That means that it can only be divided evenly by itself, and one. Division means that...[lengthy explanation]. Even division means that [lengthier explanation]. The reason that one is not included in the definition is that [....]. Now we can look at all the other numbers in turn and see that they are not prime numbers [lengthy calculations, or even lengthier explanations on how they can be indentifed quickly]. Etc. Etc."

      Tor

    3. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by danila · · Score: 0, Troll

      Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test? :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    4. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would argue that symmetry doesn't have much to do with numbers printed on a page. Symmetry deals more with graphs, axes, and the origin. So if you place two axes in the middle of an 8 then yes, one could easily see that it is "symmetric."

      However, being prime is a property of the number itself. And since this is just a list of numbers, one would assume we're looking at the properties of numbers, not the property of the representation of that number. So for example, if I write the numbers in binary, 8 is no longer any more or less special than the others in terms of symmetry. But 5 of course is still prime.

    5. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by drooling-dog · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.

      Oh, I wouldn't argue that they were wrong; in fact I think that they set up the question this way deliberately to smack mathematically literate people who see numbers and assume that it's about number theory. They're measuring some function of intelligence minus education.

    6. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your solution is only valid for arabic notation, while the prime numer solution is valid for all notations. IN binary, 8 is 1000, hardly symmetric, while 5 is 101, symmetric.

    7. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.

      That really isn't fair because the question has taken shapes which we recognize as symbols representing an abstract concept and changed their meaning into "simple shapes". It would be natural for someone to look for some unique fundamental property about one of these numbers that is not shared with the others. In this case the people writing the test should have made sure that there were zero or two or more squares, cubes, primes, numbers which can be achieved by multiplying two other numbers, etc..

      Furthermore, the accuracy of that answer given depends on font and typeset. Few people write the number 8 with square symmetry by hand, and I've seen many font faces with assymetric 8's.

      (e) is as good, if not better, an answer as (f).

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    8. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      AC: would argue that symmetry doesn't have much to do with numbers printed on a page.

      Danila: Isn't that odd that you have to explain to a clueless person your answers on the Mensa entrance test? :)

      Both of these posts argue that we should take certain things for granted because of the context.

      This is usually a very good strategy, but then of course the answer we get depends on our assumptions and the context. A discussion on "the right" answer becomes an excercise in deciding who has the best assumptions and the most plausible context, or who has the greatest knowledge (in this case of mathematics).

      The whole point with the Ockham's razor based strategy I outlined above is to seek the answer that takes a minimalistic view on assumtions and context. You assume nothing, you have no outside knowledge, and procede from there. This is Mensa's rationale as well (although the question is not from the entrace test, which is purely symbolic).

      Tor

    9. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they are deliberately creating questions that have a "correct but not the answer we were looking for" solution, then they are knowingly creating poor tests of intelligence. What they are really looking for then is "people who think like we do" not "very intelligent people".

      It's sort of like the old biased college aptitude tests and the cup/saucer question where kids from well off white families would know that cup and saucer go together, but poor minority kids had probably never encountered a saucer in their life.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    10. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      That really isn't fair because the question has taken shapes which we recognize as symbols representing an abstract concept and changed their meaning into "simple shapes".

      Well, you would like to make the assumption that the 8 should be treated not as a symbol on the page, but as an abstraction for a numeric quantity. A reasonable assumption, perhaps, - certainly one that most would make.

      But the whole point with this question type is that the answer you get depend very much on what assumptions you make. So instead of discussing the answer, we should probably discuss our strategy in making assumptions. In your case, you suggest a majority strategy - we should make the assumptions that most people would be inclined to make (on the other hand, your answer assumes knowledge of prime numbers, which most people do not have). One problem is that then the right answer is dependent on which people take the test - if you don't know this your strategy does not work.

      The Mensa/ Ockham's razor based approach is to find the solution which makes the fewest possible assumptions.

      Furthermore, the accuracy of that answer given depends on font and typeset. Few people write the number 8 with square symmetry by hand, and I've seen many font faces with assymetric 8's.

      This assumes that we know that the 8 can be written in other ways than that the way on the paper; and that the solution should hold for such modifications as well. This rationale does not pass Ockhams razor either, but perhaps it wins in some "typical assumtions" strategy.

      Tor

    11. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      There was once a question on the Stanford-Binet IQ test (until the early 60s, I think) that showed a drawing of a little pony-tailed white girl next to a girl with African features (broader nose, fuller lips) and asked, "Which is prettier?"

    12. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Carrot007 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unfortunatly without knowing the "CORRECT" answer to this question it is impossible to assertain wheather it is offensive or not.

      So shut up, you suck.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    13. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the whole point with this question type is that the answer you get depend very much on what assumptions you make.

      The question should be unambiguous, otherwise you are testing to see if people "think like you". If you call it an intelligence test then you must be the definition of intelligence. The question should have opened by stating that these symbols should not be interpretted as representing mathematical numbers.

      The Mensa/ Ockham's razor based approach is to find the solution which makes the fewest possible assumptions.

      I think you are misusing Ockham's razor. Ockham said entitites should not contain any uneccesary multiplications. Theorizing that one number is unique because it is prime and the others are not does not contain any unecessary assumptions as primality is a basic feature of certain numbers that is true of them regardless of the system used to express them.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    14. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This assumes that we know that the 8 can be written in other ways than that the way on the paper; and that the solution should hold for such modifications as well. This rationale does not pass Ockhams razor either, but perhaps it wins in some "typical assumtions" strategy.

      Well, you are assuming that the language the question is in English, when it really could be in Mensanese. Therefore your rationale does not pass Ockhams razor because the answer of the question in Mensanese is in fact (E).

    15. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, yeah, explain that to someone who has been blind all their life. We'll see which one is simpler then.

    16. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point with the Ockham's razor based strategy I outlined above is to seek the answer that takes a minimalistic view on assumtions and context. You assume nothing, you have no outside knowledge, and procede from there. This is Mensa's rationale as well (although the question is not from the entrace test, which is purely symbolic).

      As in my other AC post, there is no such thing as no assumptions. You have to happen to have Mensa's assumptions to be right. Look, if they put less ambiguous answers, they'd have a point. But when you have many obvious answers, with each their own assumptions (Mensa's answer included), you can't be expected to know what they're thinking, because that what you're doing.

    17. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mensa solution is saying that you are looking at only figures, not numbers. Because these figures happen to coincide with the Arabic notation of numbers doesn't mean you can infer anything about them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think their solution is the only valid one, but that's where they are coming from.

    18. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Symmetry is a property of the particular representation of the number, which is this case is typgraphic, base-10 in a particular font.
      Even the font is pushing it.

      If you

      a) Write the number in binary it is not symmetric. Mind you, it is:) OK. Scratch that.
      b) If you use an OCR front it is not (the top part of the glyph is skew and smaller).
      c) If you do not write down the number but represent it in, for instance, a binary set of charges in capacitors ina dynamic RAM device I am not sure that the concept of symmetry applies at all.
      d) If you write it as a Maya numeral (Which would be 1 line and 3 dot on top of it) it would only be symmetrical in one axis, but so would some of the other numbers.
      e) Put your computer in a font which displays numbers with different glyphs and wham, no more symmetry. Try Adobe WoobBlock or something weird.

      So symmetry is NOT a property of the number itself. Primeness is though.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    19. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by barakn · · Score: 1

      It's offensive no matter what the "correct" answer is. Your post is offensive, too. Where's a moderator when you need one?

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    20. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who is this Ockham guy and is he related to Occam?

    21. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by jnana · · Score: 1

      No, in order to know if it's offensive or not, all that is required is that one be able to guess which is the intended answer. We all know that black features have never (in a 1960's world) been held up as the physical standard of beauty against which all others are measured, so we know that the 'correct' answer is the white girl, and we can justifiably take offense without committing the sin that you're ascribing to the parent.

    22. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Insightful


      If you a) Write the number in binary it is not symmetric. Mind you, it is:) OK. Scratch that. b) If you use an OCR front it is not (the top part of the glyph is skew and smaller). c) If you do not write down the number but represent it in, for instance, a binary set of charges in capacitors ina dynamic RAM device I am not sure that the concept of symmetry applies at all. d) If you write it as a Maya numeral (Which would be 1 line and 3 dot on top of it) it would only be symmetrical in one axis, but so would some of the other numbers. e) Put your computer in a font which displays numbers with different glyphs and wham, no more symmetry. Try Adobe WoobBlock or something weird. So symmetry is NOT a property of the number itself. Primeness is though.



      Yes, but the whole issue here was whether the symbol should be just a character or treated as an abstraction for a numerical quantity. All these points assume that we have decided that it is an abstraction for a numerical quantity (and that the symmetric property should hold for other ways of writing the same numerical quantity).

      If the figure 8 is just a meaningless character, then you write it as 8, with the same font, in Maya as well.

      You cannot asume the mathematical-abstraction interpretation to prove itself.

      Tor

    23. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by miu · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Well, according to Ockhams razor I would argue that Mensa is right. The concept of symmetry is much simpler than the concept of prime numbers.

      Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it. Or maybe - that old woman down the road is a witch. She did it.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    24. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it.

      Actually, Occam (who was religious) was the first to show that God cannot be proven, you have to believe.

      Also, the fact that he was a medieval fart does not make everything he said wrong (if it did, medival farts would be extremely useful in predicting things).

      Tor

    25. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are rather taking it on faith that it was actually symmetric as presented.

      It should fail Occam's razor, anyway. A string of numbers that are not considered 'numeric' for the sake of the question is rather obtuse. What simple explanation is there for using a string of 8 things that are identical to numbers, but not considered numbers?

      What are the odds that you would ever see 8 choices of images exactly identical to numbers, but aren't considered numbers?

      At best, that's a 0.4% possibility. I think that fails the old Razor.

    26. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same guy. Either way is an acceptable spelling, though Ockham is more common and I believe the right way to spell it.

    27. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it.

      Ockham's razor itself says that that response is not the simplest explanation because you just introduced the unsubstantiated assumption that God exists. He realized this but still held his religious belief.

    28. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by miu · · Score: 1
      Actually, Occam (who was religious) was the first to show that God cannot be proven, you have to believe.

      Once you believe in God he is always the simplest explanation.

      Occams razor cannot allow any real progress in knowledge, and cannot choose from alternates with any real ambiguity.

      Also, the fact that he was a medieval fart does not make everything he said wrong...

      He lived in the medieval worldview and the fracture points for the razor were simpler ones. Medievals lived in a world of superstition and black and white. So rotting meat produces flies, the bible is true because God caused it to be written and God is real because the bible says so, disease is caused by bad blood, heavier things fall faster, and so on.

      ...(if it did, medival farts would be extremely useful in predicting things).

      Which is true. The renaissance and enlightenment were both reactions against earlier world views. Once people began to question medieval and classical thought the scientific method could really be applied. Some knowledge of older thinkers turned out to be useful, but most was not.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    29. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Unfortunatly without knowing the "CORRECT" answer to this question it is impossible to assertain wheather it is offensive or not.

      And just where in my post did you see anyone taking offense? I merely used it as one of the more glaring (and obvious) examples of cultural bias in IQ testing. You have no idea whether I think white chicks or black chicks are prettier! Not to get even more off-topic, or anything...

    30. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Besides which... Invoking God is pretty much the most complicated way imaginable to explain anything. It only seems simple, because once we get to that level we're not supposed to ask any more questions!

    31. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      It should fail Occam's razor, anyway. A string of numbers that are not considered 'numeric' for the sake of the question is rather obtuse.

      This is the best counter-argument so far, it is a good point. One observation though is that the question itself is not numerical at all; it is meaningless mathematically speaking. That can be seen as a hint to think more out of the box.

      Another thing is that the for the "numerical" solution you have the burden of proof that the literal interpretation is illegal. If you accept any interpretation, literal or numerical, then the literal symmetry explanation wins.

      Tor

    32. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 2
      One, it's Occam, from William of Occam, not "Ockham".

      Two, how is symmetry "simpler"? It's dependant on not only number base, but also on the typescript it's printed in! Hint: eight in binary ( 1000 ) is not symmetrical except vertically. And again, that depends on the typeface. But It's still a prime number.

      This is number base imperialism, you insensitive clod!

      -- YLFI

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    33. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      I would say F)8 because it is the only one that can be pronounced as a work. FATE. Is that "simple" enough for you.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    34. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've almost always seen it spelt "Occam" ...

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    35. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      The question should be unambiguous, otherwise you are testing to see if people "think like you". If you call it an intelligence test then you must be the definition of intelligence. The question should have opened by stating that these symbols should not be interpretted as representing mathematical numbers
      I agree with the first part, that the question was ambiguous. However, I disagree with the rest. It is when you are faced with an ambiguous question that you should challenge yourself to find answers "outside the box". If the question is ambiguous and not numerical, why should the answer follow a mathematical definition? And for the "think like you" part, I would say that this is the whole point that Ockham's razor tries to address. If the question seems ambiguos and highly dependent on if I "think like you" then is the time to find objective criteria, such as an answer that is as independent as possible of what people think and know.

      I think you are misusing Ockham's razor

      Well, I am probably extrapolating it beyond what he would ever have done; but I am not the first to realize it's applicability to this type of problem.

      Theorizing that one number is unique because it is prime and the others are not does not contain any unecessary assumptions as primality is a basic feature of certain numbers that is true of them regardless of the system used to express them.

      This is a circular argument. The whole point with the other solution is that "8" can be analyzed by just the properties of the symbol itself, and not by the properties of the mathematical abstraction. You assume it is a mathematical abstraction, and then use that assumption to prove itself.

      Best,
      Tor

    36. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by evel+aka+matt · · Score: 1

      If you are saying you should just consider the numerical quantity, then any of the other even numbers could be considered symetrical. If you have 4 apples and divide them into two piles, you'll have a symetrical set of apples.

    37. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I am probably extrapolating it beyond what he would ever have done; but I am not the first to realize it's applicability to this type of problem.

      So you are saying because numerical symbols are simpler to explain as shapes than as a field of philosophy, that any problem involving numbers should first consider their shape since any solution involving that would be simpler to explain?

      No, you haven't realized a valid use of Ockham's razor. You are simply using the validity given to it, and twisting its meaning to make your argument seem more valid.

      Ockham's razor, as it applies to philosophy, eliminates one of two theories trying to explain the same thing. For example, why do planets in the sky move in such a peculiar way? One theory says "the sun is at the center and we and the other 8 are going around it" the other theory spends a few pages of explanation about the earth being at the center and the planets going around it, and on another sub orbital on their major orbit... all kinds of craziness. Clearly one requires less multiplications than the other.

      If you want to apply Ockham's razor here, you must have two theories explaining the same thing. But they don't. One theory says "8", the other says "5".

      By your logic, 1 + 1 = X, because you can make an "X" by crossing the two shapes and it is much easier to explain two shapes overlapping than elementary arithmetic. Just because there is an easier explanation to get a different answer doesn't mean the easier explanation is right, or that Ockham's razor is in any way involved.

      This is a circular argument. The whole point with the other solution is that "8" can be analyzed by just the properties of the symbol itself, and not by the properties of the mathematical abstraction. You assume it is a mathematical abstraction, and then use that assumption to prove itself.

      Please quote me proving that it is a mathematical abstraction. I assume that they are numbers and not shapes and then using that assumption evaluate that one and only one is prime. But that doesn't prove that they are abstractions, merely that there is a valid answer if they are.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    38. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      One observation though is that the question itself is not numerical at all; it is meaningless mathematically speaking.

      If it is meaningless, why would so many people come up with the answer "5"? It is not meaningless to ask "What property does one of these numbers not have that the others have?" That sort of pattern recognition is the heart of all sorts of analysis.

      Another thing is that the for the "numerical" solution you have the burden of proof that the literal interpretation is illegal.

      That is categorically incorrect. It is possible that two people starting from two different frames of reference on the same data can come to two different conclusions and both be correct. That's what the original post was saying. There is nothing invalid about "5" being an answer.

      However we tend to like "5" as the answer better because of what the previous post said, it is ridiculous not to consider the numerical aspects of the numbers first, and only when no reasonable property can be found that satisfies the criteria should we consider the numbers as shapes.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    39. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Sayjack · · Score: 1

      The purpose of Mensa is to ferret out the super intelligent people. Which property is more significant in these numbers, the fact that 5 is a prime, or that the english/human representation of 8 happens to be symmetrical when folded across the x axis?

      Prime numbers are one of the basic messages that humanity sent across the stars. Why? Because it's one of the universal properties likely to be understandable across any language and social barriers.

      For 8 to the "correct" answer to the question further erodes my opinion of mensa. Indeed, many questions like this have multiple correct answers, including ones which our Mensa representatives have yet to find.

      --

      -- Good judgement comes with experience. -- Experience comes with bad judgement.

    40. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • No. I think the best way is to imagine that you have to explain both alternatives to somebody who is completely clueless, and see which is quicker and easier to explain.


      • Of course this method does not always work, but I think that in this case most would agree that the symmetry alternative is simpler.

        "See if, you turn the paper, the 8 still looks the same. It is the same if you look at it from either direction. If you put a mirror in the middle it does not change. If you look at the other numbers, this does not happen; look!"

        "See, the 5 is a prime number. That means that it can only be divided evenly by itself, and one. Division means that...[lengthy explanation]. Even division means that [lengthier explanation]. The reason that one is not included in the definition is that [....]. Now we can look at all the other numbers in turn and see that they are not prime numbers [lengthy calculations, or even lengthier explanations on how they can be indentifed quickly]. Etc. Etc."


      Actualy, I have had the fate of doing that before.

      Err, believe it or not. The prime number thing is easier to explain. People seem to have one heck of a hard time with symmetry. :(
    41. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Then why not just use a bunch of indecipherable squiggles or at least Chinese charecters, where one is symmetrical? Same ideas apply, but at least the question is more readily understood. If Ockhams razor applies to the answer, it should apply to the question as well, should it not? It's an abuse. The mere fact the test directions were given out by symbols with particular meanings (words) kind of belies that all the symbols on the page should be taken with their normally associated values (otherwise I just print "42" and the page). You throw out "symbol" as if it is a null, but symbols have meaning. Run the exact same test using a swastika, and tell me what the answer is. The only difference is you have changed the meaning of the symbols. Fine. Good. You have just hovelled language. Exactly what were we testing again?

    42. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are authoritative texts that spell it "Occam's" (usually mathematical/scientific) and there are authoritative texts that spell it "Ockham's" (usually history/philosophy)

      I believe that Ockham is "more correct" from the perspective of "How was this spelled in Middle English?" and Occam is "more correct" from the perspective of "How does this word sound when I say it?"

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    43. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on that kind of reasoning the number to exclude from

      2,4,6,8,10,12,14,15,16,18,20

      would still be 8, although all numbers are even except for 15. Evenness is more complicated to explain to somebody with absolutely no idea of math that just turning the page. Though why someone would want to test IQ with sequences of numbers and yet assume the person to be tested does not know one iota about them eludes me.

      Face it: mensa fucked up. The test in question is completely ridiculous and completely devoid of merit. Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder, and when the beholder is a person taking a mensa test, one number being prime is pretty fucking simple.

    44. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a stronger man than I for putting up with this Mensa-tard for so long. I believe he is suffering from what Shermer would refer to as "confirmation bias." These bozos will come up with anything to justify their lame existence. What a bunch of pretentious fuckwits...

    45. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Ockham is more common

      I have to concur with "Bush Pig," as I have never seen it spelled "Ockham" before today.

    46. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by Guignol · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you on several levels:
      First, your idea of "simpler" is very skewed, I don't think getting rid of obvious context is a simple step, and certainly not reasonable.
      By obvious context I mean, the fact of writing a set of numbers and asking you to chose one of them naturaly makes you think of the elements as numbers, and thus to chose a "number-related" characteristic (like, say, oh.. arithmetical properties instead of "artistic" ones).
      An other obvious context would be to show several drawings of tools, like a pen, a calculator, an eraser, and a hammer.
      Since all those items are tools, one 'should' (my point of view, apprently not yours) consider their properties as tools and for instance discard the hammer as not an office tool.
      I guess someone like you would say "the eraser is the only item here that doesn't contain metal, it's easier to assume this because I don't have to know what the tools are made for, but I can easily see that they all have some metal exept for the eraser"
      That would be a mistake to me, but realy in this particular case, the mensa (pero bastante mensa hay que reconocerlo) answer would be: "the calculator is to be discarded as it, as a drawing, is the only figure made of a group of all similar figures (a square containing squares) whereas all the other figures are made of different basic shapes.
      Mensa take on its IQ test seem to be:
      "Look how cool and elegant is my answer to this problem, it's somehow unexpected, yet correct and insightful, I am truly a genius"
      This is a snobism test, not an intelligence test.
      My other level of disagreement with you is with your Ockhams (or is that Occam ?? not sure) statement. Here is a question with multiple choice s for mensa members:
      Occam's Razzor should be invoked to:
      a) Chose a theory form a set of result compatible theories
      b) Tell a correct answer from a set of different answers
      c) Justify any fallacy as long as it makes you part of the club
      Well, I find it sad that your answer was *b*, but I think it's pathetic that mensa oficial answer seems to be *c*

    47. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by japhmi · · Score: 1

      What they are really looking for then is "people who think like we do" not "very intelligent people".

      In the 3rd grade my brother took a standardized test with a section where you have to decide what is the logical thing to do next. Every (or almost every) question had the throw away answer "have a snack" when an adult would never deductivly reason that. My brother, after having gotten very good scores on all other questions, got 0 right on that section. When the teacher had my parents come in, they pointed out that he was right from his point of view - he always thought it would be apropriate for him to have a snack next! After looking at the test again, the teacher agreed that that section was quite stupid.

      Now, I'm going to go have a snack.

      (And my brother reads slashot, so I hope he reads this )

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    48. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by japhmi · · Score: 1

      But the whole point with this question type is that the answer you get depend very much on what assumptions you make.

      This would actually be a very interesting question to bring up in a classroom environment, then. You could see what the different students think is the right answer, then have them justify it, and bring up a good discussion on assumptions, reasoning, etc.

      Unfortunately, it would require thinking, and the educational system doesn't like having kids think, just repeat things memorized for the test.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    49. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

      I thought Ockham was talking about not multiplying metaphysical entities unnecessarily. While related to simplicity, it isn't really the same thing.

    50. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by threephaseboy · · Score: 1
      (And my brother reads slashot, so I hope he reads this )

      Hopefully your brother did better on the spelling part of the test.
      --
      .
    51. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      But It's still a prime number.

      Guh, that shold read "But primes are still primes in binary."

      YLFI.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    52. Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I guess an history book talking about slavery would be offensive as well? Would you want this material covered under the rug?

  29. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has a stinky dinky!

  30. Are the spooks running out of mathematicians?! by carstenkuckuk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why else would a major newspaper have a piece that describes maths in a positive light?

    1. Re:Are the spooks running out of mathematicians?! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, the NSA is still aggressively hiring mathematicians. But that may be less than their big push in the mid 90's. I seem to recall that they were the top hirer of PhD Mathematicians in 1994 or so.

  31. What about Dr. Evil? by dark_revenant · · Score: 5, Funny

    You ever hear of an evil or mad Mathematician? Nope, only evil or mad scientists.While they may not be philanthropists, they are not super weapon packing misanthropes. Oh well, back to the lab...

    1. Re:What about Dr. Evil? by barakn · · Score: 1

      John Forbes Nash Jr. was mad. Theodore Kaczynski is evil. Both are/were mathematicians. The point is that mathematicians are not usually allowed into labs to give physical form to what is in their heads.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:What about Dr. Evil? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ha, you laugh now, but wait until Wile's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem becomes self-aware. THEN who's laughing?

      ;-)

    3. Re:What about Dr. Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math was one of my undergrad majors. Trust me, there's no such thing as a sane mathematician.

  32. Math is cool now? by Sanity · · Score: 2, Funny
    The sweat glistened on his brow as he bravely hammered away at the keyboard - it was a life or death situation, Travolta's character had set the good-looking well-built computer geek an impossible challenge - factorize a large prime number while receiving a blow-job from a beautiful woman, all within sixty seconds...

    ...nope, I guess if John Travolta, Hugh Jackman, and Halle Berry can't make hacking sound exciting, then a few photos of geeks staring at blackboards are unlikely to make mathematicians the new sex-symbols either.

    1. Re:Math is cool now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you try to factor a prime number? Think.

    2. Re:Math is cool now? by Sanity · · Score: 1
      Why would you try to factor a prime number? Think.
      What part of "impossible challenge" did you not understand? Think.
    3. Re:Math is cool now? by Hobbex · · Score: 1


      It's not impossible, it is trivial. The factorization of a prime number is the number itself.

  33. misery loves company by chloroquine · · Score: 3, Informative
    So, I just wanted to poke my head in here and note that MSRI (where the pictures are taken) is pronounced "misery" by the maths community.

    My (insert close relative here) does minimal surfaces and hangs out with some of these guys. They look far too neatly dressed in the pictures. Anyway, for a good time, you might want to take a look at some of the galleries of images that these crazy minimal surfaces guys do. I remember about ten years ago, one of my (insert close relative)'s colleagues sold a few images to the Grateful Dead for their concerts.

    http://www.msri.org/publications/sgp/jim/images/
    http://www.gang.umass.edu/
    There is another site out at Minnesota but I'm too lazy to look for it today.

    1. Re:misery loves company by njj · · Score: 1

      I've also heard `MSRI' pronounced `emissary', which is perhaps a nicer way of looking at things - a bunch of people bringing news and information to a wider world.

      On the other hand, though, there is a peculiarly masochistic element to research - especially in something as abstract as pure mathematics. It can be tremendously frustrating and misery-inducing at times, but when it's going ok it's great - in a strangely aesthetic sort of way. From what I've read of other artists talking about their work, it's not unlike writing, painting, sculpture, or composing in this regard.

      Personally, I think it's really cool when a bit of mathematics I'm interested in turns out to have some applications in other areas of knowledge, or even in the `real world' (whatever that means). But that's not why I study the subject - I study it because I find it interesting for its own sake.

      nicholas

  34. Re:Coffee into theorems (OT) by Quixote · · Score: 1
    Ironically he lived to be 83 years old

    And why exactly is this ironic ?

  35. Pure Math by MimsyBoro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a second year college student of pure math. I just wanted to tell all you non-believers taht its true. There is something amazingly beautiful in pure math. And in the way it is almost "above" reality. Math is applied philosophy. And if you've ever tried tackling a hard philosophical problem you know what it's like trying to understand a prinicipal in math...

    --
    God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
    1. Re:Pure Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah, yes, but /everything/ but math is applied math.

      I'm a physicist; I'm only a notch lower than the mathematicians on the totem pole. Everything but math and physics is applied physics. :)

      j

    2. Re:Pure Math by BrainInAJar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does this mean the totem pole ends with philosopy? w00t. My major rules. In your face, science guys. :)

      Seriously though, it's a circle. Philosophy is just psych. Psych is just biology. Biology is just chemistry. Chemistry is just physics. Physics is just math. And math is just philosophy

  36. Re:Coffee into theorems (OT) by kingkade · · Score: 1

    Ironically he lived to be 83 years old And why exactly is this ironic?

    Irony is a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

    Read your own linked article. Isn't it tiring being so stupid?

  37. Not a mensa test question by nicholasharbour · · Score: 0, Troll

    Not to call you or your girlfriend a liar, but she couldn't have shown you a question from a mensa test. The test materials are controlled and even if they weren't the answers are not distributed outside of the scoring center (which I believe is in texas at the HQ). What you were probably looking at was some lame excuse for a mensa-like question which I would not give any merit. Also as far as I can remember, no question on the test has more than five possible answers so I would be highly skeptical of your a-j question. It kinda pisses my off when people bad-mouth mensa even though they have never been to a meeting. Also, I offer you this suggestion: if you want to criticize the test, TAKE IT FIRST!!!

    --

    Nearly half of all people are below average
    1. Re:Not a mensa test question by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      The question was from a book from MENSA Publications, but I don't remember the title (I'm working with a photocopied page here). I have no idea whether the question ever appeared on any official test they use to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, I'm not so much criticizing the test as pointing out how education can work against you, at least with respect to questions like this. Someone told me once that this is exactly their point, but I really don't know. You seem to, though. Is it?

    2. Re:Not a mensa test question by nicholasharbour · · Score: 1

      I've seen those books advertised before and I only looked through them breifly. The questions in those books were generally a bit harder than the tests because the tests are measuring for time and the books are meant to keep you busy for a long long time. The books are really just a money maker for the org more than anything. I'd have to say yes and no about the education working against you. Your scores are graded according to your age assuming that you will have a certain amount of knowlege comparable with your age group, but there could be some spots where you just look too far into things I guess. From what I remember a large portions of the questions are picture oriented which causes some people some problems. one example of this was that until recently their picture of a refrigerator for one question was the same picture they used since the 50's. people now days (kids) didn't recognize it as a refrigerator! They offer culture-fair tests as well for people who are not from this country or who are very young. As far as how education can work against you being the point of their testing, I suspect it was not the case. There test are pretty standard IQ tests and they are testing to determine if you are above two standard diviations above the mean score (which works out to about 2%).

      --

      Nearly half of all people are below average
  38. OT - BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abolish the UK TV licence fee! To join BBCresistance, e-mail: bbcresistance-subscribe@topica.com

    No, that is a very bad idea. The BBC would then become no better than the worthless commercial dribble that we get from every other TV station in the world, full of reality TV and other lowest common denominator crap. The excellent BBC website would also disappear.

    The BBC is a British cultural beacon. And the fact that they're threatening to sue the Labour government gains them an extra vote in my book.

    1. Re:OT - BBC by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I agree, it's good they're threatening to sue Labour. But a cultural beacon? Listen to Radio 1, 2, or 3, or any of its TV chnanels. What a load of crap. ABOLISH IT NOW!!!!!

  39. You've missed the entire point of the article by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    The text merely accompanies the photos.

  40. 0, 1, 2, ? by heikkile · · Score: 3, Interesting
    One of my favourites: 0, 1, 2, ?

    Obviously there are many solutions. Extra points for the largest possible number (with a decent explanation)

    0 -> 0 = 0
    1 -> 1 ! = 1
    2 -> 2 ! ! = 2
    3 -> 3 ! ! ! = 6 ! ! = 720 ! approx. 2.6 E+1746

    Any higher ??

    --

    In Murphy We Turst

    1. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by snarkh · · Score: 1


      I don't see how 0 fits here.

    2. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have any number as the next number in the sequence, as high as you like.

    3. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 0! is defined as being 1, for a couple reasons:

      • Since 1! = 0! * 1, working backwards, 0! = 1! / 1 = 1.
      • This way, C(x, y) makes sense when y = 0 or x, that is, x! / (x!) (0!) = 1.
    4. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but on the grandparent post's sequence, the magnitude of the digit indicates how many "factorials" to take of itself. So 0 has zero "!"s following it, therefore is equal to 0.

    5. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      0-> 0 -> 0 -> 0
      1 -> (1!)! ->1! -> 1
      2 -> (2!!)!! -> 2!! -> 2
      3 -> (3!!!)!!! -> approx 2.6 E+1746!!! -> ????

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    6. Re:0, 1, 2, ? by jazman · · Score: 1

      0, 1, 2, lazy-8.

      Roots of the equation x(x-1)(x-2)/e^x.

  41. Bruce Banner ready to defend his proof... by Bacteriophage · · Score: 1
    That guy in the first slideshow pic looks like he's about to turn green!

    --
    "Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work." -Flaubert
    1. Re:Bruce Banner ready to defend his proof... by muon1183 · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as how Mathematical Sciences Research Institute overlooks the Advanced Light Source and the rest of Berkeley, where "The Hulk" was filmed, it's not too far fetched.

      --

      There's no sig like SIGSEG
  42. Some tests are public by paugq · · Score: 2, Informative

    You certainly don't know what you are talking about. Some tests are public and some even free.

    For instance, here (Mensa Spain) you have a test publicly available.

    And there are some books also publicly available sold as Mensa preparatory test books.

    And that's not all, they sent me home a test (which I never filled), with solutions.

    So, who is the liar?

    1. Re:Some tests are public by nicholasharbour · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified, I speak only of US Mensa. I think we have different definitions of publicly available. If their tests were truly publicly available then you could get the test, memorize the answers, and score a perfect score.
      The mensa book that the problem he was talking about came from was probably not a test prep book but a puzzle book. As a side note to anyone reading, don't waste your money on IQ test prep books. There is really no way to study for any valid IQ test.
      A home test is still not an actual test, and it proves nothing about the intent of the test. Particularly not so when you are speaking of one question without the context of the rest of the test.

      --

      Nearly half of all people are below average
    2. Re:Some tests are public by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • don't waste your money on IQ test prep books. There is really no way to study for any valid IQ test.


      That is not true.

      It is VERY easy to study for a valid IQ test. Take an IQ test, find out what your weak points were (what section of the test did you perform badly on, the numerical analysis portion, the visual spacial portion, and so on) and then STUDY for that portion of the test.

      In my case I did poorly on the visual spacial portion (no duh, have a learning disability there and all. ^_^), I took some art classes and learned 3D modeling, heya, 20 points higher, yah! :)
  43. Re:Coffee into theorems (OT) by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
    If it's not ironic, it's at least paradoxical, which is half way to irony.

    The metabolic changes induced by persistent use of amphetamines make the heart and ither internal organs age at a rate that frightened the young me into stopping taking them at an early age.

    My drug of choice for pure math was a nice bit of Leb Red in my coffee prior to starting an assignment / doing an exam.

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  44. Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
    Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
    And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
    To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
    At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
    In shapes of shifting lineage; let geese
    Gabble and hiss, but heroes seek release
    From dusty bondage into luminous air.
    O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
    When first the shaft into his vision shone
    Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
    Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
    Who, though once only and then but far away,
    Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

    --Edna St. Vincent Millay

    1. Re:Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare by rifftide · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Mrs. Euclid was quite a looker. But what good did it do either one of them if he spent all of his time writing up those old math books?

    2. Re:Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare by alanshitface · · Score: 1

      A MEDITATION UPON SCIENTIFIC
      INSPIRATION IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

      Three lines joined together with no gaps between
      But you saw the squares on them no-one had seen.
      You said to yourself: 'Oimoi this idea's big'
      I'll patent it right now and trademark it 'Trig'.

      Your mate Archimedes who shouted Eureka
      (Was smug about floating and history's first streaker)
      Was in a warm bath when he had his brainwave
      Where were you Mr Pythag, were you having a rave?

      Where were you Mr Pythag when you thought of your theorem?
      Were you brushing your teeth or at play in the harem?
      Were you scraping out earwax, defluffing your navel
      Or out with disciples celebrating a revel?

      Where were you Mr Pythag when you summed up the squares
      Were you at your ablutions or climbing the stairs
      To a tavern or hostelry, some drinking club
      Or were you just soaking yourself in a tub?

      Where were you Mr Pythag when you joined up the lines
      Were you wiping your bottom or tasting fine wines
      Were you lathering bristles bent over the sink
      Or down the Three Lions quietly having a drink?

      No fruit can have helped you to see the right angle
      Like an apple helped Isaac the truth to untangle
      So what was your turn-on, your mental enthuser
      Tell us now for the record was it bathroom or boozer?

      Reveal to us all now what History's missed
      Were you towelling off Pythag, or just getting pissed?

      Alan Shitface

  45. Nobody takes notes like those!! by haruchai · · Score: 3, Funny
    In photo 3 of the slideshow. What is he - an honors calligraphy student taking an elective Math course. I can't be that neat when writing greeting cards, let alone taking notes in class.
    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  46. 30 and 10 are also symmetric by bih · · Score: 1

    30 is symmetric vertically in most fonts, and 10 is probably symmetric in a few. Thanks, Mensa!

  47. Funny... by biostatman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The title of the article is "Pure Math, Pure Joy" and it's about MSRI. While it is a phenomenal place, it is no picnic for young mathematicians for sure and is often referred to as "misery", as in "yeah, I spent a year in misery (MSRI)".

    --
    For the love of $DEITY, loose != not win!!!!!
    1. Re:Funny... by EnlightenedDuck · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, most of the people I know that have talked about MSRI seem to enjoy it (still kicking myself for not going to Dyson's talk there last year). Maybe it has something to do with their field, insofar as they are all statisticians.....

      --
      Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
    2. Re:Funny... by D.+J.+Bernstein · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking as a mathematician who was around MSRI 1991-1995, 2000, and 2002-2003: We say ``misery'' because that's the easiest way to pronounce MSRI, not to express any negative sentiments towards the place. When Bill Thurston took over as director in the early 1990s, he tried to get everyone to switch to a French-style ``emissary,'' but that word just isn't as easy to say as ``misery.''

  48. (j) is correct! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is clearly the only answer written in binary.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
    1. Re:(j) is correct! by Sanga · · Score: 1

      and j == 10 !!!

      Or (j-a) == 10

      It is so obvious. The great-grand parent poster clearly does not belong in Mensa !!!

  49. Mathturbation by cbare · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pure math has been described by one friend of mine as "mathturbation", while another observed that the entire field of computer science has a severe case of "Math Envy". I'm more down with the later opinion.

    --
    -cbare
    1. Re:Mathturbation by ahem · · Score: 1
      Pure math has been described by one friend of mine as "mathturbation", while another observed that the entire field of computer science has a severe case of "Math Envy". I'm more down with the later opinion.

      Shouldn't that be pi-ness envy?

      --
      Not A Sig
  50. Mod up parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unibomber = Ted K. the mathematician and genius

  51. Anything? by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    Why do smart people commit slow suicide by smoking? Note: I consider "addiction" an insufficient answer.

    Is there a god?

    If yes: Is s/he/it benevolent?

    If yes: Why do so many good people die horribly?

    Why do really stupid people run the USA, and the Pentagon? If we don't stop it we're all going to die

    Can FIFA (Soccer) call their international tournament a "World Cup" if they exclude a place for Oceania?

    Why does washing the car bring on rain?

    Why does serving coffee on aeroplanes cause turbulence?

    Was the French Resistance really an evil band of terrorists?

    Why do Israelis who understand what the holocost was, do what they do to the Palestinians?

    Why would cigarette ash make a keyboard "sticky"? Are you sure it isn't some sugar based substance that you have spilt on it? Are you typing and eating twinkie cakes at the same time?

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
    1. Re:Anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not telling.

    2. Re:Anything? by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      And if you've honestly considered the answers to these questions (and not just spouting off imponderables), you get smart guy award in my book.

      My big one: Why entrophy? Doesn't give you much reason to get out of bed.

      "It's not the answers, it's the insight of the question."

  52. Re:Coffee into theorems (OT) by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

    Erdos only took teeny-tiny amounts of speed. Sub-therapeutic (let alone sub-recreational) doses, as his biography makes clear.

    --
    What a long, strange trip it's been.
  53. leave it to the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Can't believe how the times contorted this story. It was orginally about the development of a new hi-res, giant seamless LCD, not some useless math games.

    The untouched pic is available here:

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/257102/mathn erds.jpg

    1. Re:leave it to the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err I mean here

  54. Contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really enjoyed it when that guy dies after kicking Jodie Foster off the first mission in the machine they build.

    I would really enjoy it if you died too :-)

    as if you know exactly what the world around us is. . .

    You should stick with your wild, one-man, orgy experiments

  55. More images of MSRI by Ed Alcock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Ed was at MSRI he took a lot of photos..Theres a number of other images in the series, and you can see them at

    http://www.msri.org/media/MediaInfo/38/articles/ sh ow_article

    -Chris

  56. Sometimes, math is useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm about to complete my Ph.D. in math. There are some things which won't ever become useful. I'm not well enough versed in the history of mathematics to quote a result from 150 years ago that has proven to be useless, but I can quote a result that I've proven, and I'm betting my immortal soul that nobody will use it for the next 150 years:

    There is a bilinear form f(x,y) over the vector space of sup-normed functions so that

    max |f(x,y)|/(|x| |y|) = 3sqrt(3)/4 max |f(x,x)|/(|x| |x|)

    Cheers,

    Sebastien Loisel
    http://www.math.mcgill.ca/loisel/

  57. Proof By Mutilation by weston · · Score: 1

    This is so odd, I just finished writing about this today. Years, ago, a friend of mine had a dream that a bunch of us were in a grad math class... topology or analysis or something and we'd been working on a proof for days and gotten to a point where we couldn't get any farther without "proof by mutilation" -- somebody had to cut off an arm. And the scary/funny thing was, we had all decided to do it, the only remaining debate was about whose arm it was going to be.

    Crazy mathematicians. But less soul-destroying than I/T, that's for sure.

    1. Re:Proof By Mutilation by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Crazy mathematicians. But less soul-destroying than I/T, that's for sure.

      For one thing, grotesquely incompetent mathematicians rarely get hired. Competent IT people are at a disadvantage... while they waste time learning things and acquiring skills, their ignorant peers are out making money working at places like the IT department where I work, installing software incorrectly, acting arrogant about their draconian rules and generally tempting me with thoughts of going postal.

      Math doesn't destroy your soul, it builds it. In fact, after reading a book on Number Theory I've come to the conclusion it's one of the best proofs of God there is. Only God could make something as indescribably beautiful as numbers.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  58. Which Math Sites do you like ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    There are lots of math sites.

    Which one, or ones, do you like ?

    Any suggestion ?

    Thanks !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  59. Symptoms of... by mblase · · Score: 1

    Erdos said, "You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." He promptly resumed taking pills, and mathematics was the better for it.

    Isn't this practically a definition of Attention Deficit Disorder? As I recall, Ritalin is just a specific type of amphetamine. (And I know I have a heck of a time getting any coding done if I haven't taken mine.)

    1. Re:Symptoms of... by Vox+Humana · · Score: 1

      I thought Ritalin was only used to treat ADHD in children, in that their response to amphetamines is different than that of adults. It slows them down instead of winding them up.

    2. Re:Symptoms of... by mblase · · Score: 1

      I thought Ritalin was only used to treat ADHD in children, in that their response to amphetamines is different than that of adults. It slows them down instead of winding them up.

      Nope, Ritalin (and its generic equivalent) is used to treat ADD and ADHD in adults just as well as children -- although it's not the only drug used to do so. In a nutshell, the effect of the drug is to increase dopamine in the brain, improving one's ability to concentrate on a single thing at a time. In some individuals (adult and child both), the effect is hyperactivity; in some it's the opposite. Often you'll see the syndrome written as AD/HD to underscore this fact.

  60. Re:Math is cool now? MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because John Travolta Hacks using Microsoft Bob hacking wizard...

    OTOH Trinity uses NMAP and we all think it's great (Go, Matrix...)

  61. imponderables by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    The one I like to ask Jehovah's witnesses impertinate enough to get me out of bed early on Saturday mornings, is borrowed from philosphy "Descartes" (?)
    How do you know that the world was not created with everything including your memories precisely 10 minutes ago?

    Why entropy? Why get out of bed?
    Answer: Eventually entropy makes your bed uninhabitable and you have to get out of it (or get someone else to lift you out of it) and fix it up.

    Why can't slashdot code automatically detect that I have placed no html code in my post and display it as plain text with line breaks as I intended?

    What happens when you combine a short attention span with a highly active brain?

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
    1. Re:imponderables by Suidae · · Score: 1

      What happens when you combine a short attention span with a highly active brain?

      ADHD.

      What, what was I talking about?

    2. Re:imponderables by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > What happens when you combine a short attention span with a highly active brain?

      I know that one... me.

  62. not theory by chloroquine · · Score: 1
    Then again, you seem to do topology and knot theory. Which are about the only areas of maths that I can think about at all (I'm a biologist). I also like 3D tiling, but can't do any of the maths involved. I'm happier playing with models.

    I think my view of MSRI is coloured a bit by knowing a good chunk of the people involved. There are some pretty crazy stories there ...
    I should note that I don't think that MSRI is miserable at all, I just liked the self-deprecating nature of the nickname. I've never been there, but I've heard that it is really lovely.