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."

43 of 315 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. 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 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
    3. 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. :)

  3. 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]
  4. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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!
    9. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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?

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?

  17. 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 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?

      ;-)

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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 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

  21. 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

  22. 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)
  23. 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

  24. 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)
  25. 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

  26. 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
  27. 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!!!!!
  28. (j) is correct! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is clearly the only answer written in binary.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  29. 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