Mathematics Skills More in Demand Than Ever
knownsense writes "Business week has a nice article (feel good, low on detail, vague numbers) on the rise of maths and mathematicians in a world that is increasingly obsessed with statistics, advertising, search engines, and algorithms. The article also deals with issues of privacy. How has mathematics, statistics and other number driven aspects of life impacted you in the last decade?"
We all know that advancements in technology can cost people their jobs. However, in the case of the building industry in Texas, the effect of introducing new technology can often be somewhat delayed.
...sigh...
Back in 1997, my new house was in the slow process of changing from plans on paper into bricks on concrete. One of the tasks that has to be done early on is to lay out the shape of the house accurately onto the land. My builder uses a sub-contractor to do that - and I had occasion to watch him work. He arrived in a beat up old pickup truck with four 'migrant workers' sitting in the back. In order to lay out the initial 'bounding rectangle' of the building, they follow this algorithm:
* Measure a baseline for the long edge of the rectangle. Mark it with two stakes hammered into the ground and tie a length of nylon string between them.
* Tie a second piece of string to one of the stakes and measure out the width of the rectangle along it. Eyeball the angle between the new edge and the baseline so it's roughly 90 degrees and you have an 'L' shape. One guy holds the string there.
* Do the same at the other end of the baseline. Now you have a 'U' shape and two guys are holding the open ends of the strings.
* Take a third piece of string - equal in length to the length of the rectangle. Give one end to each of the two guys who are already holding string. 'jiggle' them until all three strings are tight. You now have a parallelogram made of string, staked out at two corners.
* Now take two long tape measures and with one guy standing at each corner of our parallelogram, position the tape measures along the two diagonals of the parallelogram. With two guys holding the tapes on the baseline stakes and the other two holding onto the strings and shouting out the lengths of the diagonals, they jiggle the two free points until all of the strings are tight and the two diagonals tape measures are reading the same lengths. This requires a lot of shouting, cursing and everyone telling everyone else which way to move.
* Now they have a rectangle - so they bash in two more stakes and then level the whole thing with a really impressive-looking laser contraption.
Well, I watched this with some amusement - and asked why they didn't just calculate the length of the diagonal. The boss guy said that you couldn't do that - "It's impossible". I told him about Pythagoras' theorem. With the aid of a calculator (he didn't know what that funny 'square-root' key was for), I was able to show him how easy it is to calculate the length of the diagonal and do away with all the ugly 'jiggling'.
"Wow!" he said. Then he thought for a moment - "Now I'll only need three guys to hold the string!"...and fired one of them on the spot! I thought he was kidding - but the next day when they were measuring out the place for the garage, there was one less guy holding the string.
So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job.
www.sjbaker.org
They always advertise it as a field, and sure it's interesting, but as a job, to be a mathematician you're typically in a position where you are a tool for the non-mathematician's. Of course the non-math's want more math's to do the work for them and tell them what to do... but is it a good carreer?
The technique in this article is actually used, too, and can be used on different levels. That is, the BW article says this company uses it to measure the distance between two articles, but you can use it to compare the distance between two words. Here's how.
Let's say you have some corpus with N distinct words in it. For each word w you create a "context vector" vw of length 2N. In the first N positions there are counts for the number of time each word in the corpus appears immediately to the left of the word w, and for the second N positions there are counts of the same for the right context. The angle between any two vectors in this 2N-dimensional vector space produces a measure of the distance between the two words. If you use some kind of dimensionality reduction technique to get a 2-dimensional representation, you can see that although this technique is pretty crude linguistically speaking it does pretty well. Each language has a distinct "shape" in this regard, with similar words grouped together, i.e., in English there might be a cluster of points consisting of "singular nouns," or specific parts of speech, like prepositions. It can sometimes even group words by semantic domain, depending on your corpus.
Remember kids, computational linguistics is fun!
And so I slowly started to realize that mathematics were the underlying principle to everything. Maybe you've seen the motion picture Pi and remember the part where the main character has a revelation that everything can be described by math. In my opinion, he was dead right.
/.?) but I want to point out that we are well served to be aware of the limitations of math and logic. Some people put as much faith in logic and our own mathematical knowlege as any fundamentalist zealot puts in their own religion. Reasonable people (and the smartest mathematicians and scientists I've ever seen) realize that math and even logic are human's own inventions, and are limited in what they can be applied to. That said, they are a hugely useful system of describing the natural world and even abstract ideas in a very communicable way -- we've often heard and said that Math is the true international language. Yet, there are statements in math that we know we can neither prove nor disprove -- and conversely, there are things we know to be true (by experience, which Einstein referred to as the ultimate truth) but we know for sure can't be proven!
I'm a math/sci geek too (do you have to SAY that on
Google for "Gödel's theorem", or maybe "metamathematics" before knee-jerk replying, please.
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
You know it always amazes me that when anyone talks about math they start talking statistics and calculations. This is not pure mathematics. Statistics is its own breed and calculations are for the engineers, pure mathematics is about abstractions of formal logic.
Now if we wanted to start talking about ring theory, field theory, galois theory, real analysis, topology, etc. these are examples of the pure mathematical concepts. Not number crunching. All of these other things like "statistics" and "applied math" are great things but I feel that they are certainly not pure.
It may be just me, but it seems that lots of the traditional computer science curriculum has changed. I remember there being some calculus and statistics with calc requirements. Recently I looked at some school catalogs and was surprised to see that the math requirements for a computer science degree had changed substantially to the point that calc II or III was no longer needed. If the article is true then we're in for a real shortage of programmers who understand the mathematics.
At the same time I'm seeing mathematics positions than seemingly didn't exist before. The odd thing is that they were primarily math positions with some computer language requirements instead of the reverse. Instead of some actuarial positions, there are openings in software houses, animation studios, civil sector, etc..
Guess geeks will have their time in the spotlight again soon. Yay for me.
KLL
Imagine:
1. Having your TV programming automatically fed to your house based on your previous preferences
2. Having web sites sent to your browser based on predictive algorithms sitting at Google
3. Receiving even more targeted advertising sent to your mail box and telephone (during dinner)
4. Etc.
One of the (many) problems with predictive algorithms and maths is that it requires input as a training set to determine the output. The implication is that all of this targeted marketing will make it harder to find new and different things and experiences. I already get this crap with Amazon, which seems to regurgitate suggested reading titles for books I've already bought (many from Amazon).
Part of the spice of life is finding new things. The trend towards compartmentalization and specializationg driven by marketers and business interests will make life more boring.
It's true that mathematics is very much in demand, but unfortunately in the UK that hasn't translated into a greater interest in mathematics. I don't know how things are abroad, but here it's considered shameful to be illiterate, but almost embarrassing to be numerate.
I'm currently at uni studying maths, and a huge number of the people on my course are from overseas. Is it only the UK which seems to suffer from some sort of violent social allergy to mathematical competence?
Math is truly the most awsome among all subjects. Learning it offers you the kind of freedom that is unmatched by learning any other subject. Have you noticed how a mathematician can switch easily between multiple areas of study? That's cuz one can apply math to almost every field imaginable from Language (Computational Linguistics) to Biology (Computational Biology). I don't mean to dismiss learning other subjects (it's important to be well rounded) but can any other subject gift you you with such amazing flexibility?
:)) to appreciate the beauty and elegance of this amazing subject.
There's beauty and elegance in a mathematical result which will always remain true forever. School kids even today, study about the Pythogoras theorem - a mathematical result that was established more than 2 thousand years ago. You're learning Calculus that was discovered by Newton & Liebniz several hundred years ago. Compare this with other fields like Management where the MBA syllabus keeps changing as newer management techniques and new buzzwords/MBA jargon are invented.
Again, I don't mean to dis MBA dudes. It's just that in an fast paced information age where paradigms are constantly being challenged and new ones being invented, it is reassuring to have a body of knowledge that you can always depend on no matter what.
Seriously! You don't have to be good at math (I'm just a lowly Master's and that too in CS
Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein
I have learned that you can do wonderful and amazing things with machines and math, but machines themselves will never reproduce the creativity, insight, and wonder of the human mind.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It's funny, but I've used more math (especially geometry) doing home improvement projects than I ever did programming computers. Granted, I've never did any intense graphics programming, but a little bit of UI type of stuff.
View FoxTrot cartoon and figure out its Easter Egg. I suck at math, but at least I knew it was binary and had to decode it. You can view AQFL for the analysis and answer. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I would like to know if there is a way to make money out of maths skills, as a freelancer.
I mean, I have a phd and I'm quite good at maths, having solved the 3 problems who where thrown at me in 1 year and a half (instead of the regular 3 years) but what I would like to do is :
solve mathematical problems/bring solutions to people/firms in exchange for hard coin.
Kind like a mathematician freelancer/mercenary : You do the job, you get the money and that's it.
I mean, there are web sites for freelancer artists/web developer/coder. But there isn't one for mathematicians.
So, the only way to make money out of maths (in france) is either to teach it or to research in an university. Either way, you are a salary man.
Man, that sucks.
What is the use for those monsters maths skills, that I patiently honed all these years if I can't even make a little cash out of it/or make more money out of it that the average teacher (that really sucks at research/high lvl maths) ?
>Instead of some actuarial positions, there are openings in software houses, animation studios, civil sector, etc..
i am a final year mathematics student whose dream isn't to work as an actuary or for a merchant bank. if anyone has advice on interesting fields where mathematicians are required rather than tolerated, i would appreciate it. or in general, advice on where to look.
i have studied almost exclusively pure maths, mainly analysis and number theory with some algebra and computational stuff, and can program C, some Fortran and some C++.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
When I tell a potential employer I know Galois theory, he stares at me for a few seconds, and then asks me "Do you know how to use Excel?". To which I reply that I prefer Mathemathica and rarely touch Microsoft products. Then the interview is over.
When I tell a girl I admire her Riemannesque topology and say her virtues are greater in number than those of the girls of Lesbos combined and raised to the googoolth power, she says: "Dude, you are such a sweetie, but I have to go now".
When I tell my neighbor he can make his wine cellar temperature independent by putting it y meters below the ground, he says "Well, aren't you a smarty, boy!", grins, and then returns home to put on the missis.
While browsing the stacks at my local library I came upon the mathematics section. It only contained about five or six books: two grade four or five textbooks and a couple books on math puzzles. I found this very disappointing given the importance of mathematics in so many fields, but then, to make things even worse, I happened to notice that the nearby sections on U.F.O's and Witchcraft were actually far better stocked. It made me wonder if this was caused by society's indifference towards mathematics or if it was merely caused by the liberal arts bias of most librarians.
Math majors from top schools are being recruited (along with other hard sciences, physics and CS) by banks, hedge funds, etc. and getting 6 figures right out of college. No kidding. The story is, about a decade or so ago, some hedge funds decided to try letting some really smart people (i.e. math majors from top schools) handle money. They did so well, they made a fortune and it turned the industry upside-down. Well, that might be an exaggeration, but it's more or less true.
Markets had a number of pricing inconsistencies, etc. in them, and these smart mathy people figured out how to take advantage of them. Lots of algorithms and computer programming found application to managing these hedge funds. To correct for these abuses, the markets had to close the gaps and inconsistencies these hedge funds were abusing.
Although a lot of the market problems have since been cleaned up, a lot of math is going into managing funds to maximize profit. There aren't as many people making millions off of just trading, but there's a lot of jobs in the financial industry for smart math people that still pay extremely well.
The financial industry learned its lesson: math is incredibly useful. This has already been obvious in industries like computer programming, where sophisticated math goes into designing algorithms. In the future, I think we'll continue to see other industries finding out how huge the benefits of math can be.
As far as I can tell there are 3 major sources of math anxiety:
1. Parents who don't know math, and thus can't teach mathematical concepts to their kids beyond counting.
2. Elementary school teachers who deemphasize math in favor of reading and 'riting.
3. Popular culture.
The first cause is really only solveable if you solve the other 2 causes, because you need a generation of mathematically literate parents.
If you look at the people who are doing elementary school teaching, their primary focus tends to be teaching reading, handwriting, neatness, respect for authority, etc. Arithmetic tends to be taught more as rules to memorize than as ideas to understand (for instance memorizing that 3+4=7 rather than taking 3 things, taking 4 more things, and counting how many you have when you're done), leaving students with very little connection between math and reality.
Popular culture contributes as well. For instance, it creates an image of math as the province of strange or crazy people who work with ideas us peons can only dream of understanding. Even places where math comes into play, such as sports statistics, business news, government budgets, etc there's a big effort to avoid making the math understandable.
I am officially gone from
Non-Euclidean geometry was the first evidence of this fact. The axiom was that any point can have only a single line that passes through it parallel to another given line. Euclid took this as an axiom, and went on to define planar geometry. The non-Euclidean geometries of curved spaces came about by taking it as an axiom that the statement is false.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
In fact, much work has been done in the last few decades in the model-theory literature. It used to be believed that Goedel like unprovable, unfalsifiable statements were somehow unnatural and would never surface in "ordinary" mathematics. After all, except for theoretical computer science classes, where does the halting problem show up in ordinary computer science? Then came the Paris Harrington theorem, a result from generalized ramsey theory which was proved to be unprovable in peano arithmetic. Since then other natural unprovable results have been found as well.
I think you over-estimate the quality of life at the poverty line and all the problems that go along with it. The sense that you give is that people who live under the line have all the amenities everyone else has, but only to a lower quality.
Let me help you out here. I lived with a family of 6 whose yearly average of taxable income of $14,000 (c.2000). We received welfare ($600/month), food stamps ($250/month), and received subsidized rent via HUD ($-400/month). As you can tell, we were below the poverty line.
Now consider the average education level of those under the line. I think my family was a good example having a Vietnam-vet with a GED as a father and a middle-school-educated mother. They were not capable of finding significant income in an area that would allow "people like us" to live.
They eventually got a car-- an '80s junker on a 16% interest loan. We had 2 color televisions with cable. "Why?," you ask? because there is literally NO OTHER WAY OF ESCAPE in a society that focuses around entertainment! A one-time cost of $200 and a monthly cost of $25 is damn reasonable when you consider that most Slashdotters rarely think more than twice about upgrading their system (or buying a new one) with a pricetag of 200+.
Lastly, there's all the qualitative differences in a family that lives below the poverty line. There's frustration (an extreme understatement here) of being stuck and unable to provide. This anger is, more often than not, expressed physically with women and children on the receiving end. There's depression, lack of confidence, in ability to socialize outside of your born-in group as other groups cost money to associate with, no culture of education... there is no hope.
So, before you rain judgement from upon high based on severly miscalculated eyeball-assumptions, give it a shot.
--Ps. The polio thing made me laugh. If you're poor and living in California, you have a limited number of times you can see a physician, emergency room, dentist, or an optometrist in a year. When I was in high school ('96-'00) we had 6 stickers on our Medical tickets. 1) Glasses, 2) Fillings, 3) busted thumb in PE, 4,5,6) Tonsilitis. After that, and with a 104-fever, I was SOL.
The simple fact is that only a small percentage of the population has the requisite knowledge of mathematics, and only a small percentage of them have the passion and drive to pursue math even further. I am one of those mathephiles, and I'm proud of it. The problem with the article is that non-mathletes don't necessarily understand mathletes. It raises privacy problems and such as problems in the mathematical world, but the real fact is, math really does nothing to avert privacy. Maty can be used to devise algorithms which may or may not undermine privacy. The real fact is, however, that overzealous entrepreneurs will attempt to bastardize the good applications of math for their own ill gain. I don't really see a problem with the mathematical progress we make. I personally think that if businesses use math, and consumers are too stupid to realize they are being pimped, for lack of a better term, by industry, then they deserve what they get. I will still be an alert person and protect my privacy by being careful. There is no substitute for common-sense.
The other problem I have is that we need to lure women and "ethnic minorities" into mathematics. Sure, it would be wonderful if there were more female mathematicians. But we can't simply set up a quota system for mathematicians. This is more of a society problem than education or anything. Big entertainment has put out this message that being intelligent is "uncool," especially when one is good at math. In fact, society scorns illiterates, but people brag about inneptities in mathematics. Look at the news media. They are preaching about this avian flu, but their already fragile case for hysteria is flattened by their fouled up statistics (no pun intended). They say the mortality rate is something like 75%. With a logistic growth model, that would knock off huge amounts of the population in its second stage, which has definitely not happened yet. But if you look at the sources of their statistics, they only accounted for people who have been confirmed with avian flu, and specifically those who died or were critically ill. The actual numbers of people who have been infected is probably much higher, and in past years many people have probably been affected by it and then overcame it, thinking it was a "normal" flu. With these people taken into account, the true mortality rate is probably much less. The lack of math knowledge in the media is terrible, because these people just utter words that they think they understand. "Mortality rate" is the ratio of deaths (with respect to something) per 1000 people. If you looked up infant mortality rate, it would be quoted as "n deaths per 1000 live births". When society en masse becomes more attentive to mathematics, then we will start to see women enter the field.
'Ethnic minorities' was the phrase that stumped me. Why do we beat around the bush and use this PC "ethnic minority" crap? I work in a physics lab with physicists, enginneers, and mathematicians. Its like the friggin' UN in there. A guy from Thailand, one from India, a Pacific Islander, a guy from China, a black guy, then two white guys (another guy and I) all work in an office. There is no clear majority! The only real fact is that we're all men. What pisses me off is that we can't say "we wish more blacks would enter the mathematics field," we have to say "we hope 'ethnic minorities' enter mathematics." Ethnic minorities are distributed all throughout mathematics in the US. Asians, Indians, and Arabs are all present in mathematical fields. Maybe when ignorance by the media is overcome, and the real truth is confronted, then we'll see mathematics interest really spike across the board.
I am a freelancer mathematician (see http://www.northcountrynumerics.com/) . I work in seismic exploration, and also defense-related industries. I don't think it is possible to do this kind off work without having lots of personal connections, though; clients don't want to entrust some random person they've met once with a difficult and important mathematics problem. My work with my clients is much more like an academic collaboration (without the annoying emphasis on publications, though ironically I have more time for publication now than I did when I was in academia) than it is like an engineering or software development task.
The projects are also usually quite specialized, so you can't really walk in and solve someone's problem unless you aren't already quite knowledgeable in that particular sub-field of mathematics, and have a proven record of solving problems in that area.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
If you have unlimited capital and no betting limit, you cannot lose.
But LTCM didn't have unlimited capital and did have a betting limit (you can't make a bet larger than the rest of the world is willing to take the other side on).
LTCM was betting martingale. That they had two Nobel prize winners and 250 more years of advancement and still ended up with a system that only works as well as martingale is both in indication of the level of foolishness on Wall Street and a real indication of the difficulty (possibility?) of beating the market with a system.
Anyway, if you read the book (better yet, both), you can see that even if they had a few mathematical equations saying they were right, there's a lot more reasons they were actually wrong. The complexity of the markets is sufficient that you can make an equation showing how safe you are and still be wrong. Your equation is either built on incorrect assumptions or fails to include other factors that turn out to be important.
LTCM was wrong mainly because they were using far too much leverage and thought it was okay because they thought they had multiple independent "wagers" that thus lowered their risk, because the likelihood of two independent failures of their system was very low, and they figured they could survive 3 or more! The problem is their wagers were not really independent and so more than 3 went south at once. They fooled themselves. They were fools, not victims of circumstance.
Here's the one most importance in "When Genius Failed". LTCM's return on working capital was smaller than that of a savings account. Their real trick was being able to borrow capital at such low prices. If they had deposited their borrowed capital in savings accounts they would have made more money faster and not lost their butts either. What geniuses.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Well, I guess maybe the problem was just me. Let me tell you something about myself. Maybe you can help:
In high school, when I was at home and bored, I wrote code to get objects to move around in 3D space on the screen. I figured out how to make smooth curves with cubic equations. I toyed with fractals because they looked cool. I made eclectic music by playing with trig functions.
The same year I was writing 3D transforms I was sent back a grade from trig back to algebra because I couldn't keep up. The teacher thought I was wasting my time on these programs until I had a solid foundation. To this day I want to go back and kick her ass. Despite years writing 3D games I barely squeaked though linear algebra in college. If only somebody had explained to me that those equations I used were based on 3x3 and 4x4 matrix multiplications I might have done better. Maybe I wouldn't have failed Calc if someone pointed out that the smooth curve functions that I wrote were based on the principle of keeping the derivitive of the curve continuous.
This is why I want applied math. All my life I solved math problems, learned new math myself, and applied it. All while my teachers couldn't even connect what I was doing to the theory they taught.
Call it applied math. Call it pure math. Whatever. Here's my request: Just don't let another student go through what I did.