Slashdot Mirror


E8 Structure Decoded

arobic writes "A group of mathematicians from US and Europe succeeded in mapping the E8 structure, an example of a Lie group. These were developed by the well-known mathematician Sophus Lie (pronounce Lee) in the last century and are used for many applications, mainly in theoretical physics. This is an important breakthrough as it could help physicists working on Grand Unified Theories (aka GUTs)."

127 comments

  1. Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pronounce it "Lee-eh"; At least that is how I would do it as a Scandinavian.

    1. Re: Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pronounce it "Lee-eh"; At least that is how I would do it as a Canadian.
    2. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA :
      E8, (pronounced "E eight") is an example of a Lie (pronounced "Lee") group.

    3. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a Norwegian, I would pronounce it "Lee". It's a bit strange I agree, but that's how that name is usually pronounced.

    4. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thanks!

      I had to check it with a Norwegian colleague, who confirmed you pronunciation.

      (I had thought it meant 'scythe' (Sw. 'lie', No. 'ljå' [pronouced 'yaw'!]), but actually it was 'slope' (Sw. lid; with a pronouned 'd' in the high form, but silent in dialectal forms).

      So, all those years calling the Tryggve Lie a scythe was in in vain...

    5. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the summary is correct. Pronounce it Lee as in Bruce. (I just had a lecture in the auditorium named after him)

    6. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think so myself, but my mathemathics teacher pronounced it lee, and he should have known, that being his name and all. (I don't think he was related, though!)

    7. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Cheapy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lee-eh! L-E-E--E-H! L-E-E--E-H!

      Poor mathematician. He must've been killed by Snu-Snu. Or maybe lucky mathematician...

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    8. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a German I would pronounce it "Lee" as well. But instead of E8 I would say something
      like "A" Acht. I would also say stuff like

      "Would someone please pass me the butter?" - "Wuerde mir jemand bitte die Butter reichen?"
                "Here please" - "Hier bitteschoen"
      "When will the next train for ... leave?" - "Wann faehrt der naechste Zug nach ... ab?"
                "The next train will leave in ... hours" - "Der naechste Zug faehrt in ... Stunden."
      "Would anyone like more wine?" - "Moechte jemand noch jemand Wein?"
                "Yes, please!" - "Ja bitte!"
      "Ich habe meinen Ausweis vergessen!" - "I forgot my papers!"
                "I have to arrest you!" - "Ich muss Sie festnehmen!"

      These are arbitrary samples of sentences that are spoken throughout Germany, Austria and
      Switzerland every day by millions of German speaking people. Now if you only knew the
      pronounciation.

    9. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you probably pronounce the second letter of the Greek alphabet "bay tuh" since that's what they say in lectures. What do those Greeks know, anyway?

    10. Re:Pronounce it "Lee-eh" by ghoti · · Score: 0

      "Moechte jemand noch jemand Wein?"
      That's usually the sign that they've had too much ...
      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
  2. iPod by slashdottinitup · · Score: 3, Funny
    FTFA:

    The magnitude and nature of the E8 calculation invite comparison with the Human Genome Project. The human genome, which contains all the genetic information of a cell, is less than a gigabyte in size. The result of the E8 calculation, which contains all the information about E8 and its representations, is 60 gigabytes. This is enough to store 45 days of continuous music in MP3-format.
    Hear that? That's the sound of Apple's iPod marketing finally reaching absolute ubiquity.

    -The Wolf
    1. Re:iPod by Dara+Hazeghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You find it funny. I find it a little sad... It's sad that storage size in "layman's terms" is now related to hours of MP3 playback. A whole generation of people are not going to understand storage outside of the iPod universe.

      --
      Left 404: Why the RIGHT is WRONG
    2. Re:iPod by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's better than LoCs and telephone books. I just wish they'd mentioned the encoding bitrate...

    3. Re:iPod by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not sad. Jesus, they were still measuring things in "War and Peace"'s a few years ago! At least now they're measuring it in an actual digital object, and moreover, it makes sense to a lot of people because a lot of people have gotten to the point where they actually appreciate that those files on their computer have an actual "size" at all!

      It seems lame to us...Hell I remember when hard drives measured in tens of megabytes, and space was a real issue, all the time. Geeks deal in so many different types of digital files, so many different formats...Tell a geek its "45 hours of mp3 music" and they'll say, "At what bitrate?"

      But for a layman to actually be able to measure space in terms of things that you can't physically touch? That's a pretty big accomplishment.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60GB/45day = 123.45679 kbit/s

    5. Re:iPod by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. Actually, it's 129.453827 kbps. (Is there anything Google can't do?)

    6. Re:iPod by Wooster_UK · · Score: 2, Funny

      So how many War and Peaces are in an hour of continuous mp3?

      And more to the point, how many War and Peaces are there in a New Jersey?

    7. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42 and 42, respectively.

    8. Re:iPod by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Is there anything Google can't do?

      Decode the structure of E8?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:iPod by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      This is enough to store 45 days of continuous music in MP3-format.

      Hear that? That's the sound of Apple's iPod marketing finally reaching absolute ubiquity.

      Sorry, I'm still trying to convert it to furlongs per fortnight
    10. Re:iPod by skeevy · · Score: 1

      ...they were still measuring things in "War and Peace"'s a few years ago!

      I still do, no kidding. I use a copy of War and Peace I got off of Project Gutenberg to use as a largish text file for performance testing. It runs just over 3MB.

      Interestingly enough Les Miserables comes in at 50k larger.

    11. Re:iPod by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      I'm personally glad they didn't say anything about football fields.

    12. Re:iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

    13. Re:iPod by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      And why should they? Times change, people's understanding of technology changes. Find one kid born after 1990 or so that can tell you how much space 200 records takes up. Or how much you can store (in data) on a cassette tape.

      People use currently applicable "measurements" because people simply have no idea what a gigabyte is. For most of the population a gigabyte is meaningless because it simply doesn't matter in their lives. So knowing that a gigabyte can hold X number of songs brings relavence of size to them.

      It's like the distance from one end of the solar system to the other. Most people simply can't comprehend the difference because they don't need to and they have no association. If you compare that distance to something we understand and can actually grasp, say the distance from London to New York, then it becomes an almost imaginable thing.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    14. Re:iPod by illeism · · Score: 1

      Find one kid born after 1990 or so that can tell you how much space 200 records takes up. Or how much you can store (in data) on a cassette tape. Dang - I was born in the 70's and I can't tell you that...
      --
      Help test the /. effect at my min
    15. Re:iPod by peektwice · · Score: 1

      I have been on a personal crusade, or jihad as it were, about these bad "layman's terms" analogies for a little while now. Thankfully, I now have brethren with me to take up the banner. I feel my rants have fallen on deaf ears, or perhaps I have been written off as crazy by the illuminati (illiterati ?), but you have lifted my soul, and given me sustenance to rant another day.
      I was going to rail about the encoding bit rate, whether the MP3's had tags filled in, etc., but someone already pointed out that it's 129.453827 bps at this link.
      And now some mini-rants
      Rant 1 Rant 2 Rant 3

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    16. Re:iPod by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, most folks even from the 80s can't but I hedged my bets. There's always some smartass who will pipe up with an answer and miss the point entirely, just to prove you wrong.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    17. Re:iPod by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      But for a layman to actually be able to measure space in terms of things that you can't physically touch? That's a pretty big accomplishment. They also give a more "war & peace"-type of the analogy:

      The magnitude of the calculation is staggering: the answer, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan.
    18. Re:iPod by operon · · Score: 1

      People should not continue to tell that all the genetic information of a cell is in the DNA. There are lots of epigenetic information in other cell molecules. Also, if we consider all the biological information in a cell, it could easily go far than 60 gigabytes.

      --
      ---- Where is my mind?
  3. Pronounce... by spazmolytic666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pronounce it "Lee-eh"; At least that is how I would do it as a Scandinavian.

    It's PRINCESS "Lee-eh" you insensitive clod!

    --
    Help! I've fallen in a karma hole and I can't get up!
  4. No practical applications? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    Obviously they didn't read this book

    It does remind me of string theory a bit, though. Heavy on cool math. Light on any practical application.

    1. Re:No practical applications? by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But of course it has practical applications: it applies to string theory!

    2. Re:No practical applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lie groups were developed to solve differential equations. Finding solutions to differential equations is not at all a solved problem. Finding solutions to differential equations is considered practical with many applications. There is plenty of room for advances and improvements on current methods for their solution. Moving the theory of Lie groups and representation theory forward provides the potential to move forward on solution to differential equations. Note that this is not the only potential, and the research focus is not on this but on Lie groups and representation theory in and of themselves. Advances in other fields fall out as if by magic. This is how mathematics works.

  5. mandatory Wikipedia link by cpct0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

    Seriously, these articles, as most in Math category, are totally undecipherable to most normal users. TG there is a Wikipedia somewhere, sometimes they are closer to layman.

    1. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should an encyclopedia try to give a layman's definition of something that probably really is beyond the reach of the average person?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Tx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO, yes. There are few subjects where the layman (that's me) can't at least be given an idea of what the subject is about, if the material is written well. I hold up books such as Hyperspace by Michio Kaku as examples of how to convey complex subject matter to the layman, in a very readable and comprehensible way.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    3. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A general encyclopedia, yes. A mathematics encyclopedia, no. If you want a technical definition, there are technical sources.

    4. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that's not the case. To give an analogy, say you are working on optimization of some process involved in database storage. Could you explain what that means to your mother (assuming your mother does not have a technical background)? You couldn't say anything beyond vagueries like "making faster" or "making more efficient". Well, on that level, Lie groups describe continuous symmetries (like rotations of a sphere). To get to a level even a little bit deeper would take a 1 semester undergraduate course just to learn what is going on. Sometimes specilization creates escoteric fields. That's just how it is. Math is "universal" because all the math that you are used to seeing was developed 200+ years ago, so it is the root of all knowledge that we now call mathematics. So as every laymen who knows some abc's, you want to think that the specilized knowledge in the subject is not outside of your grasp. Well, again, try explaining to your mother the finer points of what you do. And again (again) realize that specilized knowledge in a discipline does not make the knowledge useless -- it markes the discipline as a professional (rather than hobbyist) endeavor.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by LordSchnitzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've found that the mathematics pages on Wikipedia really are attempting to explain to the layman. Granted - to understand the issue you may have to spider around to various other articles - like the (very good) main pages on Groups and Topology. For comparison look at the equivalent pages on mathworld.wolfram.org where the material is presented with far less explanation. Wikipedia here is probably a non-mathematicians best shot at getting the point of the issue.

    6. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by foniksonik · · Score: 1
      All you need to know is that the analysis of e8 took 60 GB to store:

      This is enough to store 45 days of continuous music in MP3-format.


      They put some things in layman's terms ;-p as apparently math people reading up on this obscure topic can't figure out what 60 GB of storage can really hold.
      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by eh2o · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most technical jargon has very precise semantics and can't be transcoded into "laymans' terms" without an absurd explosion of verbosity that ultimately takes more time to wade through than just learning the technical vocabulary in the first place.

      However, speaking as an applied mathematician, I look for a list of applications of a concept. Since this is basically informational content it is readily found on Wikipedia or elsewhere and typically vastly easier to understand than the concept itself. Given that information I can determine if its worth the effort to actually learn it. This sort of information can also be found in books like Hyperspace, and IMHO, is also just about the only real information they contain other than some historical details.

    8. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by asninn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To paraphrase what my history teacher used to say, Wikipedia articles like this (in fact, any article in any encyclopedia!) should be as simple as possible, but at the same time as complex as necessary. In other words, simplifying the presentation of a concept or an object is good, but it shouldn't reach a point where the actual nature of the concept or object in question is warped.

      That being said, there's always the option of having both a "thorough" and a "simple" version of an article, too; see e.g. [[M-theory]] and [[M-theory simplified]]. There's no reason why in addition to [[Lie group]], there shouldn't also be a [[Lie groups simplified]] or [[Lie groups for dummies]] or so. :)

      --
      butter the donkey
    9. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by mbrod · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Kaku devoted a whole book to his explanation and the previous poster actually wanted to understand what Kaku was talking about.

      If the reader actually wants to know, most people really don't, well I should say they just don't care, then given a moderate sized layman's explanation of it in a paper or book will usually suffice.

      You stated:

      optimization of some process involved in database storage Something like this is simple to explain to people unaware of the inner workings of databases. You just explain it referencing something similar like a book with an index at the back. And then how a index in the back organized in way A vs. way B is better or worse. There are always analogies to be found that people understand. Requires a good writer though and certainly not all of us are as good as Kaku.
    10. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Can't be bothered for an account, so posting AC]

      As a mathematician, I think a lot about explaining what I do to the layperson. I'm somewhat of the opinion that most current mathematics can not be explained in every day language, or at least not in 10 minutes. Given some one with some interest in the subject I could reasonably quickly give them an overview in a "what things do I work on, and why?" sort of way. But reasonably quickly here is painfully slow to what most people want. I'd need at least a week, several hours a day, and probably longer than that considering that people can only absorb so many new points of view at once. It took several years for me to learn this stuff, and there's only so much I can compress it down.

      So what I'm reduced to is saying something like "Remember graphing equations like x^2+y^2=1 in high school? It's like that, but better. We look at more complicated equations like x^3 * y^2+z^4=0. What does it look like? Can we classify the possible shapes an equation can give?" And so on. But actually, this is only tangentially related to my area (commutative algebra). Most people just don't have any thing they can relate to even the basics of my area. If they haven't had any physics then I can't say, "A module over a ring is basically like a vector space," because they don't know what a vector space is. And a module is the basic, ground-level idea. Most of what I work with is an abstraction of an abstraction, and they are probably not familiar with the concrete example this all was abstracted from. Add to this the fact that saying math in words to people who are not used to hearing math in words causes instant confusion.

      I would dearly love to be able to share some of the excitement of my discipline, but I honestly don't know how it can be done in a single article or a 10 minute pitch.

      And let's not forget the near universal reaction when someone hears that I do math: "Oh? I always hated math in school."

    11. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this is basically informational content it is readily found on Wikipedia or elsewhere and typically vastly easier to understand than the concept itself

      Your argument is that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia because it can be found in Wikipedia.

    12. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, yes. There are usually analogies to any computational process that mere terrans (as opposed to us elves from the planet Tharkquark) can understand.

      Let's take the database optimization. Databases are merely methods of storing and organizing data. Let's say that you are denormalizing a relational database, splitting it into locally-connected "islands" and running each island on its own load-balancing system. This is no trivial setup - you have changed the structure of the data and are running it on a cluster where each "node" on that cluster is itself a cluster. This is no trivial thing that - computationally - is outside the realms of more than a few database engineers. How many companies do you know that run database hypercubes as a matter of course?

      Can this be explained to the layperson? Sure. Denormalizing is duplicating information. If your mother didn't build a deck of cards holding favorite recipes from a bunch of recipe books, she's probably the only one who didn't. Duplicating data to make it easy and quick to look up is something almost everyone does at some time or other. If you're having trouble explaining this, point to the examples around you.

      Load-balancing? Virtually everyone is familiar with sharing the workload.

      Dividing up into self-contained sets of records and clustering them? That doesn't sound very real-worldish. Well, yes it is. Departments, compartments, apartments - all different ways to describe isolated groups of self-relating entities that nonetheless can interact in defined ways.

      There is absolutely no problem in computing that you can describe that does not have a real-world counterpart. This is a direct consequence of Turing's definition of Computable. If the layman doesn't understand, it is not because they can't, it's because nobody took the time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother wrote his PhD thesis on something about Lie groups, but I bet he can't completely decipher the article either.

    14. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by pfafrich · · Score: 1

      As a wikipedia maths editor yes we have been caught short by this. E8 is a pretty obscure topic, out of about 10,000 maths articles kind of low down the priority list. You may find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxeter-Dynkin_diagra m, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_group, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_system to be related articles which may be a little easier to understand. As with any open source project, if you don't like it fix it. Theres plent of articles which could do with someone taking the time to write in terms more accessable to the layman.

      --
      There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
    15. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Well, again, try explaining to your mother the finer points of what you do. And again (again) realize that specilized knowledge in a discipline does not make the knowledge useless -- it markes the discipline as a professional (rather than hobbyist) endeavor.

      I just use the doctor analogy. I make sick computers well. I delete temp files, defrag, and run a virus scanner. It's the same as take two of these and call me if you still feel bad tomorrow. I explain that running defrag and the virus scanner is like sitting in the waiting room or the nurse taking your weight ect. until the doctor actually sees you. I explain anything like re-installing OS/major apps as drastic surgery with a chance of causing death if anything goes badly wrong. Giving mom that kinda of expectation, she is always pleased that the computer runs after I touch it and not entirely dead. Of course my boss thinks that I can raise the dead so it all evens out.

    16. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the layman doesn't understand, it is not because they can't, it's because nobody took the time."

      Do not forget that people can and often do refuse to understand; that isn't to say that anyone's obligated to "take the time," however.

    17. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Could you explain what that means to your mother (assuming your mother does not have a technical background)?
      What in the world are our kids going to say when they are our age (mid 30's) since by then, nearly everyone will have a technical background.

      "Could you explain how a database works to your ...."
      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    18. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      There's no reason why in addition to [[Lie group]], there shouldn't also be a [[Lie groups simplified]] or [[Lie groups for dummies]] or so. :)


      They were planning on a Lie groups for Dummies(tm), but it was still over 100 billion pages long, so they canned it.
      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    19. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One specific example does not prove the general case.

      As an example of what "bringing E8 to the layman" would involve try this for size:

      Explain polynomial long division to someone who doesn't know how to count - in less than 300 words - without lying.

      Good luck!

    20. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by asninn · · Score: 1

      I once did see a "Vertex operator algebras for dummies" - just a spoof picture, of course, not a real book, but I thought it was cute.

      --
      butter the donkey
    21. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by boldra · · Score: 1
      "explain" or "teach" ?

      An explanation of mathematics only needs to provide information such as
      • Why it's important
      • What kind of knowledge is involved
      • What kind of processes are involved
      • How difficult is it
      • Who can do it
      • How you can learn it

      Similar to explaining 1 astronomical unit, the reader neither needs to memorize the number, nor fully comprehend the distance, just an idea of where it fits in in the general scheme of measurements.
      --
      I've been posting on the net since 1994 and I still haven't come up with a good sig!
    22. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by superwiz · · Score: 1

      grandmother?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    23. Re:mandatory Wikipedia link by jd · · Score: 1
      Long division or short division, it's still division. Long division is used because it is easier, not because of anything special about it. So that part, I would ignore entirely for now. That just leaves "polynomial division", ie: the division of one polynomial by another, lower-order polynomial. For all practical intents and purposes, division and fraction mean the same thing. The only special thing here is that these fractions must always be improper fractions, as the numerator is always a higher order than the denominator. Ratios, which are also fractions, are usually expressed as improper fractions with a qualifier (eg: 2:1 for, or 7:1 against). So ratios encompass everything we need to describe here.

      Polynomials are tougher, but not impossible. A polynomial cannot be a polynomial fraction, so our simple, layman's explanation only has to not allow recursion to eliminate that case entirely. The exponents cannot be polynomials, fractions or negative, which means that the logarithm of an individual term must always be a natural number - provided you consider 0 to be in the series of natural numbers, ie: you use N, not N+. That might not be too bad - a polynomial is just the sum of some set of these terms. We can now ditch the word "polynomial", as any number of such terms will be an expanded polynomial and all contracted polynomials can be written in an expanded form. (A constant is a constant monomial which is a special case of a polynomial, so even a single such term is fair game for polynomial division.)

      Ok, so what does it mean to have a natural number for a logarithm? That's hardly layman's terms. Well, points, lines, squares, cubes, hypercubes, etc, are all shapes. Other than fractals, there are no 2.7-dimensional objects. The sum of any such series can be described simply as a set of numerical shapes. (They're not "real" shapes, they're numbers whose equivalent Nth-dimensional shape is mathematically indistinguishable from the original number raised to the Nth power.) This deals with the recursion, because you can't have the inverse of a physical square. It doesn't mean anything.

      So the simplest description that could be understood and would be 100% honest would be: It's the ratio of two sets of numerical shapes.

      Ok, so now we get back to the "long division" part. Long division is counting up a series of subtractions. Nothing complicated. Easiest way to do that with sets is to make groups.

      This makes our layman's description of polynomial long division: Figuring out the ratio of two sets of numerical sets by collecting them into groups.

      Fifteen words. Well under the 300 allowed and the only possible interpretation (either to a mathematician or a layman) is identical to that of polynomial long division. It may sound simplistic, but really the only thing it is is simple. In functional terms, it isn't distinguishable from the formal mathematical description.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. Which Century? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last Century? If by last century you mean the 1800's, then that's officially 2 centuries ago. The 'last century' was the 20th century.

  7. NCIS reference by Stephan+Seidt · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Tony: Gibbs, how could you possibly know that?
    Gibbs: Well Tony, my GUT told me.

  8. Not a Lie Group. by WK2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    E8 is not a Lie Group. E8 is the biggest Lie Group. Here are a few links for more accurate info:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6466129. stm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Not a Lie Group. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, it is not the biggest, it is "just" the most complex.

      It does not get even into top ten as there are infinite number of bigger Lie groups :-)

    2. Re:Not a Lie Group. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      If it's not a Lie Group, how can it be the biggest Lie group?

      Or do you mean "E8 is not just a Lie group..."

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Not a Lie Group. by haakondahl · · Score: 4, Funny
      From TFA: Mathematicians study symmetries in higher dimensions. E_8 has 248 dimensions. "What's attractive about studying E_8 is that it's as complicated as symmetry can get. Mathematics can almost always offer another example that's harder than the one you're looking at now, but for Lie groups E_8 is the hardest one," Vogan said.

      Mine goes to E_11.

      --
      Don't trust anyone under thirty.
    4. Re:Not a Lie Group. by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      E8 is not a Lie Group. E8 is the biggest Lie Group.

      It seems somebody flunked basic set theory. :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Not a Lie Group. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      E8 is not a Lie Group. E8 is the biggest Lie Group.

      QED!

    6. Re:Not a Lie Group. by pfafrich · · Score: 2, Funny

      As other had said it is not the biggest Lie group, there are two families Ak and Dk of lie groups which are infinite sequences. You can think of Ak as the symmetry of the trianagle, tetrahedron, 4-simplex, ..... there one of these for each dimension. Likewise Dk is related to the symetry of the square, cube, hyper-cube and n-dimensional cube. To these are added the so called exceptional groups, sort of like the icoshedron and its four dimensional analogue. It just so happens that these do not for an infinite sequence, higher dimensional spaces kind of get simpeler after a while which don't allow for E_11 to exist.

      --
      There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
    7. Re:Not a Lie Group. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which don't allow for E_11 to exist.

      *engage ultra-pedant mode*

      Actually, there is a Lie group E_{11}; there are even conjectures (according to Wikipedia, YMMV) that it relates to string theory. It's just not a very nice object (it's a nonaffine Kac-Moody group); for most purposes, one rarely sees any E_n for n>9, and E_9 isn't that common.

    8. Re:Not a Lie Group. by krishn_bhakt · · Score: 1
      --
      The Answer Lies in The Genome
    9. Re:Not a Lie Group. by pfafrich · · Score: 1

      Lie groups and Lie Algebras are different, yes there is an E11 Lie Algebra, but I don't know if there is a corresponding Lie Group. E11 is a very different beast to E8 it being infinite dimensional and it does not have the same correspondence with coxeter groups etc.

      --
      There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
  9. Representation Theory by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apologies -- this post uses a lot of technical jargon. However, the article is so badly written that I decided to post some remarks. And yes, I am a professional mathematician.

    First, what they mapped was not the "structure" of the Lie group E_8 -- the structure of the group has been known for a long time. What they mapped is what are called the "representations" of the group E_8, which is part of Vogan's program to understand the "unitary dual" (=list of representations) for all (reductive) Lie groups.

    Second, this has no relevance to grand unified theories. Even though a (compact) form of E_8 can be the gauge group of a GUT, the relevant representations are finite-dimensional and have been classified by Weyl decades ago.

    Finally, this is an important result. It is relevant to number theory, and to abstract mathematics in general. The fact that a (finite) computer calculation can help determining an infinite list of representation is very nice.

    1. Re:Representation Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O_o .. So what does it do? (In English.. PLEASE )

    2. Re:Representation Theory by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      The fact that a (finite) computer calculation can help determining an infinite list of representation is very nice.
      That could be a good line for a processor advertising campaign. "Here at Acme, our teraflops turn infinity into finity!"
    3. Re:Representation Theory by guruevi · · Score: 1

      which is part of Vogan's program to understand the "unitary dual" (=list of representations) for all (reductive) Lie groups.

      You know, only the Vogon's would be attracted to something that produces that much paperwork.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Representation Theory by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      CAT: [to RIMMER] What IS it?
      RIMMER: It's a rent in the space-time continuum.
      CAT: [to LISTER] What IS it?
      LISTER: The stasis room freezes time, you know, makes time stand still. So whenever you have a leak, it must preserve whatever it's leaked into, and it's leaked into this room.
      CAT: [to RIMMER] What IS it?
      RIMMER: It's a singularity, a point in the universe where the normal laws of space and time don't apply.
      CAT: [to LISTER] What IS it?
      LISTER: It's a hole back into the past.
      CAT: Oh, a magic door! Well, why didn't you say?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Representation Theory by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Finally, this is an important result. It is relevant to number theory, and to abstract mathematics in general. The fact that a (finite) computer calculation can help determining an infinite list of representation is very nice.

      Well, maybe that's surprising to some mathematicians, but this sort of thing is nearly half a century old.

    6. Re:Representation Theory by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      The fact that a (finite) computer calculation can help determining an infinite list of representation is very nice.

      Sadly, Mr. Vogan was later lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    7. Re:Representation Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You know, only the Vogon's would be attracted to something that produces that much paperwork.
      Boy am I glad that you put that apostrophe in to let me know an s was coming. There is nothing worse than being startled by a surprise plural!
    8. Re:Representation Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best HHGTG reference yet!

    9. Re:Representation Theory by siwelwerd · · Score: 1

      First, what they mapped was not the "structure" of the Lie group E_8 -- the structure of the group has been known for a long time. What they mapped is what are called the "representations" of the group E_8, which is part of Vogan's program to understand the "unitary dual" (=list of representations) for all (reductive) Lie groups.

      I'd hardly call what they did "mapping" by any means. They wrote down the character table of the group.

      I would agree the article is terrible. They've somehow managed to make it unreadable by both layman and mathematician alike.

    10. Re:Representation Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure, but I think you have totally missed the point.

    11. Re:Representation Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think you have totally missed the point. The point is that there have been numerous instances of computers manipulating representations of infinite mathematical structures; just look at the work on computer algebra starting in the 60's. E8 is different only in size from previous efforts, but it's not a new approach, nor is it anywhere near the most useful use of this old technology.

  10. Amusing quote from article by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The result of the E8 calculation, which contains all the information about E8 and its representations, is 60 gigabytes. This is enough to store 45 days of continuous music in MP3-format."

    Because we know physicsts and mathematicians that would be interested in this problem would have no idea how a computer works and have to translate it into teenager speak.

    1. Re:Amusing quote from article by 56ker · · Score: 1

      It's more "snappy quote for journalists" speak the press release author/article writer has converted it to. 60 gigabytes is less than the size of most people's hard drives.

      You should see how much memory predicting the weather takes and that's just 4 dimensions (not 248!)

    2. Re:Amusing quote from article by anothy · · Score: 1

      poor journalism with stupid, useless metrics. why can't they just stick to established industry norms? how am i supposed to know how many Libraries of Congress this is?

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    3. Re:Amusing quote from article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Library's of Congress are good, but my preferred Metric is how quickly can this devour an entire cow.

    4. Re:Amusing quote from article by Tom+Womack · · Score: 1

      The interesting feature of this announcement is how little computation and how much intelligence in software development was involved by the standards of other large computational projects. The calculation took three days on SAGE, which is an eight-socket dual-core Opteron system with 64GB of memory; it's perhaps three orders of magnitude less calculation than the factorisation of RSA200, or than IBM's work modelling hafnium silicates for developing 45nm processes. It is very much less work than is routinely done commercially for chip simulation or seismic inversion.

      On the other hand, even if some of the tricks they used were fairly routine (you have a reasonable idea how large the coefficients are? The coefficients are obtained only by multiplication and addition? Why not calculate modulo lots of coprime one-byte integers and save a factor eight in storage space?) it's remarkably clever work.

      http://atlas.math.umd.edu/kle8.narrative.html

      and

      http://atlas.math.umd.edu/kle8.html

      are a description of the project aimed at reasonable mathematicians, with a lot more in them than the press release; but I think this item is mostly useful to tell mathematicians how to write a press release which gets picked up about what is fairly abstruse work by the standards of computational group theory.

    5. Re:Amusing quote from article by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      You should see how much memory predicting the weather takes and that's just 4 dimensions (not 248!)

      I'm not a meteorologist but I would think weather computations involve many move then 4 dimensions when computing a forecast. With only four, your predicting a location and a time :).

      Longitude, latitude, altitude, and time would only the first four. Wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, humidity, and temperature, would bring the count up to at least 9. There are probably more I'm not thinking of.
  11. Vogan mathematics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is, of course the third worst in the universe.

  12. Now they can move on to... by Alzheimers · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now they can move on to their next task, understanding why anyone would drink V8.

    1. Re:Now they can move on to... by hpc4u · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, I laughed. I drink the stuff from time to time.
      Flamebait seems a bit harsh. Offtopic, maybe.

  13. I'm no mathemtician but... by east+coast · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now we're going to have truth and lie tables?

    Stop this crazy planet. I want to get off!

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:I'm no mathemtician but... by MarkGriz · · Score: 2, Funny

      "So now we're going to have truth and lie tables?"

      What do you mean "now"?
      These have been around since the days of the first engineers and politicians.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  14. Units? by Hemogoblin · · Score: 2, Funny

    If written out on paper, the calculation describing this structure, known as E8, would cover an area the size of Manhattan. I'm having trouble understanding this. Could someone please restate in LOCs (Library of Congresses)?
    1. Re:Units? by dohzer · · Score: 1

      Screw congress. I want to know how many Manhattans it would cover if printed in size 1000 font.
      Or does the Manhattans-covered-in-paper SI unit specify a standard font size?

  15. See the symmetries of the standard model by sweetser · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hello:

    The standard model has the symmetries U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3). The one in the middle, SU(2), is a unit quaternion, where a quaternion is like a real or complex number, but has four parts. I have developed the software to visualize quaternions at http://quaternions.sf.net/ using one number for time, three for space. SU(2) can be represented by the quaternion function exp(q-q*). Feed a thousand random quaternions into exp(q-q*), and get POVRay to make a nice animation. Do the same for q/|q| exp(q-q*), and you have a visual representation of the electroweak symmetry. Smash two of these together, and you get the symmetry of the standard model.

    Visually, there is a clear message: if you want to smoothly represent all possible events in spacetime as quaternions, the group description must be U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3). You won't read that in a journal because it has to be done with animations.

    http://www.theworld.com/~sweetser/quaternions/quan tum/standard_model/standard_model.html

    doug

    --
    Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org
  16. Re:I bet the American mathematicians..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you've ever tried tea made by an American you'll know that your previous statement is false.

  17. "The Character Table for E8, or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How We Wrote Down a 453,060 x 453,060 Matrix and Found Happiness,"

    2nd worst, poetry, ever, professor Vogon.

  18. obvious joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so does that make them the biggest group of liers in the world then?

    Sorry!

  19. Bad Poetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me it all sounds like bad Vogan poetry...

    - Peder

  20. my GUT instinct tells me.. by laggist · · Score: 2, Funny

    the answer is 42!

  21. Well-known! by bdonalds · · Score: 1

    by the well-known mathematician Sophus Lie (pronounce Lee)


    I find it fascinating that some things are so well known that I need instructions on how to pronounce them!
    --
    The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
    1. Re:Well-known! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Lie is well-known amongst people who know mathematicians, but given that the Slashdot audience is more general than that, the pronunciation help is needed. This is actually an example of why natural language is challenging for computers to understand -- which means, I'm afraid, that you fail the Turing Test. Ask your programmer to work on your contextualization module. :)

  22. Gee whiz I remembered by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

    Some 30 odd years ago when I was studying Modern Algebra I remember the professor mentioning Lie Groups and their use in theoretical physics. Whats really scary is that "Lie Group" popped into my mind the instant I saw the E8. Now where did that come from?

  23. Ouch, my head!! by purpleraison · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure, but I think my head exploded into E8 pieces...

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  24. It seems lame to us.. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Typical geek attitude. If it's not Vorbis, it's LAME.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:It seems lame to us.. by alienmole · · Score: 1

      You don't have to shout.

  25. wrong century by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    These were developed by the well-known mathematician Sophus Lie (pronounce Lee) in the last century

    Sophus Lie died in 1899. So not "last" century. TFA said "19th-century Norwegian mathematician ...".
    Y2K? PEBCAK?

    1. Re:wrong century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sophus Lie died in 1899. So not "last" century.
      I'd chalk it up to an off-by-one error on Lie's part.

  26. genetic algorithm? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Calculation on paper would cover Manhattan

    If the math is that big, then why not use a genetic algorithm to evolve the equation to fit the model, via lots of scenarios to test against? Normally genetic algorithms create difficult-to-read and long equations when used for such, but it is hard to do worse than Manhattan-sized.

  27. Sage the "super" computer by LotsOfPhil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the end the calculation took about 77 hours on the supercomputer Sage.
    Supercomputer my foot!

    The connection has timed out
    The server at sage.math.washington.edu is taking too long to respond.
    --
    This post climbed Mt. Washington.
    1. Re:Sage the "super" computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is just our luck that the the server room is undergoing major renovations this week...

      See a mirror, e.g. http://sage.scipy.org/sage/

      FYI, sage is fully (GPL/GPL-compatible) open source.

  28. Shouldn't it read "century before last" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1800's would now be century before last. (He's probably still writing 1st. millennium on checks)

  29. Summary by a mathematician by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Category theorist John Baez has a summary of this work from a mathematician's perspective. Unfortunately, you need at least an undergraduate math degree to make full sense of it, but it gives more flavor of what's really going on than a news story, and he at least defines mathematically what E8 and KLV polynomials are.

    He begins by noting, "You may hear some hype about this soon, because it's a really big calculation, and the American Institute of Mathematics has coaxed a lot of science reporters to write about it -- in part by comparing it to the human genome project. Computing the Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan polynomials for E 8 is certainly nowhere nearly as important as the human genome project, nor as hard! But the final result involves more data, in a sense."

  30. What are the generators? by GrEp · · Score: 1

    This being slashdot I doubt I would get an answer, but what is the smallest Symmetric group on n elements does this embed in, what is the smallest known number of generators, and what permutations on n elements are they?

    --

    bash-2.04$
    bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    1. Re:What are the generators? by GrEp · · Score: 1

      http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage.html This was the "supercomputer"? A 16 node AMD box? Your local library's computer lab would like to have a word with them.

      --

      bash-2.04$
      bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    2. Re:What are the generators? by leuffi · · Score: 2, Informative

      E8 is not a finite group so it cannot be embedded in a finite symmetric group.

    3. Re:What are the generators? by GrEp · · Score: 1

      How about if you took it "modulo" powers of 2 or something. Are there any useful finite analogs?

      --

      bash-2.04$
      bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    4. Re:What are the generators? by leuffi · · Score: 1

      The closest would be its compact model, which is pretty well understood. It is possible to describe E8's Lie algebra in terms of generators and relations.

  31. Memorization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, something else for second year math students to memorize. There is nothing mathematics curriculum designers take more pleasure in than reducing students to memorizing solutions to problems that can only be solved by machines. There was a time when education involved thought, today it is an exercise in rote memory skills.

    Differential calculus anyone? Integral sure, it can be comprehended by the human brain. Basic point group theory, sure it can be grasped by the human mind. Group theory of insanely complicated objects solvable only by machine? No thanks.

    Differential equations are why we developed computers. (Ballistics firing solutions) Now the measure of a students intelligence and viability for graduate studies and finally primary research is based purely on memorization skills. This is why primary research in graduate science studies today has suffered so, only memorizers are allowed to participate, not thinkers.

    Oh well fuck it, the world sucks, I don't really care anyway, though I feel obliged to comment.

    1. Re:Memorization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know what a brick is, don't expect to become an architect.

  32. E8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > A group of mathematicians from US and Europe succeeded in mapping E8

    Brave men. I wouldn't go in to Hackney, myself.

  33. The story of how it all happened by davidavdav · · Score: 1
  34. From around the globe eh ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Atlas team consists of 18 researchers from around the globe." USA: Adams, Vogan, Dan Barbasch (Cornell), John Stembridge (University of Michigan), Peter Trapa (University of Utah), Dan Ciubotaru, (MIT's), Alfred Noel, University of Massachusetts FRANCE: Marc van Leeuwen (University of Poitiers) Fokko du Cloux (University of Lyon). DEAD That one french guy is reprezenting the whole gloge =)