Slashdot Mirror


Algebra In Wonderland

theodp writes "As Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' shatters 3-D and IMAX records en route to a $116.3 million opening, the NY Times offers a rather cerebral op-ed arguing that Alice's search for a beautiful garden can be neatly interpreted as a mishmash of satire directed at the advances taking place in mid-19th century math. Charles Dodgson, who penned 'Alice' under the name Lewis Carroll, was a tutor in mathematics at Christ Church in Oxford who found the radical new math illogical and lacking in intellectual rigor. Op-ed writer Melanie Bayley explains: 'Chapter 6, "Pig and Pepper," parodies the principle of continuity, a bizarre concept from projective geometry, which was introduced in the mid-19th century from France. This principle (now an important aspect of modern topology) involves the idea that one shape can bend and stretch into another, provided it retains the same basic properties — a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin). Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby. So, when Alice takes the Duchess's baby outside, it turns into a pig. The Cheshire Cat says, "I thought it would."'"

21 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah Not Really by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician. But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
    1. Re:Yeah Not Really by slim · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.

    2. Re:Yeah Not Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So do Saturday morning cartoons; hence the dual audience.

    3. Re:Yeah Not Really by Cabriel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task. To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't. If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?

      Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?

      (Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.)

    4. Re:Yeah Not Really by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Funny

      How can math be unrigorous? Either something adds up, or it doesnt, or both.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:Yeah Not Really by node+3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.

      Sort of. If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes. If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all. In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.

      To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative

      Of course. But that's true of anything done by anyone. Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth. At the end of the day, it always comes down to speculation.

      and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.

      This is the part you get exactly wrong. It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.

      Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?

      Here's a simple litmus test. Does the math seem bolted-on? Or does it integrate with the work as a whole? If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool. If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.

      Like you said, though, you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.

    6. Re:Yeah Not Really by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It certainly is NOT a troll to mention paedophilia with regard to Lewis Carroll.

      I won't pretend to expertise as regards the jurisprudence appropriate to trolls. However, I doubt that notion of prior art constitutes a defence here. ;)

      The fact that ... all play into that notion. That isn't to say it's true.

      IAAL and where I'm from, before we accuse people of serious wrongdoing such as sexually interfering with children, we make sure we have the EVIDENCE to back up such a charge. Moreover we would hope such evidence is more than merely circumstantial.

      [A]ny biography of the man would be sorely incomplete without mentioning that the theory of Carroll as repressed paedophile permeated much 20th century analysis of the man and his work.

      Nonsense. A biography of the man could simply rely on documented events in his life. You can leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Now if you were to write "any historical review of Carroll scholarship would be sorely incomplete ...," I could not disagree. Let me remind you, however, that the original statement you are defending as not-a-troll was something to the effect that Alice in Wonderland is not a book about maths, but a book about paedophilia.

      the traditional scholarly conception of Lewis Carroll is as a celibate paedophile

      Again where I come from I would like an act as well as the intent to commit act before I condemn someone.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. you're kidding by pbjones · · Score: 3, Funny

    sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:you're kidding by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Funny

      And sometimes a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah is just a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  3. A baby is not a sphere by slim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely a mammal is a torus.

    1. Re:A baby is not a sphere by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:A baby is not a sphere by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Linderholm's "Mathematics made difficult" he speculated that there were two sorts of people, loud and quiet ones. Loud ones keep their mouths and anuses open and are isomorphic to tori (genus 2 because of the nose, but I think Linderholm missed that), whereas quiet people keep them shut and are isomorphic to spheres.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  4. All of the above and Cowboy Neal by sammyF70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The nice (frustrating) thing about both Alice stories is that they can stand for pretty much everything. From the obvious ( one pill makes you larger ... dumdidum) to the less obvious ( Alice is supposed to be Queen Victoria?). Unless you can ask Dodgson directly, my guess is that it's just a tale he concocted on the fly, using whatever was on his mind at the time (so, yeah, probably mathematics, queen Victoria and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms).

    --
    "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
  5. Not sure about the specifics by lennier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The weirdness of logic and maths certainly is a large part of Alice, though I doubt it's all of it. But it's fairly obvious to me, just as a geek with a bit of general knowledge, that the Alice books parody a number of things from late-Victorian era politics and education. It's also about puns, wordplay, and the strict application of logic beyond the domains where it applies; and just general nerdy amusement.

    * The organising principle of 'Wonderland' is the card game
    * The 'Caucus-race' obviously a satire on politics: the members run in a circle, accomplishing nothing except a lot of hot air. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caucus_race

    I couldn't speak for certain about whether the Mad Hatter's party and the stuckness of Time really is a reference to Hamilton's quaternions, but quaternions are fascinating and they did introduce the idea of a 4D space-time continuum (and therefore time travel) half a century before Einstein/Minkowski, and scandalised and baffled the maths world, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was in the background.

    * The organising principle of 'Looking Glass' is the chess game
    * Anglo-Saxon literature (possibly Beowulf?) appears in Looking Glass - 'Jabberwocky' is a parody of the Beowulfian sort of epic, with the hero slaying the monster and lots of untranslated words
    * The March Hare and Mad Hatter reappear as 'Anglo-Saxons' Haigha and Hatta. Again, this is the sort of stuff that educated children would have been expected to know as a matter of course, along with Latin and Greek and art ('Laughing and Grief; reeling, writhing and fainting in coils')

    * The White Knight's speech ('the name of the song is called...') parses out the fine but very important distinction between objects and names, which becomes a major issue in logic (and more so in computer programming):

    The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"

    "Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

    "No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name
    is called. The name really is 'The Aged, Aged Man.'"

    "Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?" Alice corrected herself.

    "No you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and Means' but that's only
    what it's called, you know!"

    "Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

    "I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting On a Gate': and the
    tune's my own invention."

    Like Terry Pratchett (and Bram Stoker - see Dracula Blogged), Alice really needs a decent annotated edition to explain the obvious cultural and scientific references, since it is densely packed with references which might now be misunderstood, and so many weird conspiracy theories have arisen around the books.

    The classic example of Dodgson's geeky humour is from 'Four Riddles':

    http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/2826/

    Yet what are all such gaieties to me
    Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?

    x*x + 7x + 53 = 11/3

    It doesn't just rhyme and form part of an overall story - it's an equation to be solved, which gives you a word, from which you can take the first and last letters and which give you a crossword/acrostic clue. Beat THAT for geek cred.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    1. Re:Not sure about the specifics by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative
  6. Re:a mammal is a torus by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

    people have 4 entry and exit points

    I am sure there is some German porn on the Internet that refutes that statement.

  7. If you had read the cliff notes thirty years ago by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Informative

    you'd already know that "Alice" was a satire.

  8. Full Version by Tirhakah · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those interested, the full version of this article originally comes from the New Scientist, just before Christmas. The NYTimes version is shortened and split onto two pages.
    Just sayin'

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391.600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved.html?full=true

  9. The scariest part about it is ... by D4C5CE · · Score: 4, Funny
  10. Re:-1, Don't Care? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alice in Wonderland is one of the few books that you can make a billion movies of and still manage to show a different angle of. The book gives you the material to tell pretty much anything, from a Disney-esque fairy tale with fluffy animals and a song every other minute to a gothic-horror splatter movie that makes you lift your feet every other minute to let the blood flood past.

    I'm fairly sure that it's also the book that has been reviewed and discussed in more different classes and subjects than any other book. It contains material for sociology, politics, psychology and as we can see now, math. And I'm fairly sure a few more that I can't think of right now. It has a lot of angles you can look at it.

    Yes, it's yet another Alice movie. And I'm quite sure it's different from any that have been made so far.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. TBH, I'm not sure about satirizing by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TBH, having read both Alice novels and The Hunting Of The Snark, I'm not sure that it's _all_ satirizing. There are some pretty important concepts illustrated in some places. In a humorous way, sure. But I don't think the concept itself is being satirized most of the time.

    E.g., the Walrus and the Carpenter part of Through The Looking Glass illustrates the problems inherent in deciding something rashly based on incomplete data, and without exploring it any further. Alice flip-flops between liking the walrus or the carpenter more, as new information is provided. And eventually comes to the realization that _both_ are repulsive characters, regardless of which one of them may be slightly less so. That's a lesson which is still lost even on many adults who seem to think that when taking sides between two parties, they must go all the way and make one the knight in shiny armour if that's the side they chose. (Heck, fanboy wars or armchair political debates are a prime example of that in action.)

    Is the concept of deciding badly based on incomplete data satirized there, or is it just illustrated in a humorous way?

    In a sense, see my sig below this message. Sure, it's intended to be a funny way to go about it (though if it's actually funny to anyone else, that's another question), and I particularly like the utter nerdiness of it. But by spreading that quote, I'm _not_ satirizing the concept of polar coordinates. I don't find anything silly or invalid about them, and have used them before. The joke is merely in the equivocation fallacy around "polar", nothing else.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.