Surfaces 1: The ooze of the past

March 21, 2009

A novelist is, like all mortals, more fully at home on the surface of the present than in the ooze of the past.

Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions

Curves and surfaces are a wonderful visual representation of mathematics.  They can move from the simple and profound to the complex and intriguing.  They have even been accused of being part of a sinister plot.  In addition the mathematics behind them is becoming increasingly useful in many areas, algebraic statistics for example.  I began this article with the idea that interest in the physical and visual sides of these objects was in a rather sharp decline.  The curves and surfaces courses that I studied had rather few images, and beyond the Science Museum I had not seen a decent collection of mathematical models (and they have hidden a lot of theirs).  However on scratching the surface of the subject I found a huge wealth of material.  In fact so much that I have decided to split up my post (this one ended up at 1600 words anyway!).  This first post will introduce mathematical surfaces and give some snapshots from their history and links to art.  I plan two subsequent posts (this will be edited when they come online).  Firstly an introduction to algebraic surfaces, secondly a discussion of splines and nurbs and how they provide a practical tool to designers (without them having to worry too much about the maths).

So what is a surface from the point of view of mathematics?  It is a two-dimensional topological manifold but this is just jargon.  Start instead by thinking of a sheet that might be folded and draped.  We normally want to consider surfaces that are smooth, which means that the sheet has no creases.

Vowel, Alison Watt

Vowel, Alison Watt

 However surfaces can get wilder in several ways.  For example they can bend round and connect back to themselves.  In fact we consider surfaces like this all the time.  The surface (english meaning not mathematical) of any object you might pick up is like this.  When the surface connects back onto itself and has no edges, it is compact.  For example the surface of a ball is a surface, called, unsurprisingly, a sphere.  Surfaces can also have holes.  The simplest example being the torus which is the surface of a ring donut.  

Loop in Layers, Eva Hild

The number of holes through a surface  is called the genus and, for compact surfaces that we can create in three dimensions, the genus gives a complete topological description. Topology considers what happens when the surface is stretched and deformed but not glued or torn. This is the reason you will sometimes hear that a topologist cannot tell the difference between a donut and a coffee cup, as both have one hole.

A second strange behaviour comes from the famous Möbius strip.  To make this we take a strip of paper and put one twist in it.  The two ends of the strip are then connected.  This creates a surface with only one side, as by walking along the surface, without going over the edge we can get from one side to the other.

Minimal Möbius, Benjamin Storch

The Möbius strip is not a compact surface, as it has an edge.  However it can be made into a compact surface by attaching its boundary to the boundary of a disc.  This gives a compact surface called the Klein bottle, that retains the property that it has only one side.  However the property of being able to get from one side to the other is a topological one.  We cannot create two sides simply by stretching and bending.  How does this correspond to my statement above that the topological information is given by genus alone?  The answer is that I cheated.  I added the vague terms that we could make the surface in three dimensions.  This is impossible for Klein bottle unless we allow the surface to cut through itself.

Klien Bottle, Alan Bennett

Klien Bottle, Alan Bennett

Surfaces with this property are called non-orientable there is an analogous counting concept to genus for such surfaces, but it is a little more complicated.  However genus and the distinction between orientable and non-orientable completely describe the topology of any compact smooth two dimensional surface.  

One concept that I will mention in passing is that of minimal surface.  These arose as surfaces that minimised area subject to some constraints.  For example containing a certain line in three dimensions.  They can be hard to find precisely by analytic methods, yet soap bubbles can find them very quickly.  More recently the definition has become surfaces which have zero average curvature.  More importantly however they can be made out of lego:

The Catalan Minimal Surface, Andrew Lipson

The Catalan Minimal Surface, Andrew Lipson

Topology is an interesting area that helps to understand some of the processes of modern mathematics.  There are obvious differences between objects with the same topology (donuts and coffee cups), yet they do share certain features.  Such features cannot be changed by a well defined (though large) set of operations.  More importantly up to those operations we can understand all possible behaviour.  We are therefore able to give a complete classification of surfaces.  One of the origins of topology comes from the study of surfaces defined in a concrete way that yields a zoo of examples.  These surfaces are called algebraic surfaces.  

Algebraic surfaces are the set of points in three dimensions that give the solution to polynomials with three variables.  For example, consider the polynomial x^3+x^2z^2-y^2 = 0.  Now choose values for x, y and z, as the vector (x,y,z), for the vector (0,0,0) we have 0^3+0^20^2-0^2 = 0, so this is a solution of the polynomial.  Similarly (-1,0,1) gives (-1)^3+(-1)^21^2-0^2 = 0.  On the other hand (1,1,1) gives 1^3+1^21^2-1^2 = 1, so this is not a solution.  The set of solutions with real numbers (if any exist) defines an algebraic surface.  For example for this polynomial we have the following:

Kolibri x^3+x^2z^2-y^2 = 0, Herwig Hauser

Kolibri x^3+x^2z^2-y^2 = 0, Herwig Hauser

Click the image above for a site with a wonderful zoo of examples.  You can really find nearly anything you want for example to express your love.  This zoo of examples is one of the reasons that mathematicians moved to topology to get an idea of the limits of what could happen.  Even with a computer it is not trivial how to construct a model for any polynomial.  However such programs do exist.  You can find your own examples and generate models to play with in your 3d programs.

However when mathematicians started considering such equations that did not have these luxuries.  Things began in the seventeenth century with Descartes and the use of algebra and co-ordinates to study geometry.  By the eighteenth century it had been established that many previously studied curves, such as the conic sections were in fact the solutions of polynomials.  For example the parabola is the set of solutions of the equation x^2-y = 0 and the double cone itself is the solutions of the equation x^2 + y^2 - z = 0.  Many mathematicians, including Euler and Monge started studying surfaces in the same way, and also started to make models.  By the middle of the nineteenth century model making had become and industry and there were catalogues of published models.  In fact the Norwegian  mathematician Sophus Lie received funding for many of his trips to France and Germany by the need to find models for the university, not for scientific collaboration.  This proved a golden age for models however and by the 1930s they were dying out.  The craftsmanship and accuracy of these models is mind-blowing.  The act of creating a complex object simply from ideas, without having seen it before is hard enough when one is sketching graphs in two dimensions.  Yet these craftsmen were able to achieve it in three dimensions.

Surface of order three with four real double points (A1).

Surface of order three with four real double points (A1). Schilling

Even though today such models are no longer an essential part of any mathematics library there are still many places they can be enjoyed.  Many universities still have (dusty) collections, as does the Science Museum in London (including polished wood models).  Although it is not that satisfying to see a three dimensional model as an image there are also many places to see large collections online.  The collection of the University of Groningen has a large number of Schilling models as well as several other.  The University of Arizona and the University of Tokyo also have model collections online.  The development of 3d printing allows for a far simpler method of constructing models, this site also has interesting details of the original process including the recipe for the modelling clay.  Finally Angela Vierling-Claassen has a large amount of material and research on these models, including a photographic catalogue of the collection at MIT. 

As you might have guessed from some of the images these surfaces have provided inspiration for artists, especially the modern movements of constructivism and surrealism.  It is debatable however how much these artists engaged with the mathematics or simply regarded used surfaces as objet trouvé (a term which Duchamp himself found in the writings of Poincaré, which used it to describe mathematical theorems).  For Man Ray this is almost certainly the case.  He photographed the collection of the Poincaré Institute in Paris and went on to produce a series of painting entitled Shakespearean Equations.  Using someone else’s words he described these:

At the beginning of my career I once classed myself amongst the photometrographers.  My works are purely photometric.  Take … the Shakespearean Equations, you will notice that no plastic idea entered these works, it is scientific thought which dominates.  

Man Ray, Self-Portrait

manraysurface

Mathematical object, Man Ray

The work of Naum Gabo and his brother Antoine Pevsner certainly involved some of the mathematics, particularly in the case of Gabo’s Linear constructions.  However it seems that this was still an endeavour that was independent of the mathematics community beyond the initial motivation.  In fact:

Although he always denied it Pevsner based his Developable Surfaces on a concept found in certain mathematical models.

Anthony Hill Constructivism — the European Phenomenon

Developable Surface, Antoine Pevsner

Developable Surface, Antoine Pevsner

 Finally how could I miss Maxwell Demon regular Max Bill.  Bill of course considered mathematical ideas to be central to his work, and perhaps fundamental to the future of art.  His work included consideration of surfaces, including the potentially independent discovery of the Möbius strip and Tripartite Unity, which also has a beautiful mathematical structure.

Tripartite Unity, Max Bill

Tripartite Unity, Max Bill


Unscheduled Post: Don’t keep calm and carry on…

March 18, 2009

Great flickr meme from Matt Jones making the rounds…

it says it all, though the original is not bad.


Unscheduled Post: Gang aft agley

March 17, 2009

With the DLR post and now this one I am sailing dangerously close to becoming an observational blog.  I am going to hide that in a little rambling about blogs.  One of the staples of blogging is the amusing observation about some event or scene.  In fact in some cases people have raised such observations to an art form (John Scalzi is a master for example).  The trick to such blogs is to try to consistently twist expectations and ideas in original and amusing ways.  Though I often twist ideas, the results are rarely amusing and too often not even amusing.  It also feels self-indulgent to publish things that amused me for a time.  There is no real reason that the world I am unleashing them into has any desire for them.  In addition, unlike my more serious pieces I have no desire to cram them down the world’s throat!  That all said this did amuse me, maybe it will not be too much of a hardship for you…(and I promise no more of these for a while)

mice3

I was at the Greenwich foot tunnel with too much time on my hands, and needed something to read.  The only thing available was the sign and I noticed the designers acronyms included M.I.C.E.  So the tunnel was deisgned by mice, I guess they do know about digging.  Maybe this is what Rabbie Burns was thinking about…

The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men 
Gang aft agley

To a mouse  Robert Burns


Polymath

March 14, 2009

Finally a new mathematics post!.  

I have been holding out on commenting on the fascinating polymath project for a while, even though it touches on my central topics of maths and communication.  Now with its preliminary success feels like a good time to do so.  

Update 26/3/9: For those who want to know more about the problem Jason Dyer has a beautifully simple explanation up at the Number Warrior. This is exactly the sort of work that I find most exciting in the polymath project and heartily commend Jason.

A few months ago Tim Gowers put forward the challenge of whether massively collaborative mathematics was possible.  He also came up with a suitable problem and started it as a wiki.  As well as the wiki and articles on Gowers weblog progress was covered by various people including Terry Tao, Gil Kalai and Michael Nielsen.  

The actual work in proving this result seems not quite to have achieved the goal of massive collaboration.  In fact in this case:

the number [of contributors] settled down to a handful, all of whom I knew personally. 

Tim Gowers

So in this case the collaboration might be seen as an evolution of the small problem driven research meeting.  However even if this is all that it is, it is still a significant evolution. The web version has three key advantages.  Firstly it is open, so the group involved in the project is more self-selecting, allowing for a different collection of people than might be assembled for a meeting.  Secondly the web allows the research to take place as part of ordinary life.  This leads to the third benefit that the process can take place at a more natural speed with time to digest the ideas.   

The more open grouping of individuals leads to the problem that many mathematical questions can be asked in more than one language.  The polymath collaboration provides a solution to this.  An important part of the effort can be in translating between areas:

To give one example, Randall McCutcheon made some very useful comments, but they were in the language of ergodic theory, which I understand only in a very limited way. But Terence Tao is a master at translating concepts back and forth between combinatorics and ergodic theory, so I was able to benefit from Randall’s contributions indirectly.

Tim Gowers

I would now like to take a little time out to rant.  Perhaps one of the reasons that more people did not get involved in the project (and those that did were established enough to be recognised by Tim Gowers) is that the pressure on mathematicians, especially at the start of their careers, is to prove their own results.  This is a different statement of the classic problem of paper numbers.  Lets face it, it is far easier to get a new result published than a simplification of a far more significant result.  One consequence of this is that many important results are only studied in detail if there is a feeling that they can be used to attack a new problem.  Something related to this is the process of unnecessary generalisation, creating a result that seems new yet deals with no new interesting cases.   This emphasis decreases the overall understanding of mathematics in order to produce many marginal results.

As a personal example, my work studying aperiodic order naturally considers aperiodic sets of tiles.  These are sets of shapes that can tile the plane but do not admit any periodic tilings.  The most significant result in this area is that all substitution tilings can generate sets of aperiodic tilings.  This is a beautiful and significant result to me, yet it was only last autumn that I was able to find the time (between two weeks and a month) that I needed to really get to grips with the proof.  (The general case was proved by Chaim Goodman-Strauss).  However this understanding is not directly relevant to anything that I am currently turning into a paper, and thus of little benefit to my CV.

So we are faced with a situation where new results are granted more significance than understanding.  This is a tragedy as for mathematics clear exposition has made far more impact than deep results.  As a first example consider the beautiful language of arithmetic that we all take for granted: the arabic numerals.  Imagine having to do multiplication, even addition in Roman numerals, and it is not hard to see the massive leap forward that these provide.  Yet for hundreds of years that is what people did, so our current system is far from trivial or obvious.  In fact Leonardo of Pisa had to do a lot of work and lobbying to change the system (he is better know for the number sequence that uses his other name: Fibonacci).  

Another example of the importance of language comes from the famous dispute over calculus.  Whatever the actual chain of events that lead to the discovery, Liebnitz clearly trumps Newton in one regard.  He had a better notation.  In fact in can be argued that the insistence on Newton’s notation severly damaged British mathematics for hundreds of years (but that would need more in-depth study).  

The aspect of communication and language is addressed in Gower’s write up of the project:

 next time I think we may have to have some policy such as writing up all useful insights on the corresponding wiki before we allow ourselves a new comment thread, so that anybody who wants to join the discussion can read about the progress in a condensed and organized form.

Tim Gowers

My plea is that this idea be emphasised, and that writing up the results should be consider not just something to facilitate the smooth running of the project, but as one of the goals.  This could in fact increase the idea of a massive collaboration as many more people are capable of finding a better interpretation of an idea of Tao or Gowers than actually creating ideas.  Yet clearer explanations can be of benefit to all, even the giants themselves.  This is certainly something that seems to comes naturally to such projects as:

Better still, it looks very much as though the argument here will generalize straightforwardly to give the full density Hales-Jewett theorem…Better even than that, it seems that the resulting proof will be the simplest known proof of Szemerédi’s theorem. 

Tim Gowers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 213 other followers