Carnival of Mathematics #65

May 7, 2010

Consider two numbers i,j with no common factors, and take the sum of their squares i^2+j^2:

In many cases the result is a prime, twice a prime, a prime power, or twice a prime power . Consider the others, shown in red. We have  65 = 1^2 +8^2 = 4^2 +7^2, 85=2^2+9^2=6^2+7^2, 130=9^2+7^2 and 145=8^2+9^2. Expanding our search however we can also find that 130 = 11^3+3^2 and 145=12^2+1^2. All numbers in this table that do not have the forms described therefore also occur more than once in the table. In fact every number that can be represented in exactly one way as the sum of two squares is a prime, twice a prime, a prime power, or twice a prime power . This makes 1 an idoneal number, suitable number or ideoneal number. More generally this is a number D such that any number that has a unique representation as i^2+D j^2 (where i^2 and D j^2 are coprime) is the now familiar list: a prime, a prime power, or twice a prime power.  These numbers were studied by Euler who said:

An outstanding paradox stands upon this, for although the idoneal numbers are shaped and proceed according to a certain law, the multitude of which however are not infinite yet are extended even onto 65 terms, concern- ing this paradox I have recorded so far no more of this type in the succession which has been observed; yet neither on the other hand has it been permit- ted by me to make firm a finite number of terms, except that after the 65th term, which is 1848, none thereafter have been bestowed, even though I have continued the examination up to 10000 and beyond.

So it brings me great pleasure to announce the 65th maths carnival.

From Euler there is only one place to go, the debate over who are the greatest mathematicians. There were a couple of posts on this topic. Euler made it into a post by Alex Bellos justifying his selections for a previous top ten article in the Times. Tanya Khovanova, however did leave Euler out, but this was understandable, she was looking at living mathematicians. To keep debate rumbling, I will add my top five favourite mathematicians. The ones whose work has most inspired me personally. In historical order they are, Archimedes, Gottfried Leibniz, Felix Klein, John Conway and Tim Gowers.

Having started with a little pure mathematics, the rest of this carnival focuses on the links between mathematics and other things.

Art and Circles

One of my favourite links is of course mathematics and art and that is well represented. The wonderful Math Monday post on the Make blog, showed how to whittle knots and links, and several others played with images from parts of circles, spirographs and a circle puzzle. If you prefer to sit back and just watch GrrlScientist on Living the Scientific Life shows a beatiful maths and nature movie, that has gone viral, though it does have a little too much of the over-hyped golden ratio.

Logic and Computer Programs

One of the darks arts of programming is the creation of Quines, programs that can output their own source code (without cheating). Metaspring develop this idea to show how it can be extended to form the heart of the deep results of Kurt Gödel.  Computers are also of use for more practical things, but to do this we often need to make approximations, for example of the normal distribution.  Code can also provide elegant ways to construct mathematical objects, such as a collection of algorithms to make a matrix with a single 1.

Maps and Calculation

Before computers a whole world of charts to do calculation were developed. Dead Reckonings shows the example of Lallemand’s Hexagonal charts helping ships to determine precise directions from a magnetic compass. Modern mathematics can also help us think about how to navigate our world. Dave Richeson in Division by zero, uses the similarity between topological and topographic to explore this.

You would not expect…

The favourite line of the maths evangelist is that “maths is everywhere”, I am not sure if I go that far, but it certainly turns up in some unusual places. Just a mon looks at the mathematics of the premier league. Even a chiropractor can find uses for mathematics, though lets hope it is use, not abuse, like the BCA’s famous take on the British legal system.

Education

All links between mathematics and other things require people who can understand and apply the mathematical ideas. The great Terrance Tao gives some ideas on games that help you develop this mathematical thinking. From Let’s Play Math, you can even have a bit of fun with calculus.

Elections

To finish on a topical note, I was writing this carnival as I watched the British election. With the hung parilament and the discussions now going on the electoral system itself is coming under question. What does a mathematician think of this? Tim Gowers has some interesting comments.


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


Responsibility of Mathematicians

December 9, 2008

This week, my apologies, the post is a little late.  However I have an excuse!  I wanted to put the piece below out, but wanted to make sure that it had been published (in the December issue of Mathematics Today, the magazine of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications/IMA) first.  So apologies again and enjoy…

The world’s financial markets are in trouble, leading the whole world into crisis.  The causes will probably remain murky; economists still debate what caused the Great Depression.  However it cannot be disputed that complicated mathematics has become an increasing part of the business of large financial institutions.  Furthermore the models produced by this mathematics are often used primarily for profit rather than understanding.  Maybe we can no longer hide behind G.H. Hardy’s claim that:

it would be paradoxical to suggest that mathematics of any sort does much harm in a time of peace. 

A Mathematician’s Apology

  The use of mathematics for financial modelling is a modern application that is now widely accepted.  However many other new areas are opening up to quantitative modelling, and thus to mathematics, but mathematicians are not very active in this process.  Perhaps it is time to reassess the priorities of our subject and ensure that mathematics is indisputably a force for good, or at least for progress in the world.

I am a mathematician at Imperial College London.  In September I attended the World Knowledge Dialogue in Switzerland, a meeting intending to bridge the gap between the natural and the human/social sciences.  From Nobel laureates to former UN High Commissioners, the speakers laid down a clear challenge to all intellectuals to become engaged in addressing the worlds problems.  The central issue was described by the Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson as how humanity can deal with having:

Stone-age emotions and medieval institutions combined with god-like technology.

I was presenting a poster on how mathematical art could be used to inspire people to put in the work required to learn mathematics.  A worthy cause, maybe.  It was, however, flawed by a false assumption: that the delegates believed that mathematics and mathematics education had a key role to play in solving the world’s problems.  Many did not, due in part to a perception, extending even into the life sciences, that the work of mathematicians is esoteric, and only useful in limited situations.  For this we must accept some portion of the blame.

Up until the middle of the 19th century mathematicians, like Gauss and Euler, were primarily motivated by the quest to describe and resolve physical problems. Today, however, the primary goal for many mathematicians has moved from utility to the sense of mathematical beauty described in Hardy’s A Mathematician’s Apology.  This beauty is a wonderful concept and it cannot be denied that there have been great discoveries that have later found practical applications.  The importance of Hardy’s number theory in internet commerce is a prime example.  In the quest for beauty, especially when combined with powerful tools for generalisation from Hilbert on, the wonderful practicality of mathematics has not quite been lost, but has been buried. 

To me mathematics is the study of ideas without reference to the real world.  This is part of the problem, mathematics is indeed esoteric.  However consider an effective model of the world.  To have predictive power this model must be able to run without constant reference to the situation it is modelling.  Mathematics, therefore, is the only language in which we can model anything.  While the success or failure of a model depends on its design not its mathematics, without mathematics there can be no quantitative models.  In the sixteenth century the telescope allowed many measurements to be made that had previously been impossible.  This led to the first great discoveries of physics: simple mathematical models to make sense of the observations.  We are seeing a similar process in the explosion of data available through computers and the internet.  This has opened many areas to quantitative study and potential modelling.  We are also discovering the rich data within DNA (and protein) sequences in biology.  In just ten years it is predicted that sequencing a whole genome will cost just £10.  The areas in which complex mathematics is of use are therefore widening rapidly.

The practicality of mathematics can only be revealed through communication.  It is no longer true, if it ever was, that anyone with a problem that could benefit from mathematics will search to find the correct mathematical language and approach mathematicians with the problem formulated for us.  It is therefore our responsibility to become active.  To remember that utility, not just beauty, should be the goal of good mathematics.  To go into the common rooms of universities, to international conferences and into the world and make contacts in other subjects.  To listen to the problems that other intellectuals are tackling.  To find where there are mathematical solutions and explain the things that mathematics can (and cannot) do.  Essentially, to find mathematical applications outside the traditional areas, other than those motivated by a desire to make money.

I admit that this pushes mathematicians into something at which we are famously bad.  Too few of us are able to give a good picture of our research to other mathematicians, let alone general intellectuals or the public. In many ways we live up to the public perception of being brilliant but engaged in puzzles that are hard to understand and only of moderate use.  We must try to address this and not accept the public perception as fact.  As well as our personal responsibility to learn to communicate, we need to increase the importance of communication in the mathematical education.  To initiate teaching of communication and send the message, to undergraduate and graduate students alike, that communication is a necessary and honourable part of our profession.

It is true that there are many mathematicians pushing the limits of the subject’s applications already.  However in many cases the drive comes more from universities and the need for funding than professional interest.  The area of mathematical biology for example often carries a slight stigma.  This is made worse by the fact that much of the research carried out here is not good mathematics but more importantly is not good biology either.  The research driver is too often old mathematical questions that can be written in a biological language.  The challenge is, therefore, not to look for new applications for current research but to be willing to listen to the problems in other fields.  In some cases a solution will be ready, perhaps with an imaginative application of classic mathematics.  In others mathematics will be of no use.  However a few such problems might call for the development of entirely new mathematical models.  Who knows, they might even be beautiful!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers