In memorium: Foyle’s Mathematics room.

May 31, 2011

For years the mathematics books at Foyles bookshop in London had their own room. It was a strange place, to the uninitiated inexplicably yellow. It had its own quirks rules and legends. There were shelves whose books were not for sale and, should you find a book that was for sale, you had to try to sneak it out if you wanted to purchase books elsewhere before leaving.

When I entered the room for the third time I was a PhD student in London. I had the practical purpose of finding a book I needed, but I became entranced. It became a regular place to visit, gaining familiarity and comfort. During hard times in my PhD and later jobs in London it acted as a refuge. At some point earlier memories returned.

Old-School Foyles, but not the mathematics room. Do you have an image?

Of course, the first time I visited I had no idea that this room would become part of my personal mythology. I do not know how old I was,  I cannot even remember the context (a family trip to London?); but I do remember the room, standing out even from the magical L-space1 that Foyles used to epitomise. Years later I returned. I was an undergraduate at Warwick and my love affair with mathematics books was truly beginning. Not just for the knowledge they contain, but for a beauty that I feel but not find words for. Part of this beauty is the esoteric language of their titles, the language that puts so many off mathematics but, it must be admitted, entices others in:

Some books I simply gazed at, others I bought simply for the magic of their titles. Those titles echo in my memory. Today some have become trusted friends, some sit mysteriously on my bookshelves having resisted numerous attempts on their secrets, others turn up like old acquaintances when I visit book shops.

I did that recently, I was once again in Foyles. The mathematics section had moved once more. It was once again in a familiar room at the front of the building on the third floor. Had they come home (albeit sharing the space)? But wasn’t the old maths room on the second floor? To my shame I could not remember clearly. I had grown used to the room being gone; it was a shock to find the details of my memory so weak. My internet skills failing me, I could not even find a record that gave the floor, worse, I could not find mention of the room at all. So I decided to write this.For me it makes concrete memories that seemed routine at the time, but now hold great importance, but perhaps I am not the only one? Maybe there are others who have fond memories of this room. If you do find this and remember please share your memories of this odd, impractical but special room.

I mourn the room, but  do realise that some things have to change. Today the nature of the book itself is changing, and with it the bookshop. Just opposite Foyles the space that used to be Borders bookshop is now taken up with TK Maxx. With the ability of the internet to deliver information and,  electronic readers finally usable, the paper book finds competition it has never had before.  Yet the bookshop, as I adore it, has been under threat for a long time. Borders itself along with Barnes and Noble represented the first assault, opening up the bookshop and making it easy to navigate. Then Amazon opened things up further, making it possible to easily find any book in print. Yet great bookshops, like Foyles, have survived, I have faith, there will be changes, but some of what we love in these stores will survive and perhaps some of what will be lost needs to go. Is it such a bad thing that cheap dectective and romance novels will no longer force trees to be cut for their paper?

For the moment therefore I  try to regularly  visit the bookshops I love and buy books from them. Not just for the books themselves but as a support for those wonderful shops.  It makes a good excuse anyway!

Footnotes

1 BACK TO POST
As a regular visitor to Foyles I learnt certain routes around the building, mixing the stairs and elevators. It felt that a tiny deviation from the correct route could leave you in a different place entirely. It was occasionally a shock to realise that two points, that I had thought were in completely different parts of the building, were actually just around the corner from each other. Terry Pratchett describes this best with the concept of L-space, that all libraries, and bookshops in the world are connected both in space and time and, with the correct path, you can navigate to any of them. In the Discworld version of the burning fire of Alexandria a hairy arm is seem amongst the flames rescuing some of the greatest works.


Twitter

April 20, 2009
twitter_image

My first week on twitter from socialcollider.net

It took me a lot less time to get into twitter (@gelada) than to get a blog. However in general it is said that cycles of social media are getting faster. I realised that part of my problem, and a general problem when I look at communities online, is a fear of breaking social conventions I am not aware of. This probably comes from my English heritage.

It is not enough to be aware of this. In fact rationally I am perfectly aware that there are almost certainly no clearly established twitter conventions. A good example is how many tweets are acceptable in a day. Everyone has a certain level and I occasionally get irritated by some of the people I am following who over-post. In particular, I feel that it is at least bad style to post more than one tweet together to say something. The brevity is the key to the medium. Of course I have already broken this, which is why I say it is bad style rather than bad manners. A rule of style can be justifiably broken, however that should be thought about. It is up to my followers to decide whether the style decision I made was good or bad for them. If I make too many bad decisions they can move. That in the end is the essence, twitter currently works wonders in finding small niches. Finding the people who interest you deeply, rather than sticking with the mainstream media which have to interest a lot of people a little.

This actually leads to a fear to me. Will the growing ease of connecting to people make the process too efficient? This, combined with the firehose nature of twitter, is something I will have to negotiate with my dwindling supply of willpower. I need to make sure that I do continue to get things done, rather than get overwhelmed by potential ideas and contacts.

So the fact that I could (almost too easily) connect with interesting people on twitter (and the fact that they were there) has dragged me in. What am I going to do with it? I am not yet sure what style of tweeting I will adopt, or more deeply as Paul Prudence points out, what personality will emerge.  I am trying to stay away from too many funny comments as I feel that a) there is already plenty of this, and b) friendly feedback from my nearest and dearest has pointed out that I my funny comments are not generally considered so.  I do not promise to have no such comments, however! I started by thinking about the literary possibilities, in particular a haiku-like form, 5 sentences with 30, 29, 28, 27 and 26 characters.  I am not sure, however, that twitter is the best place for literary effort.  Though in another aspect of personal style I prefer to use full sentences and punctuation, as I attempt to in text messages.  So the best way to find out what I am doing is to look back at what I have said. There will probably be a lot on mathematics and art, with the smattering of comments on how to improve the world, and the occasional monkey joke.

So, thanks for reading and please let me know if I offend or break your personal style rules. I might not change anything but I would be interested to know.

Finally on language, when I started to write these pages I complained about the language. I simply do not like the words blogging and blogs.  To show that I am not always a language fuddy-duddy, I will say that twitter and tweet I accept wholeheartedly.

PS, why does twitter need to be centralised? Will this version be scalable? Personally for several reasons I would prefer a radically localised version, this should be about connections between individuals and small groups, not how we all plug into the same big machine.


Unscheduled Post: No Science without Fancy

March 30, 2009

A great post from Scott Aaronson on Shtetl-Optimized talking about rational literature, with the wonderful point that in many works that do mention science:

the juvenile humor at the core of how science works will be absent, replaced by a wooden earnestness more in line with the writer’s preconceptions.

However I do think that Scott is a little harsh on literature.  The world is complicated, it cannot be simplified in general.  The magic of science is that it finds things that can be simplified ways that things can be put into simple rules and mathematical rules.  In a similar manner but with different methods most authors strive to find ways of making everything fit together.  His top five are an excellent start for those who have also understood something of science in their work.  I would like to add five of my own:

J L Borges

The commentators on the article got there before me, but he deserves repeating.  What other writer would think to put a library in the universal cover of a 3-torus.

Georges Perec

If you want silly games leading to deep thought Perec is your man.  In his masterwork
using jigsaws, graeco-roman squares and permutations to describe how perfection is impossible and the greatest scheme cannot help but be flawed in some way.

Jan Potocki

The Manuscript Found in Saragossa
 includes accurate renditions of cutting edge mathematics, in the work of the Bernouills.  That was of course cutting edge in the eighteenth century.

Terry Pratchett

The Unseen University parodies to a T the pomposity, silliness and brilliance present in most universities.  It is a deeply sympathetic portrait of the wizards who normally in the end and often not in the way they intended manage to save the day.  

Vladimir Nabokov

Nabokov was a published scientist, doing worthy work in the study of butterflies, probably not at the same level as his writing.  His famous quote sums up the point I want to make and provide the title for this:

There is no science without fancy and no art without fact.

I could go on, it was hard enough to bring it down to five, I left out Neal Stephenson to get it to five as he had been added to the comments several times.  The original list was interested in the puncturing of pomposity, rather than a simple understanding of science.  However of my five the three P s Pratchett, Perec and Potocki tackle definately pomposity both outside and within science.


The search for the truth can never stop.

December 27, 2008

This is a first obituary (of a sort) for these writings.  I do not think I would have predicted that this would be a playwright, not a mathematician.  This might seem a little off topic, although I guess it does fit into communication and art, however do not worry I will get on my soapbox and twist things round to my view on the world before the article is finished.  

First however let me say farewell and give thanks for the life of Harold Pinter.  

In 2005 Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize.  In his acceptance speech he deals directly with an idea that to me is central to the quest both for science and art.  The impossible hunt for truth.  Unsurprisingly his words on the subject are far deeper and full of insight than mine could be, so I really suggest you drop this and read them instead.  

I do want to add something small to what he says, mainly to point out how  close his words, written about drama, sum up how I feel about doing mathematics and I believe sum up something that links many areas of intellectual enquiry.  However it is hard to start paraphrasing something that is already taught with meaning, so I hope you will forgive a long quote.

In 1958 I wrote the following:

‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.’

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.

and a more succinct one:

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

Of course the quest for truth in mathematics is subtly different to this.  Mathematics has a sense of a definition of truth and the idea of proof.  These are not necessarily quite as absolute as we like to think, but at least there is method of arguing and convincing beyond simple opinion.  However as soon as one tries to use mathematics to model the world the multiplicity of models possible feels to me very close to the shadowy truth described above.

Having discussed truth in the abstract Pinter discusses the difference between the world of art which relishes in uncertainty and the world of politics, where we do need to accept facts.  In particular he vigourously attacks the politicians who are more interested in power than politics and the world that lets them pervert language to there own ends and gives little come back when their assurances are proved false.  

Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words ‘the American people’ provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don’t need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it’s very comfortable.

Mathematics like language can be perverted and used to mask as well as reveal.  The world needs those who value truth from mathematical truth through scientific truth and the murkier truth in current affairs to the personal ephemeral truth of art.  We must stand up and take our responsibility, to question, hold to account and help build something better.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 213 other followers