Probably A Very Small Set

It is true that if there were no phenomena which were independent of all but a manageably small set of conditions, Physics would be impossible.
—     Eugene Wigner
From his paper:  “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences“
.
On This Day In:
2021	The Only Winning Move
	Says Who?
2020	I’m Guessing It’s Real
	For One More Day
2019	Like Smartphones And FOMO?
	Getting Ready For Halloween
2018	Nothing To Build On
2017	This One Is…
2016	Happy Is…
2015	Dare Yourself To
2014	Damned If You Do…
2013	On A Rainy Sunday
2012	Not Sure Anymore
2011	But What Does It Cost?
2009	Another Day, Another Diet…

Read Full Post »

Just Not Sure, And That’s Okay

“Introducing The Universe”  (1993©)  —  book review
Today’s book review is for “Introducing The Universe“, written by Felix Pirani (writer) and Christine Roche (illustrator).  While copyrighted in 1993, my version is a re-publication from 1999.  (Dear Readers, I apologize in advance for the length of this review, which may seem longer than the book.)
I have a reasonably long history (ten to twenty years) of reading these “Introduction / Introducing” series of books about a host of different topics.  The benefit of the series is you (generally) get a very quick (under 200 pages filled with mostly comics illustrations) and very general overview of whatever the specific topic is for the book.  The negatives are reduced a number of important sub-topics, lack of breadth and depth for a specific sub-topic, and (occasionally) even I find the illustrations tedious (if not demeaning).  Be that as it may…
This book is about cosmology (the science and study of the universe).  Obviously, theories about the universe and creation pre-date “civilization”, and certainly pre-date reading and writing, let alone the start of modern science.  This book covers all of this…  up to publication date.
So, the two main theories of the universe are:  1) it has always existed pretty much as it is now;  and, 2) the universe sprang into being at some point.  The first theory is known as the “Steady-State” theory.  The second is more popularly known as the “Big Bang” theory.  Pre-1960(-ish), 1965 to be precise, the Steady-State theory held the reigns because there was no physical evidence to believe otherwise and it let scientists avoid the chicken-n-egg question of:  “If the universe was created, that implies there was both reason for creation and a creator / intelligent designer.  So, who was it?”  This moves from the “hard” science which scientists like to think about, to the practice to philosophy – which may be logical, but is rarely scientific (from my experience anyway).
I call theory #2, “The God Theory“, because creation implies creator and it pre-dates modern science (as we know it).  I call theory #1, “The Science Theory“, because not only do we not know what happened, it seems unlikely we will ever know.  If you are comfortable with doubt and dealing with the unknowable, you can be comfortable with science.
Well, in 1965, a couple of radio guys at Bell Labs were looking at space and they found some background noise (aka “Cosmic Microwave Background” or CMB) which could not be easily explained.  It seemed to fall under the predictions for residue background radiation from a terrific explosion.  Hence:  “The Big Bang“.  With this data, and a corresponding space-race to the moon between the United States and the U.S.S.R., a lot of money was being poured into the coffers of universities (and companies) which would study these phenomena.  (Note:  the theory pre-dates the CMB evidence.  The CMB, however, serves as the primary evidence supporting the theory.  When I was a child and first learning about all of this, the Steady-State was THE primary theory for cosmology and the Big Bang was just beginning its ascendancy.  It was a paradigm shift in cosmology based on new data, post theory.)
The problem is for pretty much all of the last 60 years, more and more study has produced more and more confusing results, and, in turn, more and more convoluted twists in the Big Bang theory to explain the exceptions to the predicted data.  For example:  we believe the universe is expanding, but we can’t identify a point of origin.  All points seem to be moving away from each other at the same rate.
And, another:  the stuff of the universe, which we can see, behaves in a way which predicts there should be a LOT more stuff.  The mathematics works out that for the universe to function the way the theory says it should, there’s probably 90% or more of the stuff in the universe which is, as yet, unseen.  Nobody knows what it is or where it is or why we can’t see (detect) it.  And it’s not just “stuff”.  The same seems to be true for “energy” which we also cannot detect.  The scientists have named these two unseeable and unmeasureable things:  “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” (cause they’re original that way).
Basically, the real and measurable data we’ve been gathering seem to contradict the Big Bang theory, but we’ve yet to come up with a theory to explain the data which the data could support (some theory other than the Big Bang theory and / or the Steady-State theory).  The result is we are stumbling along with the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science” while awaiting a new theory or “paradigm” which explains the evidence in terms of supporting the Steady-State theory.  (Hence, String Theory / Super-String Theory and multi-dimensions and multiple universes.)
So, is this book any good?  Is it interesting?  Before I answer those two questions I must state:  I am NOT a scientist and I entered the book with only the most high-school level knowledge of cosmology (let alone math / physics).  Having said this:  Yes, and YES!  This is not a book which most physicists, math folks or cosmologists will find useful.  Between the non-linear / non-chronological presentation and the use of mostly comic-book style illustrations, I imagine they would find it trivial if not insulting.  I don’t know enough about the subject to find it such.
Final recommendation:  strong!  I am sure the target audience, the format and the length of the book precluded the author and illustrator’s ability to present as much as they might have liked to.  Never the less, as a novice seeking a general overview which could be gained in a couple of hours of light reading, I felt the book covered the topic and reading it was a useful experience.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Back To Paying Dues
	Keep Rollin’
2020	Diets And Lifestyle Changes
	Pay Attention
	Just Not Sure, And That’s Okay
2019	The Right Questions
	Day 3: Still Difficult
2018	A Thought For Those Continuing To Support President Trump
	Day 36: Pushing On
2017	Imagining Humor
2016	So Go On And Deal With It
2015	From A Letter To A Friend
2014	Your Part (Here)
2013	Complements
2012	Sound And Light
2011	Two Politicians Visit A Farm…
2010	Labor Day And Honorable Men

Read Full Post »

Patterns Of Caring

“X+Y” (2014)  —  movie review, released in the US as “A Brilliant Young Mind” (2015)
Today’s review is for the 2014 / 2015 movie “X+Y“, aka:  “A Brilliant Young Mind“.  The movie stars Asa Butterfield as Nathan Ellis (autistic math genius), Rafe Spall as Martin Humphreys (Nathan’s tutor), Sally Hawkins as Julie Ellis (Nathan’s mum), Eddie Marsan as Richard (UK tutor), Jo Yang as Zhang Mei (Nathan’s love interest), Martin McCann as Michael Ellis (Nathan’s dad), Jake Davies as Luke Shelton (mocked math genius), Alex Lawther as Isaac Cooper (mocking math genius), Alexa Davies as Rebecca Dunn (Piano girl / jealous crush).
There is something called the “International Mathematics Olympiad” (IMO) which brings together all of the maths geniuses from around the world to compete on their respective national teams.  It seems China is the historically dominant power at this event.
Nathan is an autistic maths wiz.  The only person he is close with is his dad who dies in a car accident.  The accident makes Nathan even more reclusive / eccentric than he was before.
Nathan’s mum (the fish lady / maid in “The Shape of Water“) is not able to relate with her son and finally gets a piece of relief by shipping him off to compete in the IMO.  Nathan’s tutor (Martin) is himself a “failed” maths prodigy and slowly builds a relationship with Nathan and his mum.  Eddie Marsan plays the UK team manager who’s only concern is for the team to beat the Chinese team.  Zhang Mei is Nathan’s “love” interest.  He slowly pries Nathan from his turtle shell.  Martin McCann is Nathan’s dad and is the only one who sees him as special and not weird.  At least that is how Nathan feels.  The final three main characters (Luke, Isaac and Rebecca) are other “kids” on the IMO team who are meant to demonstrate some other levels of autism or to act as a kind of alternative love interest.
Is this movie any good?  Does it say anything about math?  Does it say anything about kids?  Does it say anything about autism?  Yes, a little, nothing new, and I don’t know.
I really enjoyed this movie.  I got interested in it a while back when I saw Butterfield in “Ender’s War” and thought I’d look out for any of his other work.  (I’ve seen the previews for this film and the bits and bobs available on YouTube and have been waiting for this movie to become available on cable or on Vudu.)  Now I’ve seen him in two very good roles and it will be interesting to see if he develops into a good adult actor or if he fades.  As with “Ender“, Asa plays the straight role well and the emotional role almost as well.  I don’t really understand autism, so I can’t say how accurately he portrayed the ending transformation.  My gut feeling was it was too Hollywood and not realistic, but that just may be me.
The movie relates math to various aspects of the real world:  pattern recognition, music, art, architecture, philosophy and love.  They were not main points of the film though, so if you blink, you may miss a couple of them.
I don’t think this movie says anything original about kids.  Certainly nothing you couldn’t get from a half-dozen other movies starting with “Lord of the Flies“.  Yes, kids are mean and pick on other kids who may be viewed as somehow “different”.
As mentioned above, Nathan is “transformed” at the end of the movie.  I doubt autism is cured on the road to Damascus, so I didn’t care for the resolution / summing up.  It just seemed too tidy for my taste.  Apparently, the movie is based on a real-life person and his reaction to viewing the film was:  “I am a maths wiz.  I am not a rain man.”  For me, to the extent the movie related Nathan’s love for math, I felt it stood on firmer ground.
Final recommendation:  very strong to highly.  I do have an “unusual” fondness for movies with even the slightest math / science / computing theme, so you have to take this recommendation with the normal grain of salt you take my reviews…   (LOL)  I’m not usually a big fan of hazy / distorted filming to represent the perception of genius, but in this case, it worked pretty well.  I liked the acting, the story and loose correlation of math to music, color, flow and pattern recognition.  I will watch it again in the future.
One final note:  I got to see this movie for free!  I joined my local library (re-joined) and they have a pretty interesting selection of movies you can stream just for being a member of the library.  It saved me having to purchase a movie I really wanted to see.  They do limit my viewing to eight per calendar month, but it still seems a great deal to me!  Who knew??
.
On This Day In:
2022	Sometimes I’m Confused
2021	You Need Me On That Wall
	Counting Bees And Chasing Clouds
2020	Precious Life
2019	Nothing Is Too Difficult For Me
	Patterns Of Caring
2018	And May Never Be
2017	Don’t Forget
2016	I Was A Percentage Man
2015	It Waits Patiently
2014	Unknown
2013	Explaining Love?
2012	Echoes of 1%
2011	Salaam, Egypt!!
	Where Do You Learn?

Read Full Post »

Thought Experiments

Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.  Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives.
—   Anonymous
.
On This Day In:
2021	Driving To Your Destiny
	Angels
2020	It Almost Certainly Will If #45 Is Re-elected
	Sssshhhh
2019	Deciding, Doing, Done
	Day 5: Getting Easier
2018	Thought Experiments
	Day 38: Going Crazy
2017	Which Did You Learn?
2016	Shape And Limit
2015	Me Either
2014	Just Business
2013	Beautiful Adventure
2012	Precedence
2011	Ya Think?

Read Full Post »

I Put It Down To Bad Teachers

After years of finding mathematics easy, I finally reached integral calculus and came up against a barrier.  I realized that this was as far as I could go, and to this day I have never successfully gone beyond it in any but the most superficial way.
—    Isaac Asimov
.
On This Day In:
2021	Why Republicans Are Unhappy
	I Guess It’s True
2020	A Tiny And Fragile World
	Your Lyin’ Eyes
2019	Day 1: Done
	#IncompetentDonald Fails On All Three
2018	I Put It Down To Bad Teachers
	Day 34: In And Out
2017	And The Future Is Now
2016	I Am
2015	Positively Aiming Higher
2014	Suspicious Minds
2013	We Are Not Alone
2012	Lawyer, n.
2011	Each Day Remember…
2010	Impossible Dreams of Camelot

Read Full Post »

Singular Reality

A Beautiful Mind  (2001)  —  movie review
This movie asks the question:  is it possible to separate genius from insanity?  The movie is an adaptation of the book (biography) of the same name written by Sylvia Nasar.  The movie relates the story of American mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr.  Nash won the Nobel Prize (shared actually) for Economics in 1994 for work he did back in 1950 on “Game Theory” – more specifically on non-cooperative games.  Russell Crowe, of “Gladiator” fame, stars as Nash and Jennifer Connelly stars as his long suffering wife, Alicia Nash.  “Long suffering” because she cared for him most of his adult life as Nash himself suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.
I read the book (way back when) and I bought and watched the DVD, too, but really didn’t remember either in much detail.  About all I remembered was the bit about agreeing to work in your own self interest as long as it doesn’t detract from the total group interest of the group you belong to.  In other words, you can do anything you want to do as long what you do doesn’t hurt your team.  In a world which had long accepted “dog-eat-dog” / “me first” as the fundamental of economic theory, this was a shock.  Essentially, it means if we all benefit (more or less) from “the game”, no one should try to destroy the game to keep anyone else from winning or from benefiting a little more than everyone else.  At least, this is the rational course of action.
The movie is beautifully shot and Connelly is simultaneously drop-dead gorgeous and sympathetic in her role.  I must admit to not being a big Crowe fan.  I haven’t seen many of his films, so my opinion is somewhat biased here, but I think this was the first movie where I thought, “Wow!  This guy CAN act.”  What I really found interesting was that there is “chemistry” between the two leads, but it didn’t strike me as sexual chemistry – even when it was meant to by the scenes.  They “seemed” to me to be adult friends who genuinely cared about each other – loved rather than being in love.  Either way, I thought they were both excellent in their respective roles.
Maybe I understand the concept of the Nash Equilibrium better than before, even if I still have no clue about the math behind it.  Final recommendation:  moderate to strong recommendation.  I don’t really feel like I understand schizophrenia any more than before watching this movie.  I’m not sure if we are meant to.  Nash himself said it was difficult to separate the delusions from the real because both the delusions and his mathematical genius both came from the same place:  his mind.  Is it possible to separate genius from insanity?  The answer seems to be:  only with love.
“…My quest has taken me through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back.  And I’ve made the most important discovery of my life.  It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found.“
—    John Nash
.
On This Day In:
2015	He Says It’s Hard To Get There From Here
2014	Question From A Founding Father
2013	Make Heroes
2012	See And Hold
2011	Am Not, Are So

Read Full Post »

Strange To All The World

I myself figured out the peculiar form of mathematics and harmonies that was strange to all the world but me.
—    Fred “Jelly Roll” Morton
This quote was found in the book:   “Perfect Figures“, written by:  Bunny Crumpacker
[Check him out on YouTube. You’ll be glad you did…    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2021	The Same Goes For Countries And Elected Leaders
	Just Beginning…
2020	Your True Standard
	But When The Smoke Had Cleared Away…
2019	Ooh, Shiny
	Day 4: Surprised
2018	We Are Approaching Default
	Running On History
	Day 37: Blended Not Juiced
2017	Today Is Not Lost
	Day 8
2016	Paying Attention
2015	An Awful Ordeal
2014	What Are You Doing?
2013	Lives > 1
2012	Strange To All The World
2011	Unnecessary Stagefright

Read Full Post »

Sound And Light

Music is the arithmetic of sounds as optics is the geometry of light.
—    Claude Debussy
This quote was found in the book:  “Perfect Figures” by Bunny Crumpacker
.
On This Day In:
2021	Back To Paying Dues
	Keep Rollin’
2020	Diets And Lifestyle Changes
	Pay Attention
	Just Not Sure, And That’s Okay
2019	The Right Questions
	Day 3: Still Difficult
2018	A Thought For Those Continuing To Support President Trump
	Day 36: Pushing On
2017	Imagining Humor
2016	So Go On And Deal With It
2015	From A Letter To A Friend
2014	Your Part (Here)
2013	Complements
2012	Sound And Light
2011	Two Politicians Visit A Farm…
2010	Labor Day And Honorable Men

Read Full Post »

The Path Is Endless

Besides, what if a study is not of earth-shaking importance?  If it stimulates the imagination and whets the appetite for more, is not that enough?  Do we dare to hope that this book has done as much for you?  Have we cast a little light on what was formerly dim, so that you now wish you knew more about some of these things?
The path is endless, but many rewards are offered along the way.  One could do worse than follow the gleam of numbers.
—    C. Stanley Ogilvy and John T. Anderson
From their book:  “Excursions In Number Theory“
[The pursuit of truth and knowledge is always endless.  The reward is the path as well as the goal, irrespective of importance, and is enough.    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	Yo-yo Management
2021	DIY: Outdoor Gym Modifications
	First Hammock Hang Of 2021
	Slow Moving Trains And Squirrels
	Just Chillin’… Why?
2020	Still Crazy After All These Years…
2019	20 / 20 Foresight
	He Knew Damned Well…
2018	Be Someone’s Kindling
2017	When The Moment Comes
2016	Changed Clothes Lately?
2015	Like Stone
2014	Resistance Is Futile
2013	Subtle Humor
	To Look Behind Green Eyes
2012	The Path Is Endless
2011	Happy MLK, Jr Day!!!
	A Factor Of Ten
	Better Late Than Never?
	Whoops!
	Acceptable Beginnings
	Slow Progress
	Useful Confrontation
	When Phenomena Are Different
	Creative Avoidance
	Thinking
	Fast And Flexible
	Surrender Certainty
	Techniques
	Vive La Difference
	Destiny
	Completeness
	Art

Read Full Post »

The Complex Richness Of Life

Biologists believe that simple mathematical theories are usually wrong, because biological systems are multicausal, poorly partitionable — basically, messy.  Biological systems do have a beauty, but it is one of complexity and richness, rather than the simple reductionist elegance of physics.
—    W. Daniel Hillis
.
On This Day In:
2022	A Murmuring Note
2021	Satisfied If Not Fulfilled
	You Don’t Know
	Urban Ballroom
2020	R.I.P. Kobe
2019	Looks A Lot Like #45
2018	Trying To Stay Young
2017	Seems Reasonable To Me
2016	We Can Get Through This Together (In Time)
2015	How Long Is A Piece Of String?
2014	Heathen, n.
2013	Wisdom’s Folly
2012	When The Student Is Ready
	Disconnected Leadership
2011	The Complex Richness Of Life

Read Full Post »

A Quick Hit Of Stats

This week I attended a training class on Management Analyst provided by the Graduate School (which used to be part of the US Department of Agriculture) but which has recently spun off into its own little not-for-profit educational foundation.
Part of the class was a primer on statistics.  As it’s been awhile since I’ve done any real studying of stats, I found this portion of the training quite intellectually refreshing.  It’s always nice to reinforce old learning.
Anyway, as part of the instruction a site was mentioned / recommended and I thought I’d add it as a link to my own blog and mention it in one of these posts.  The main site is www.RobertNiles.com. The direct link to the statistics pages is:  www.RobertNiles.com/stats/.
The session reminded me (once again) how mentally stimulating learning math can be.  Enjoy!
.
On This Day In:
2021	Our Common Humanity
	A History Story
2020	At The Very Least Smile More
	Your Touch
2019	Still Working On Both
2018	Two Jordans To Heaven
	Speaking Of #45
2017	All Greek To Me
2016	Judgment
2015	I Love Bacon, Too
2014	The Wee Bit
2013	Reading Rules
2012	Cadet Prayer
2011	Easy To Tell
2010	A NEW Lion In The Senate (Channeling Mr. Smith)
	Inception Redux
	A Quick Hit Of Stats

Read Full Post »