ℝolliℵg M∀th Thr∑a∂

Grothendieck is dead.

RIP :(

Thought revive would be for tomorrow's anniversary of Euler's formula V - E + F = 2.

RIP BIG G

Grothendiecks to watch out for

http://inference-review.com/article/a-country-known-only-by-name

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Icosian_grid_small_with_labels2.svg/500px-Icosian_grid_small_with_labels2.svg.png

Been reading Four Colors Suffice: How the Map Problem was Solved, by Robin J. Wilson, which is very well done, informative and entertaining. If you don't believe me, there is a rave review by John H. Conway on the back.

Here is a related cheat sheet: http://www.mei.org.uk/files/conference07/A2.pdf

Here is review in the AMS: http://www.ams.org/notices/200402/rev-toft.pdf

Also dipping into related book: Euler's Gem: The Polyhedron Formula and the Birth of Topology
By David S. Richeson

Related article:
The Truth about Königsberg, by Brian Hopkins and Robin J. Wilson
http://www.maa.org/programs/maa-awards/writing-awards/the-truth-about-konigsberg
http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Polya/hopkins.pdf

Kuratowski's original paper, in French, on a Polish website: http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm15/fm15126.pdf

A translation and helpful introduction can be found in Graph Theory 1736-1936, by Norman L. Biggs, E. Keith Lloyd, and Robin J. Wilson.

In which they explain that "gauche" translates to "non-planar."

OK, found a good Dover book on graph theory, if anyone is interested. Has a lot of nice biographical background stuff in addition to the mathematical content, which historical material also includes some relevant graphs with names of mathematicians and scientists in them. Just learned Einstein's Erdös number from one of these latter.

http://math.oregonstate.edu/bridge/papers/

http://education.lms.ac.uk/2014/12/alexander-grothendieck-some-recollections/

attn euler in particular: are you familiar with rodin and with "axiomatic method and category theory" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1478) and do you have any opinions w/r/t such?

hah I know rodin extremely well! both as a person and as a scholar. he's a category theory partisan, but he knows lots of other math too, and some philo as well. I haven't read the book though. I think it just appeared with springer?

Enigma:The Movie means Enigma:The Book is back in print. It seems to have been out of since the first run, thirty some odd years ago.

u guys ever watch those Geometry Center videos? i was introduced to them during my self-ban. easily the best thing ever created

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGLPbSMxSUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gLNlC_hQ3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO61D9x6lNY

Guess it actually came out again in 2012 for Turing centennary. (xp to self)

flopson otm

Will check those out, thx

need part 2 of knot not

ya wtf fuck you bbc worldwide

you could hit this guy up i guess http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/video/AKPeters.html

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781568814537

$1/minute

my best friend who made me love math got accepted to stanford math phd, super proud. he's a major genius and has an amazing gift for explaining the simple mindblowing idea at the heart of a complex topic. gonna miss him as i live really far from cali but still

^like

did vahid go to stanf?

No idea

not really ... vahid got a masters in education and did his teaching credential at stanford, his undergrad was at cal and that was in physical chemistry, not math ...

vahid is actually a math dilettante!

he totally quit ILX though because IRL people were stalking him on ILX!

ya i knew they hadn't studied math. caltucky is siiick though

LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%E2%80%93Zucker_machine

relatedly, was pleased to learn that a subfield of modern algebraic geometry is concerned with mixed motives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(algebraic_geometry)#Mixed_motives

oh vis a vis the prior link i believe its been confirmed that they decided to write a paper together on something on the basis of their names

A nice long article on Yitang Zhang from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty

Nice, thanks.

something i have long wondered: why do we think of numbers as being ordered left to right?

Humans represent numbers along a mental number line (MNL), where smaller values are located on the left and larger on the right. The origin of the MNL and its connections with cultural experience are unclear: Pre-verbal infants and nonhuman species master a variety of numerical abilities, supporting the existence of evolutionary ancient precursor systems. In our experiments, 3-day-old domestic chicks, once familiarized with a target number (5), spontaneously associated a smaller number (2) with the left space and a larger number (8) with the right space. The same number (8), though, was associated with the left space when the target number was 20. Similarly to humans, chicks associate smaller numbers with the left space and larger numbers with the right space.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/534.full

That's weird that they somehow observed that in chicks, but I guess it makes sense to me for numbers to be ordered from left to right in cultures that have languages that are written from left to right. I guess most written languages do go from left to right, with the exception of Arabic and Hebrew and a few others.

I started reading the recently published Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church and Beyond edited by Copeland, Posy, and Shagrir. It’s a servant of all. But so far, so good. Especially enjoyed Martin Davis’ essay, “Computability and Arithmetic.” It explores Hilary Putnam and Yuri Matiyasevich’s work on Hilbert’s tenth in a comprehensible way.

― Allen (etaeoe), Tuesday, 3 December 2013 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

my lazy friend finally finished his review of this book, you can find it here

Kudos to your *friend*

anybody have a fav text on GLM math? went to seminar this week and it has become abundantly clear that my ignorance of GLM will be a detriment to ultimate career goals pretty soon.

When I was undergrad, Euler, many years ago, book we read in intro(!) course was Boolos and Jeffrey, which was still pretty challenging. Guess now there is new co-author for latest editions.

Boolos and Jeffrey is good. I've never taught from it, though; on these topics I have my own notes that I use. When I've taught Gödel I just teach right from the 1931 paper, giving the requisite background as we go along.

Cool. Did you ever read the Hodges bio of Turing? Thinking of rereading myself.

no, I'm not great about biographies, except for musicians. But it's supposed to be great!

I learned a lot of what I know about Turing from his own writings plus this excellent volume

This review made me lol when I saw how they described Kurt Gödel.

that is...not a good review