John Dee - Wikipedia

april 2018 by nhaliday

John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6]

Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.

Simultaneously with these efforts, Dee immersed himself in the worlds of magic, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. He devoted much time and effort in the last thirty years or so of his life to attempting to commune with angels in order to learn the universal language of creation and bring about the pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. However, Robert Hooke suggested in the chapter Of Dr. Dee's Book of Spirits, that John Dee made use of Trithemian steganography, to conceal his communication with Elizabeth I.[7] A student of the Renaissance Neo-Platonism of Marsilio Ficino, Dee did not draw distinctions between his mathematical research and his investigations into Hermetic magic, angel summoning and divination. Instead he considered all of his activities to constitute different facets of the same quest: the search for a transcendent understanding of the divine forms which underlie the visible world, which Dee called "pure verities".

In his lifetime, Dee amassed one of the largest libraries in England. His high status as a scholar also allowed him to play a role in Elizabethan politics. He served as an occasional advisor and tutor to Elizabeth I and nurtured relationships with her ministers Francis Walsingham and William Cecil. Dee also tutored and enjoyed patronage relationships with Sir Philip Sidney, his uncle Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, and Edward Dyer. He also enjoyed patronage from Sir Christopher Hatton.

https://twitter.com/Logo_Daedalus/status/985203144044040192

https://archive.is/h7ibQ

mind meld

Leave Me Alone! Misanthropic Writings from the Anti-Social Edge

people
big-peeps
old-anglo
wiki
history
early-modern
britain
anglosphere
optimate
philosophy
mystic
deep-materialism
science
aristos
math
geometry
conquest-empire
nietzschean
religion
christianity
theos
innovation
the-devil
forms-instances
god-man-beast-victim
gnosis-logos
expansionism
age-of-discovery
oceans
frontier
multi
twitter
social
commentary
backup
pic
memes(ew)
gnon
🐸
books
literature
Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.

Simultaneously with these efforts, Dee immersed himself in the worlds of magic, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. He devoted much time and effort in the last thirty years or so of his life to attempting to commune with angels in order to learn the universal language of creation and bring about the pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. However, Robert Hooke suggested in the chapter Of Dr. Dee's Book of Spirits, that John Dee made use of Trithemian steganography, to conceal his communication with Elizabeth I.[7] A student of the Renaissance Neo-Platonism of Marsilio Ficino, Dee did not draw distinctions between his mathematical research and his investigations into Hermetic magic, angel summoning and divination. Instead he considered all of his activities to constitute different facets of the same quest: the search for a transcendent understanding of the divine forms which underlie the visible world, which Dee called "pure verities".

In his lifetime, Dee amassed one of the largest libraries in England. His high status as a scholar also allowed him to play a role in Elizabethan politics. He served as an occasional advisor and tutor to Elizabeth I and nurtured relationships with her ministers Francis Walsingham and William Cecil. Dee also tutored and enjoyed patronage relationships with Sir Philip Sidney, his uncle Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, and Edward Dyer. He also enjoyed patronage from Sir Christopher Hatton.

https://twitter.com/Logo_Daedalus/status/985203144044040192

https://archive.is/h7ibQ

mind meld

Leave Me Alone! Misanthropic Writings from the Anti-Social Edge

april 2018 by nhaliday

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

april 2018 by nhaliday

The fate of the universe is determined by its density. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "Big Freeze" scenario below.[8] However, observations are not conclusive, and alternative models are still possible.[9]

Big Freeze or heat death

Main articles: Future of an expanding universe and Heat death of the universe

The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature.[10] This scenario, in combination with the Big Rip scenario, is currently gaining ground as the most important hypothesis.[11] It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 1012 to 1014 (1–100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation.[12] Over infinite time, there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease by the Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations,[13][14] and the fluctuation theorem.[15][16]

A related scenario is heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed and there are no gradients—which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The heat death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.[17]

physics
big-picture
world
space
long-short-run
futurism
singularity
wiki
reference
article
nibble
thermo
temperature
entropy-like
order-disorder
death
nihil
bio
complex-systems
cybernetics
increase-decrease
trends
computation
local-global
prediction
time
spatial
spreading
density
distribution
manifolds
geometry
janus
Big Freeze or heat death

Main articles: Future of an expanding universe and Heat death of the universe

The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature.[10] This scenario, in combination with the Big Rip scenario, is currently gaining ground as the most important hypothesis.[11] It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 1012 to 1014 (1–100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation.[12] Over infinite time, there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease by the Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations,[13][14] and the fluctuation theorem.[15][16]

A related scenario is heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed and there are no gradients—which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The heat death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.[17]

april 2018 by nhaliday

Antinomia Imediata – experiments in a reaction from the left

march 2018 by nhaliday

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/lrx/

So, what is the Left Reaction? First of all, it’s reaction: opposition to the modern rationalist establishment, the Cathedral. It opposes the universalist Jacobin program of global government, favoring a fractured geopolitics organized through long-evolved complex systems. It’s profoundly anti-socialist and anti-communist, favoring market economy and individualism. It abhors tribalism and seeks a realistic plan for dismantling it (primarily informed by HBD and HBE). It looks at modernity as a degenerative ratchet, whose only way out is intensification (hence clinging to crypto-marxist market-driven acceleration).

How come can any of this still be in the *Left*? It defends equality of power, i.e. freedom. This radical understanding of liberty is deeply rooted in leftist tradition and has been consistently abhored by the Right. LRx is not democrat, is not socialist, is not progressist and is not even liberal (in its current, American use). But it defends equality of power. It’s utopia is individual sovereignty. It’s method is paleo-agorism. The anti-hierarchy of hunter-gatherer nomads is its understanding of the only realistic objective of equality.

...

In more cosmic terms, it seeks only to fulfill the Revolution’s side in the left-right intelligence pump: mutation or creation of paths. Proudhon’s antinomy is essentially about this: the collective force of the socius, evinced in moral standards and social organization vs the creative force of the individuals, that constantly revolutionize and disrupt the social body. The interplay of these forces create reality (it’s a metaphysics indeed): the Absolute (socius) builds so that the (individualistic) Revolution can destroy so that the Absolute may adapt, and then repeat. The good old formula of ‘solve et coagula’.

Ultimately, if the Neoreaction promises eternal hell, the LRx sneers “but Satan is with us”.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-statement-of-principles/

Liberty is to be understood as the ability and right of all sentient beings to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor, and nothing else, as they see fit. This stems from their self-awareness and their ability to control and choose the content of their actions.

...

Equality is to be understood as the state of no imbalance of power, that is, of no subjection to another sentient being. This stems from their universal ability for empathy, and from their equal ability for reason.

...

It is important to notice that, contrary to usual statements of these two principles, my standpoint is that Liberty and Equality here are not merely compatible, meaning they could coexist in some possible universe, but rather they are two sides of the same coin, complementary and interdependent. There can be NO Liberty where there is no Equality, for the imbalance of power, the state of subjection, will render sentient beings unable to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor[1], and it will limit their ability to choose over their rightful jurisdiction. Likewise, there can be NO Equality without Liberty, for restraining sentient beings’ ability to choose and dispose of their persons and fruits of labor will render some more powerful than the rest, and establish a state of subjection.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/flatness/

equality is the founding principle (and ultimately indistinguishable from) freedom. of course, it’s only in one specific sense of “equality” that this sentence is true.

to try and eliminate the bullshit, let’s turn to networks again:

any nodes’ degrees of freedom is the number of nodes they are connected to in a network. freedom is maximum when the network is symmetrically connected, i. e., when all nodes are connected to each other and thus there is no topographical hierarchy (middlemen) – in other words, flatness.

in this understanding, the maximization of freedom is the maximization of entropy production, that is, of intelligence. As Land puts it:

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/category/philosophy/mutualism/

gnon
blog
stream
politics
polisci
ideology
philosophy
land
accelerationism
left-wing
right-wing
paradox
egalitarianism-hierarchy
civil-liberty
power
hmm
revolution
analytical-holistic
mutation
selection
individualism-collectivism
tribalism
us-them
modernity
multi
tradeoffs
network-structure
complex-systems
cybernetics
randy-ayndy
insight
contrarianism
metameta
metabuch
characterization
cooperate-defect
n-factor
altruism
list
coordination
graphs
visual-understanding
cartoons
intelligence
entropy-like
thermo
information-theory
order-disorder
decentralized
distribution
degrees-of-freedom
analogy
graph-theory
extrema
evolution
interdisciplinary
bio
differential
geometry
anglosphere
optimate
nascent-state
deep-materialism
new-religion
cool
mystic
the-classics
self-interest
interests
reason
volo-avolo
flux-stasis
invariance
government
markets
paying-rent
cost-benefit
peace-violence
frontier
exit-voice
nl-and-so-can-you
war
track-record
usa
history
mostly-modern
world-war
military
justice
protestant-cathol
So, what is the Left Reaction? First of all, it’s reaction: opposition to the modern rationalist establishment, the Cathedral. It opposes the universalist Jacobin program of global government, favoring a fractured geopolitics organized through long-evolved complex systems. It’s profoundly anti-socialist and anti-communist, favoring market economy and individualism. It abhors tribalism and seeks a realistic plan for dismantling it (primarily informed by HBD and HBE). It looks at modernity as a degenerative ratchet, whose only way out is intensification (hence clinging to crypto-marxist market-driven acceleration).

How come can any of this still be in the *Left*? It defends equality of power, i.e. freedom. This radical understanding of liberty is deeply rooted in leftist tradition and has been consistently abhored by the Right. LRx is not democrat, is not socialist, is not progressist and is not even liberal (in its current, American use). But it defends equality of power. It’s utopia is individual sovereignty. It’s method is paleo-agorism. The anti-hierarchy of hunter-gatherer nomads is its understanding of the only realistic objective of equality.

...

In more cosmic terms, it seeks only to fulfill the Revolution’s side in the left-right intelligence pump: mutation or creation of paths. Proudhon’s antinomy is essentially about this: the collective force of the socius, evinced in moral standards and social organization vs the creative force of the individuals, that constantly revolutionize and disrupt the social body. The interplay of these forces create reality (it’s a metaphysics indeed): the Absolute (socius) builds so that the (individualistic) Revolution can destroy so that the Absolute may adapt, and then repeat. The good old formula of ‘solve et coagula’.

Ultimately, if the Neoreaction promises eternal hell, the LRx sneers “but Satan is with us”.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-statement-of-principles/

Liberty is to be understood as the ability and right of all sentient beings to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor, and nothing else, as they see fit. This stems from their self-awareness and their ability to control and choose the content of their actions.

...

Equality is to be understood as the state of no imbalance of power, that is, of no subjection to another sentient being. This stems from their universal ability for empathy, and from their equal ability for reason.

...

It is important to notice that, contrary to usual statements of these two principles, my standpoint is that Liberty and Equality here are not merely compatible, meaning they could coexist in some possible universe, but rather they are two sides of the same coin, complementary and interdependent. There can be NO Liberty where there is no Equality, for the imbalance of power, the state of subjection, will render sentient beings unable to dispose of their persons and the fruits of their labor[1], and it will limit their ability to choose over their rightful jurisdiction. Likewise, there can be NO Equality without Liberty, for restraining sentient beings’ ability to choose and dispose of their persons and fruits of labor will render some more powerful than the rest, and establish a state of subjection.

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/flatness/

equality is the founding principle (and ultimately indistinguishable from) freedom. of course, it’s only in one specific sense of “equality” that this sentence is true.

to try and eliminate the bullshit, let’s turn to networks again:

any nodes’ degrees of freedom is the number of nodes they are connected to in a network. freedom is maximum when the network is symmetrically connected, i. e., when all nodes are connected to each other and thus there is no topographical hierarchy (middlemen) – in other words, flatness.

in this understanding, the maximization of freedom is the maximization of entropy production, that is, of intelligence. As Land puts it:

https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/category/philosophy/mutualism/

march 2018 by nhaliday

30 Absolutely Insane Questions from China's Gaokao – That’s Shanghai

news org:foreign list quiz education higher-ed china asia org:lite math geometry letters wisdom integrity literature big-peeps philosophy analytical-holistic n-factor charity morality science biotech labor status parenting tradeoffs civil-liberty parable analogy volo-avolo sinosphere ranking measurement chemistry anglo language history iron-age mediterranean the-classics conquest-empire civilization law leviathan usa geography environment

february 2018 by nhaliday

news org:foreign list quiz education higher-ed china asia org:lite math geometry letters wisdom integrity literature big-peeps philosophy analytical-holistic n-factor charity morality science biotech labor status parenting tradeoffs civil-liberty parable analogy volo-avolo sinosphere ranking measurement chemistry anglo language history iron-age mediterranean the-classics conquest-empire civilization law leviathan usa geography environment

february 2018 by nhaliday

Hyperbolic angle - Wikipedia

november 2017 by nhaliday

A unit circle {\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}=1} x^2 + y^2 = 1 has a circular sector with an area half of the circular angle in radians. Analogously, a unit hyperbola {\displaystyle x^{2}-y^{2}=1} {\displaystyle x^{2}-y^{2}=1} has a hyperbolic sector with an area half of the hyperbolic angle.

nibble
math
trivia
wiki
reference
physics
relativity
concept
atoms
geometry
ground-up
characterization
measure
definition
plots
calculation
nitty-gritty
direction
metrics
manifolds
november 2017 by nhaliday

What is the connection between special and general relativity? - Physics Stack Exchange

november 2017 by nhaliday

Special relativity is the "special case" of general relativity where spacetime is flat. The speed of light is essential to both.

nibble
q-n-a
overflow
physics
relativity
explanation
synthesis
hi-order-bits
ground-up
gravity
summary
aphorism
differential
geometry
november 2017 by nhaliday

What is the difference between general and special relativity? - Quora

november 2017 by nhaliday

General Relativity is, quite simply, needed to explain gravity.

Special Relativity is the special case of GR, when the metric is flat — which means no gravity.

You need General Relativity when the metric gets all curvy, and when things start to experience gravitation.

nibble
q-n-a
qra
explanation
physics
relativity
synthesis
hi-order-bits
ground-up
gravity
summary
aphorism
differential
geometry
Special Relativity is the special case of GR, when the metric is flat — which means no gravity.

You need General Relativity when the metric gets all curvy, and when things start to experience gravitation.

november 2017 by nhaliday

gn.general topology - Pair of curves joining opposite corners of a square must intersect---proof? - MathOverflow

october 2017 by nhaliday

In his 'Ordinary Differential Equations' (sec. 1.2) V.I. Arnold says "... every pair of curves in the square joining different pairs of opposite corners must intersect".

This is obvious geometrically but I was wondering how one could go about proving this rigorously. I have thought of a proof using Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem which I describe below. I would greatly appreciate the group's comments on whether this proof is right and if a simpler proof is possible.

...

Since the full Jordan curve theorem is quite subtle, it might be worth pointing out that theorem in question reduces to the Jordan curve theorem for polygons, which is easier.

Suppose on the contrary that the curves A,BA,B joining opposite corners do not meet. Since A,BA,B are closed sets, their minimum distance apart is some ε>0ε>0. By compactness, each of A,BA,B can be partitioned into finitely many arcs, each of which lies in a disk of diameter <ε/3<ε/3. Then, by a homotopy inside each disk we can replace A,BA,B by polygonal paths A′,B′A′,B′ that join the opposite corners of the square and are still disjoint.

Also, we can replace A′,B′A′,B′ by simple polygonal paths A″,B″A″,B″ by omitting loops. Now we can close A″A″ to a polygon, and B″B″ goes from its "inside" to "outside" without meeting it, contrary to the Jordan curve theorem for polygons.

- John Stillwell

nibble
q-n-a
overflow
math
geometry
topology
tidbits
intricacy
intersection
proofs
gotchas
oly
mathtariat
fixed-point
math.AT
manifolds
intersection-connectedness
This is obvious geometrically but I was wondering how one could go about proving this rigorously. I have thought of a proof using Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem which I describe below. I would greatly appreciate the group's comments on whether this proof is right and if a simpler proof is possible.

...

Since the full Jordan curve theorem is quite subtle, it might be worth pointing out that theorem in question reduces to the Jordan curve theorem for polygons, which is easier.

Suppose on the contrary that the curves A,BA,B joining opposite corners do not meet. Since A,BA,B are closed sets, their minimum distance apart is some ε>0ε>0. By compactness, each of A,BA,B can be partitioned into finitely many arcs, each of which lies in a disk of diameter <ε/3<ε/3. Then, by a homotopy inside each disk we can replace A,BA,B by polygonal paths A′,B′A′,B′ that join the opposite corners of the square and are still disjoint.

Also, we can replace A′,B′A′,B′ by simple polygonal paths A″,B″A″,B″ by omitting loops. Now we can close A″A″ to a polygon, and B″B″ goes from its "inside" to "outside" without meeting it, contrary to the Jordan curve theorem for polygons.

- John Stillwell

october 2017 by nhaliday

Best Topology Olympiad ***EVER*** - Affine Mess - Quora

october 2017 by nhaliday

Most people take courses in topology, algebraic topology, knot theory, differential topology and what have you without once doing anything with a finite topological space. There may have been some quirky questions about such spaces early on in a point-set topology course, but most of us come out of these courses thinking that finite topological spaces are either discrete or only useful as an exotic counterexample to some standard separation property. The mere idea of calculating the fundamental group for a 4-point space seems ludicrous.

Only it’s not. This is a genuine question, not a joke, and I find it both hilarious and super educational. DO IT!!

nibble
qra
announcement
math
geometry
topology
puzzles
rec-math
oly
links
math.AT
ground-up
finiteness
math.GN
Only it’s not. This is a genuine question, not a joke, and I find it both hilarious and super educational. DO IT!!

october 2017 by nhaliday

Can You Pass Harvard's 1869 Entrance Exam? - Business Insider

september 2017 by nhaliday

hard classics + basicish math

news
org:lite
org:biz
history
pre-ww2
early-modern
usa
education
higher-ed
dysgenics
the-classics
canon
iron-age
mediterranean
war
quiz
psychometrics
math
geometry
ground-up
calculation
foreign-lang
comparison
big-peeps
multiplicative
old-anglo
harvard
elite
ranking
measurement
september 2017 by nhaliday

Power of a point - Wikipedia

september 2017 by nhaliday

The power of point P (see in Figure 1) can be defined equivalently as the product of distances from the point P to the two intersection points of any ray emanating from P.

nibble
math
geometry
spatial
ground-up
concept
metrics
invariance
identity
atoms
wiki
reference
measure
yoga
calculation
september 2017 by nhaliday

APPENDIX H: Basic Physics of EMP, Beam Weapons. and ABM

pdf papers white-paper physics electromag nuclear arms technology the-world-is-just-atoms explanation applications nibble ideas relativity military data scale magnitude phys-energy street-fighting earth sky spatial geometry geography usa measure yoga meta:war

september 2017 by nhaliday

pdf papers white-paper physics electromag nuclear arms technology the-world-is-just-atoms explanation applications nibble ideas relativity military data scale magnitude phys-energy street-fighting earth sky spatial geometry geography usa measure yoga meta:war

september 2017 by nhaliday

newtonian gravity - Newton's original proof of gravitation for non-point-mass objects - Physics Stack Exchange

september 2017 by nhaliday

This theorem is Proposition LXXI, Theorem XXXI in the Principia. To warm up, consider the more straightforward proof of the preceding theorem, that there's no inverse-square force inside of a spherical shell:

picture

The crux of the argument is that the triangles HPI and LPK are similar. The mass enclosed in the small-but-near patch of sphere HI goes like the square of the distance HP, while the mass enclosed in the large-but-far patch of sphere KL, with the same solid angle, goes like the square of the distance KP. This mass ratio cancels out the distance-squared ratio governing the strength of the force, and so the net force from those two patches vanishes.

For a point mass outside a shell, Newton's approach is essentially the same as the modern approach:

picture

One integral is removed because we're considering a thin spherical shell rather than a solid sphere. The second integral, "as the semi-circle AKB revolves about the diameter AB," trivially turns Newton's infinitesimal arcs HI and KL into annuli.

The third integral is over all the annuli in the sphere, over 0≤ϕ≤τ/20≤ϕ≤τ/2 or over R−r≤s≤R+rR−r≤s≤R+r. This one is a little bit hairy, even with the advantage of modern notation.

Newton's clever trick is to consider the relationship between the force due to the smaller, nearer annulus HI and the larger, farther annulus KL defined by the same viewing angle (in modern notation, dθdθ). If I understand correctly he argues again, based on lots of similar triangles with infinitesimal angles, that the smaller-but-nearer annulus and the larger-but-farther annulus exert the same force at P. Furthermore, he shows that the force doesn't depend on the distance PF, and thus doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere; the only parameter left is the distance PS (squared) between the particle and the sphere's center. Since the argument doesn't depend on the angle HPS, it's true for all the annuli, and the theorem is proved.

nibble
q-n-a
overflow
giants
old-anglo
the-trenches
physics
mechanics
gravity
proofs
symmetry
geometry
spatial
picture

The crux of the argument is that the triangles HPI and LPK are similar. The mass enclosed in the small-but-near patch of sphere HI goes like the square of the distance HP, while the mass enclosed in the large-but-far patch of sphere KL, with the same solid angle, goes like the square of the distance KP. This mass ratio cancels out the distance-squared ratio governing the strength of the force, and so the net force from those two patches vanishes.

For a point mass outside a shell, Newton's approach is essentially the same as the modern approach:

picture

One integral is removed because we're considering a thin spherical shell rather than a solid sphere. The second integral, "as the semi-circle AKB revolves about the diameter AB," trivially turns Newton's infinitesimal arcs HI and KL into annuli.

The third integral is over all the annuli in the sphere, over 0≤ϕ≤τ/20≤ϕ≤τ/2 or over R−r≤s≤R+rR−r≤s≤R+r. This one is a little bit hairy, even with the advantage of modern notation.

Newton's clever trick is to consider the relationship between the force due to the smaller, nearer annulus HI and the larger, farther annulus KL defined by the same viewing angle (in modern notation, dθdθ). If I understand correctly he argues again, based on lots of similar triangles with infinitesimal angles, that the smaller-but-nearer annulus and the larger-but-farther annulus exert the same force at P. Furthermore, he shows that the force doesn't depend on the distance PF, and thus doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere; the only parameter left is the distance PS (squared) between the particle and the sphere's center. Since the argument doesn't depend on the angle HPS, it's true for all the annuli, and the theorem is proved.

september 2017 by nhaliday

Inscribed angle - Wikipedia

august 2017 by nhaliday

pf:

- for triangle w/ one side = a diameter, draw isosceles triangle and use supplementary angle identities

- otherwise draw second triangle w/ side = a diameter, and use above result twice

nibble
math
geometry
spatial
ground-up
wiki
reference
proofs
identity
levers
yoga
- for triangle w/ one side = a diameter, draw isosceles triangle and use supplementary angle identities

- otherwise draw second triangle w/ side = a diameter, and use above result twice

august 2017 by nhaliday

Geometers, Scribes, and the structure of intelligence | Compass Rose

july 2017 by nhaliday

cf related comments by Roger T. Ames (I highlighted them) on Greeks vs. Chinese, spatiality leading to objectivity, etc.

ratty
ssc
thinking
rationality
neurons
intelligence
iq
psychometrics
psychology
cog-psych
spatial
math
geometry
roots
chart
insight
law
social-norms
contracts
coordination
language
religion
judaism
adversarial
programming
structure
ideas
history
iron-age
mediterranean
the-classics
alien-character
intuition
lens
n-factor
thick-thin
systematic-ad-hoc
analytical-holistic
metameta
metabuch
🤖
rigidity
info-dynamics
flexibility
things
legacy
investing
securities
trivia
wealth
age-generation
s:*
wordlessness
problem-solving
rigor
discovery
🔬
science
revolution
reason
apollonian-dionysian
essence-existence
july 2017 by nhaliday

co.combinatorics - Classification of Platonic solids - MathOverflow

july 2017 by nhaliday

My question is very basic: where can I find a complete (and hopefully self-contained) proof of the classification of Platonic solids? In all the references that I found, they use Euler's formula v−e+f=2v−e+f=2 to show that there are exactly five possible triples (v,e,f)(v,e,f). But of course this is not a complete proof because it does not rule out the possibility of different configurations or deformations. Has anyone ever written up a complete proof of this statement?!

...

This is a classical question. Here is my reading of it: Why is there a unique polytope with given combinatorics of faces, which are all regular polygons? Of course, for simple polytopes (tetrahedron, cube, dodecahedron) this is clear, but for the octahedron and icosahedron this is less clear.

The answer lies in the Cauchy's theorem. It was Legendre, while writing his Elements of Geometry and Trigonometry, noticed that Euclid's proof is incomplete in the Elements. Curiously, Euclid finds both radii of inscribed and circumscribed spheres (correctly) without ever explaining why they exist. Cauchy worked out a proof while still a student in 1813, more or less specifically for this purpose. The proof also had a technical gap which was found and patched up by Steinitz in 1920s.

The complete (corrected) proof can be found in the celebrated Proofs from the Book, or in Marcel Berger's Geometry. My book gives a bit more of historical context and some soft arguments (ch. 19). It's worth comparing this proof with (an erroneous) pre-Steinitz exposition, say in Hadamard's Leçons de Géométrie Elémentaire II, or with an early post-Steinitz correct but tedious proof given in (otherwise, excellent) Alexandrov's monograph (see also ch.26 in my book which compares all the approaches).

P.S. Note that Coxeter in Regular Polytopes can completely avoid this issue but taking a different (modern) definition of the regular polytopes (which are symmetric under group actions). For a modern exposition and the state of art of this approach, see McMullen and Schulte's Abstract Regular Polytopes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid#Classification

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/46502/on-the-number-of-archimedean-solids

q-n-a
overflow
math
topology
geometry
math.CO
history
iron-age
mediterranean
the-classics
multi
curiosity
clarity
proofs
nibble
wiki
reference
characterization
uniqueness
list
ground-up
...

This is a classical question. Here is my reading of it: Why is there a unique polytope with given combinatorics of faces, which are all regular polygons? Of course, for simple polytopes (tetrahedron, cube, dodecahedron) this is clear, but for the octahedron and icosahedron this is less clear.

The answer lies in the Cauchy's theorem. It was Legendre, while writing his Elements of Geometry and Trigonometry, noticed that Euclid's proof is incomplete in the Elements. Curiously, Euclid finds both radii of inscribed and circumscribed spheres (correctly) without ever explaining why they exist. Cauchy worked out a proof while still a student in 1813, more or less specifically for this purpose. The proof also had a technical gap which was found and patched up by Steinitz in 1920s.

The complete (corrected) proof can be found in the celebrated Proofs from the Book, or in Marcel Berger's Geometry. My book gives a bit more of historical context and some soft arguments (ch. 19). It's worth comparing this proof with (an erroneous) pre-Steinitz exposition, say in Hadamard's Leçons de Géométrie Elémentaire II, or with an early post-Steinitz correct but tedious proof given in (otherwise, excellent) Alexandrov's monograph (see also ch.26 in my book which compares all the approaches).

P.S. Note that Coxeter in Regular Polytopes can completely avoid this issue but taking a different (modern) definition of the regular polytopes (which are symmetric under group actions). For a modern exposition and the state of art of this approach, see McMullen and Schulte's Abstract Regular Polytopes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid#Classification

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/46502/on-the-number-of-archimedean-solids

july 2017 by nhaliday

If there are 3 space dimensions and one time dimension, is it theoretically possible to have multiple time demensions and if so how would it work? : askscience

june 2017 by nhaliday

Yes, we can consider spacetimes with any number of temporal or spatial dimensions. The theory is set up essentially the same. Spacetime is modeled as a smooth n-dimensional manifold with a pseudo-Riemannian metric, and the metric satisfies the Einstein field equations (Einstein tensor = stress tensor).

A pseudo-Riemannian tensor is characterized by its signature, i.e., the number of negative quadratic forms in its metric and the number of positive quadratic forms. The coordinates with negative forms correspond to temporal dimensions. (This is a convention that is fixed from the start.) In general relativity, spacetime is 4-dimensional, and the signature is (1,3), so there is 1 temporal dimension and 3 spatial dimensions.

Okay, so that's a lot of math, but it all basically means that, yes, it makes sense to ask questions like "what does a universe with 2 time dimensions and 3 spatial dimensions look like?" It turns out that spacetimes with more than 1 temporal dimension are very pathological. For one, initial value problems do not generally have unique solutions. There is also generally no canonical way to pick out 1 of the infinitely many solutions to the equations of physics. This means that predictability is impossible (e.g., how do you know which solution is the correct one?). Essentially, there is no meaningful physics in a spacetime with more than 1 temporal dimension.

q-n-a
reddit
social
discussion
trivia
math
physics
relativity
curiosity
state
dimensionality
differential
geometry
gedanken
volo-avolo
A pseudo-Riemannian tensor is characterized by its signature, i.e., the number of negative quadratic forms in its metric and the number of positive quadratic forms. The coordinates with negative forms correspond to temporal dimensions. (This is a convention that is fixed from the start.) In general relativity, spacetime is 4-dimensional, and the signature is (1,3), so there is 1 temporal dimension and 3 spatial dimensions.

Okay, so that's a lot of math, but it all basically means that, yes, it makes sense to ask questions like "what does a universe with 2 time dimensions and 3 spatial dimensions look like?" It turns out that spacetimes with more than 1 temporal dimension are very pathological. For one, initial value problems do not generally have unique solutions. There is also generally no canonical way to pick out 1 of the infinitely many solutions to the equations of physics. This means that predictability is impossible (e.g., how do you know which solution is the correct one?). Essentially, there is no meaningful physics in a spacetime with more than 1 temporal dimension.

june 2017 by nhaliday

Lucio Russo - Wikipedia

may 2017 by nhaliday

In The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn (Italian: La rivoluzione dimenticata), Russo promotes the belief that Hellenistic science in the period 320-144 BC reached heights not achieved by Classical age science, and proposes that it went further than ordinarily thought, in multiple fields not normally associated with ancient science.

La Rivoluzione Dimenticata (The Forgotten Revolution), Reviewed by Sandro Graffi: http://www.ams.org/notices/199805/review-graffi.pdf

Before turning to the question of the decline of Hellenistic science, I come back to the new light shed by the book on Euclid’s Elements and on pre-Ptolemaic astronomy. Euclid’s definitions of the elementary geometric entities—point, straight line, plane—at the beginning of the Elements have long presented a problem.7 Their nature is in sharp contrast with the approach taken in the rest of the book, and continued by mathematicians ever since, of refraining from defining the fundamental entities explicitly but limiting themselves to postulating the properties which they enjoy. Why should Euclid be so hopelessly obscure right at the beginning and so smooth just after? The answer is: the definitions are not Euclid’s. Toward the beginning of the second century A.D. Heron of Alexandria found it convenient to introduce definitions of the elementary objects (a sign of decadence!) in his commentary on Euclid’s Elements, which had been written at least 400 years before. All manuscripts of the Elements copied ever since included Heron’s definitions without mention, whence their attribution to Euclid himself. The philological evidence leading to this conclusion is quite convincing.8

...

What about the general and steady (on the average) impoverishment of Hellenistic science under the Roman empire? This is a major historical problem, strongly tied to the even bigger one of the decline and fall of the antique civilization itself. I would summarize the author’s argument by saying that it basically represents an application to science of a widely accepted general theory on decadence of antique civilization going back to Max Weber. Roman society, mainly based on slave labor, underwent an ultimately unrecoverable crisis as the traditional sources of that labor force, essentially wars, progressively dried up. To save basic farming, the remaining slaves were promoted to be serfs, and poor free peasants reduced to serfdom, but this made trade disappear. A society in which production is almost entirely based on serfdom and with no trade clearly has very little need of culture, including science and technology. As Max Weber pointed out, when trade vanished, so did the marble splendor of the ancient towns, as well as the spiritual assets that went with it: art, literature, science, and sophisticated commercial laws. The recovery of Hellenistic science then had to wait until the disappearance of serfdom at the end of the Middle Ages. To quote Max Weber: “Only then with renewed vigor did the old giant rise up again.”

...

The epilogue contains the (rather pessimistic) views of the author on the future of science, threatened by the apparent triumph of today’s vogue of irrationality even in leading institutions (e.g., an astrology professorship at the Sorbonne). He looks at today’s ever-increasing tendency to teach science more on a fideistic than on a deductive or experimental basis as the first sign of a decline which could be analogous to the post-Hellenistic one.

Praising Alexandrians to excess: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/2058-7058/17/4/35

The Economic Record review: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2004.00203.x

listed here: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:c5c09f2687c1

Was Roman Science in Decline? (Excerpt from My New Book): https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13477

people
trivia
cocktail
history
iron-age
mediterranean
the-classics
speculation
west-hunter
scitariat
knowledge
wiki
ideas
wild-ideas
technology
innovation
contrarianism
multi
pdf
org:mat
books
review
critique
regularizer
todo
piracy
physics
canon
science
the-trenches
the-great-west-whale
broad-econ
the-world-is-just-atoms
frontier
speedometer
🔬
conquest-empire
giants
economics
article
growth-econ
cjones-like
industrial-revolution
empirical
absolute-relative
truth
rot
zeitgeist
gibbon
big-peeps
civilization
malthus
roots
old-anglo
britain
early-modern
medieval
social-structure
limits
quantitative-qualitative
rigor
lens
systematic-ad-hoc
analytical-holistic
cycles
space
mechanics
math
geometry
gravity
revolution
novelty
meta:science
is-ought
flexibility
trends
reason
applicability-prereqs
theory-practice
traces
evidence
La Rivoluzione Dimenticata (The Forgotten Revolution), Reviewed by Sandro Graffi: http://www.ams.org/notices/199805/review-graffi.pdf

Before turning to the question of the decline of Hellenistic science, I come back to the new light shed by the book on Euclid’s Elements and on pre-Ptolemaic astronomy. Euclid’s definitions of the elementary geometric entities—point, straight line, plane—at the beginning of the Elements have long presented a problem.7 Their nature is in sharp contrast with the approach taken in the rest of the book, and continued by mathematicians ever since, of refraining from defining the fundamental entities explicitly but limiting themselves to postulating the properties which they enjoy. Why should Euclid be so hopelessly obscure right at the beginning and so smooth just after? The answer is: the definitions are not Euclid’s. Toward the beginning of the second century A.D. Heron of Alexandria found it convenient to introduce definitions of the elementary objects (a sign of decadence!) in his commentary on Euclid’s Elements, which had been written at least 400 years before. All manuscripts of the Elements copied ever since included Heron’s definitions without mention, whence their attribution to Euclid himself. The philological evidence leading to this conclusion is quite convincing.8

...

What about the general and steady (on the average) impoverishment of Hellenistic science under the Roman empire? This is a major historical problem, strongly tied to the even bigger one of the decline and fall of the antique civilization itself. I would summarize the author’s argument by saying that it basically represents an application to science of a widely accepted general theory on decadence of antique civilization going back to Max Weber. Roman society, mainly based on slave labor, underwent an ultimately unrecoverable crisis as the traditional sources of that labor force, essentially wars, progressively dried up. To save basic farming, the remaining slaves were promoted to be serfs, and poor free peasants reduced to serfdom, but this made trade disappear. A society in which production is almost entirely based on serfdom and with no trade clearly has very little need of culture, including science and technology. As Max Weber pointed out, when trade vanished, so did the marble splendor of the ancient towns, as well as the spiritual assets that went with it: art, literature, science, and sophisticated commercial laws. The recovery of Hellenistic science then had to wait until the disappearance of serfdom at the end of the Middle Ages. To quote Max Weber: “Only then with renewed vigor did the old giant rise up again.”

...

The epilogue contains the (rather pessimistic) views of the author on the future of science, threatened by the apparent triumph of today’s vogue of irrationality even in leading institutions (e.g., an astrology professorship at the Sorbonne). He looks at today’s ever-increasing tendency to teach science more on a fideistic than on a deductive or experimental basis as the first sign of a decline which could be analogous to the post-Hellenistic one.

Praising Alexandrians to excess: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/2058-7058/17/4/35

The Economic Record review: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2004.00203.x

listed here: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:c5c09f2687c1

Was Roman Science in Decline? (Excerpt from My New Book): https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13477

may 2017 by nhaliday

Statistician Proves Gaussian Correlation Inequality | Quanta Magazine

news org:mag org:sci popsci math probability stats geometry math.MG research multi pdf papers preprint nibble profile stories AMT intersection estimate measure curvature convexity-curvature org:inst org:mat intersection-connectedness

march 2017 by nhaliday

news org:mag org:sci popsci math probability stats geometry math.MG research multi pdf papers preprint nibble profile stories AMT intersection estimate measure curvature convexity-curvature org:inst org:mat intersection-connectedness

march 2017 by nhaliday

how big was the edge? | West Hunter

march 2017 by nhaliday

random side note:

- dysgenics running at -.5-1 IQ/generation in NW Europe since ~1800 and China by ~1960

- gap between east asians and europeans typically a bit less than .5 SD (or .3 SD if you look at mainland chinese not asian-americans?), similar variances

- 160/30 * 1/15 = .36, so could explain most of gap depending on when exactly dysgenics started

- maybe Europeans were just smarter back then? still seems like you need additional cultural/personality and historical factors. could be parasite load too.

west-hunter
discussion
history
early-modern
science
innovation
comparison
asia
china
divergence
the-great-west-whale
culture
society
technology
civilization
europe
frontier
arms
military
agriculture
discovery
coordination
literature
sinosphere
roots
anglosphere
gregory-clark
spearhead
parasites-microbiome
dysgenics
definite-planning
reflection
s:*
big-picture
🔬
track-record
scitariat
broad-econ
info-dynamics
chart
prepping
zeitgeist
rot
wealth-of-nations
cultural-dynamics
ideas
enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation
occident
modernity
microfoundations
the-trenches
marginal
summary
orient
speedometer
the-world-is-just-atoms
gnon
math
geometry
defense
architecture
hari-seldon
- dysgenics running at -.5-1 IQ/generation in NW Europe since ~1800 and China by ~1960

- gap between east asians and europeans typically a bit less than .5 SD (or .3 SD if you look at mainland chinese not asian-americans?), similar variances

- 160/30 * 1/15 = .36, so could explain most of gap depending on when exactly dysgenics started

- maybe Europeans were just smarter back then? still seems like you need additional cultural/personality and historical factors. could be parasite load too.

march 2017 by nhaliday

Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education

news org:mag org:edu profile math math.AT math.MG geometry applications polisci government law social-choice interview maps usa vague interdisciplinary current-events multi org:sci politics topology ethical-algorithms data-science biases nibble geography org:inst

february 2017 by nhaliday

news org:mag org:edu profile math math.AT math.MG geometry applications polisci government law social-choice interview maps usa vague interdisciplinary current-events multi org:sci politics topology ethical-algorithms data-science biases nibble geography org:inst

february 2017 by nhaliday

18.177 Theory of Probability: Fall, 2015

february 2017 by nhaliday

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-177-universal-random-structures-in-2d-fall-2015/index.htm

unit
mit
course
math
probability
geometry
structure
existence
random
topics
stochastic-processes
lecture-notes
lectures
slides
reading
links
multi
ocw
characterization
atoms
february 2017 by nhaliday

A Unified Theory of Randomness | Quanta Magazine

february 2017 by nhaliday

Beyond the one-dimensional random walk, there are many other kinds of random shapes. There are varieties of random paths, random two-dimensional surfaces, random growth models that approximate, for example, the way a lichen spreads on a rock. All of these shapes emerge naturally in the physical world, yet until recently they’ve existed beyond the boundaries of rigorous mathematical thought. Given a large collection of random paths or random two-dimensional shapes, mathematicians would have been at a loss to say much about what these random objects shared in common.

Yet in work over the past few years, Sheffield and his frequent collaborator, Jason Miller, a professor at the University of Cambridge, have shown that these random shapes can be categorized into various classes, that these classes have distinct properties of their own, and that some kinds of random objects have surprisingly clear connections with other kinds of random objects. Their work forms the beginning of a unified theory of geometric randomness.

news
org:mag
org:sci
math
research
probability
profile
structure
geometry
random
popsci
nibble
emergent
org:inst
Yet in work over the past few years, Sheffield and his frequent collaborator, Jason Miller, a professor at the University of Cambridge, have shown that these random shapes can be categorized into various classes, that these classes have distinct properties of their own, and that some kinds of random objects have surprisingly clear connections with other kinds of random objects. Their work forms the beginning of a unified theory of geometric randomness.

february 2017 by nhaliday

A cube, a starfish, a thin shell, and the central limit theorem – Libres pensées d'un mathématicien ordinaire

mathtariat org:bleg nibble math acm probability concentration-of-measure high-dimension cartoons limits dimensionality measure yoga hi-order-bits synthesis exposition spatial geometry math.MG curvature convexity-curvature

february 2017 by nhaliday

mathtariat org:bleg nibble math acm probability concentration-of-measure high-dimension cartoons limits dimensionality measure yoga hi-order-bits synthesis exposition spatial geometry math.MG curvature convexity-curvature

february 2017 by nhaliday

Riemannian manifold - Wikipedia

february 2017 by nhaliday

In differential geometry, a (smooth) Riemannian manifold or (smooth) Riemannian space (M,g) is a real smooth manifold M equipped with an inner product {\displaystyle g_{p}} on the tangent space {\displaystyle T_{p}M} at each point {\displaystyle p} that varies smoothly from point to point in the sense that if X and Y are vector fields on M, then {\displaystyle p\mapsto g_{p}(X(p),Y(p))} is a smooth function. The family {\displaystyle g_{p}} of inner products is called a Riemannian metric (tensor). These terms are named after the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann. The study of Riemannian manifolds constitutes the subject called Riemannian geometry.

A Riemannian metric (tensor) makes it possible to define various geometric notions on a Riemannian manifold, such as angles, lengths of curves, areas (or volumes), curvature, gradients of functions and divergence of vector fields.

concept
definition
math
differential
geometry
manifolds
inner-product
norms
measure
nibble
A Riemannian metric (tensor) makes it possible to define various geometric notions on a Riemannian manifold, such as angles, lengths of curves, areas (or volumes), curvature, gradients of functions and divergence of vector fields.

february 2017 by nhaliday

Orthogonal — Greg Egan

february 2017 by nhaliday

In Yalda’s universe, light has no universal speed and its creation generates energy.

On Yalda’s world, plants make food by emitting their own light into the dark night sky.

greg-egan
fiction
gedanken
physics
electromag
differential
geometry
thermo
space
cool
curiosity
reading
exposition
init
stat-mech
waves
relativity
positivity
unit
wild-ideas
speed
gravity
big-picture
🔬
xenobio
ideas
scifi-fantasy
signum
On Yalda’s world, plants make food by emitting their own light into the dark night sky.

february 2017 by nhaliday

Prékopa–Leindler inequality | Academically Interesting

february 2017 by nhaliday

Consider the following statements:

1. The shape with the largest volume enclosed by a given surface area is the n-dimensional sphere.

2. A marginal or sum of log-concave distributions is log-concave.

3. Any Lipschitz function of a standard n-dimensional Gaussian distribution concentrates around its mean.

What do these all have in common? Despite being fairly non-trivial and deep results, they all can be proved in less than half of a page using the Prékopa–Leindler inequality.

ie, Brunn-Minkowski

acmtariat
clever-rats
ratty
math
acm
geometry
measure
math.MG
estimate
distribution
concentration-of-measure
smoothness
regularity
org:bleg
nibble
brunn-minkowski
curvature
convexity-curvature
1. The shape with the largest volume enclosed by a given surface area is the n-dimensional sphere.

2. A marginal or sum of log-concave distributions is log-concave.

3. Any Lipschitz function of a standard n-dimensional Gaussian distribution concentrates around its mean.

What do these all have in common? Despite being fairly non-trivial and deep results, they all can be proved in less than half of a page using the Prékopa–Leindler inequality.

ie, Brunn-Minkowski

february 2017 by nhaliday

The Brunn-Minkowski Inequality | The n-Category Café

february 2017 by nhaliday

For instance, this happens in the plane when A is a horizontal line segment and B is a vertical line segment. There’s obviously no hope of getting an equation for Vol(A+B) in terms of Vol(A) and Vol(B). But this example suggests that we might be able to get an inequality, stating that Vol(A+B) is at least as big as some function of Vol(A) and Vol(B).

The Brunn-Minkowski inequality does this, but it’s really about linearized volume, Vol^{1/n}, rather than volume itself. If length is measured in metres then so is Vol^{1/n}.

...

Nice post, Tom. To readers whose background isn’t in certain areas of geometry and analysis, it’s not obvious that the Brunn–Minkowski inequality is more than a curiosity, the proof of the isoperimetric inequality notwithstanding. So let me add that Brunn–Minkowski is an absolutely vital tool in many parts of geometry, analysis, and probability theory, with extremely diverse applications. Gardner’s survey is a great place to start, but by no means exhaustive.

I’ll also add a couple remarks about regularity issues. You point out that Brunn–Minkowski holds “in the vast generality of measurable sets”, but it may not be initially obvious that this needs to be interpreted as “when A, B, and A+B are all Lebesgue measurable”, since A+B need not be measurable when A and B are (although you can modify the definition of A+B to work for arbitrary measurable A and B; this is discussed by Gardner).

mathtariat
math
estimate
exposition
geometry
math.MG
measure
links
regularity
survey
papers
org:bleg
nibble
homogeneity
brunn-minkowski
curvature
convexity-curvature
The Brunn-Minkowski inequality does this, but it’s really about linearized volume, Vol^{1/n}, rather than volume itself. If length is measured in metres then so is Vol^{1/n}.

...

Nice post, Tom. To readers whose background isn’t in certain areas of geometry and analysis, it’s not obvious that the Brunn–Minkowski inequality is more than a curiosity, the proof of the isoperimetric inequality notwithstanding. So let me add that Brunn–Minkowski is an absolutely vital tool in many parts of geometry, analysis, and probability theory, with extremely diverse applications. Gardner’s survey is a great place to start, but by no means exhaustive.

I’ll also add a couple remarks about regularity issues. You point out that Brunn–Minkowski holds “in the vast generality of measurable sets”, but it may not be initially obvious that this needs to be interpreted as “when A, B, and A+B are all Lebesgue measurable”, since A+B need not be measurable when A and B are (although you can modify the definition of A+B to work for arbitrary measurable A and B; this is discussed by Gardner).

february 2017 by nhaliday

The Convex Geometry of Inverse Problems - YouTube

video talks research optimization learning-theory machine-learning acm ben-recht acmtariat sparsity linear-algebra norms robust isotropy geometry math.MG nibble compressed-sensing curvature matrix-factorization convexity-curvature direction

february 2017 by nhaliday

video talks research optimization learning-theory machine-learning acm ben-recht acmtariat sparsity linear-algebra norms robust isotropy geometry math.MG nibble compressed-sensing curvature matrix-factorization convexity-curvature direction

february 2017 by nhaliday

ho.history overview - History of the high-dimensional volume paradox - MathOverflow

q-n-a overflow math math.MG geometry spatial dimensionality limits measure concentration-of-measure history stories giants cartoons soft-question nibble paradox novelty high-dimension examples gotchas

january 2017 by nhaliday

q-n-a overflow math math.MG geometry spatial dimensionality limits measure concentration-of-measure history stories giants cartoons soft-question nibble paradox novelty high-dimension examples gotchas

january 2017 by nhaliday

pr.probability - "Entropy" proof of Brunn-Minkowski Inequality? - MathOverflow

q-n-a overflow math information-theory wormholes proofs geometry math.MG estimate gowers mathtariat dimensionality limits intuition insight stat-mech concentration-of-measure 👳 cartoons math.FA additive-combo measure entropy-like nibble tensors coarse-fine brunn-minkowski boltzmann high-dimension curvature convexity-curvature

january 2017 by nhaliday

q-n-a overflow math information-theory wormholes proofs geometry math.MG estimate gowers mathtariat dimensionality limits intuition insight stat-mech concentration-of-measure 👳 cartoons math.FA additive-combo measure entropy-like nibble tensors coarse-fine brunn-minkowski boltzmann high-dimension curvature convexity-curvature

january 2017 by nhaliday

mg.metric geometry - Pushing convex bodies together - MathOverflow

january 2017 by nhaliday

- volume of intersection of colliding, constant-velocity convex bodies is unimodal

- pf by Brunn-Minkowski inequality

q-n-a
overflow
math
oly
tidbits
geometry
math.MG
monotonicity
measure
spatial
dynamical
nibble
brunn-minkowski
intersection
curvature
convexity-curvature
intersection-connectedness
- pf by Brunn-Minkowski inequality

january 2017 by nhaliday

Ehrhart polynomial - Wikipedia

january 2017 by nhaliday

In mathematics, an integral polytope has an associated Ehrhart polynomial that encodes the relationship between the volume of a polytope and the number of integer points the polytope contains. The theory of Ehrhart polynomials can be seen as a higher-dimensional generalization of Pick's theorem in the Euclidean plane.

math
math.MG
trivia
polynomials
discrete
wiki
reference
atoms
geometry
spatial
nibble
curvature
convexity-curvature
january 2017 by nhaliday

Mikhail Leonidovich Gromov - Wikipedia

january 2017 by nhaliday

Gromov's style of geometry often features a "coarse" or "soft" viewpoint, analyzing asymptotic or large-scale properties.

Gromov is also interested in mathematical biology,[11] the structure of the brain and the thinking process, and the way scientific ideas evolve.[8]

math
people
giants
russia
differential
geometry
topology
math.GR
wiki
structure
meta:math
meta:science
interdisciplinary
bio
neuro
magnitude
limits
science
nibble
coarse-fine
wild-ideas
convergence
info-dynamics
ideas
Gromov is also interested in mathematical biology,[11] the structure of the brain and the thinking process, and the way scientific ideas evolve.[8]

january 2017 by nhaliday

computational complexity - What is the easiest randomized algorithm to motivate to the layperson? - MathOverflow

january 2017 by nhaliday

- volume of shape in R^n

- polynomial identity testing

q-n-a
overflow
tcs
algorithms
rand-approx
random
motivation
list
examples
aaronson
tcstariat
gowers
spatial
geometry
polynomials
teaching
nibble
- polynomial identity testing

january 2017 by nhaliday

Dvoretzky's theorem - Wikipedia

january 2017 by nhaliday

In mathematics, Dvoretzky's theorem is an important structural theorem about normed vector spaces proved by Aryeh Dvoretzky in the early 1960s, answering a question of Alexander Grothendieck. In essence, it says that every sufficiently high-dimensional normed vector space will have low-dimensional subspaces that are approximately Euclidean. Equivalently, every high-dimensional bounded symmetric convex set has low-dimensional sections that are approximately ellipsoids.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/143527/intuitive-explanation-of-dvoretzkys-theorem

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46278/unexpected-applications-of-dvoretzkys-theorem

math
math.FA
inner-product
levers
characterization
geometry
math.MG
concentration-of-measure
multi
q-n-a
overflow
intuition
examples
proofs
dimensionality
gowers
mathtariat
tcstariat
quantum
quantum-info
norms
nibble
high-dimension
wiki
reference
curvature
convexity-curvature
tcs
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/143527/intuitive-explanation-of-dvoretzkys-theorem

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46278/unexpected-applications-of-dvoretzkys-theorem

january 2017 by nhaliday

soft question - Fundamental Examples - MathOverflow

q-n-a overflow math examples list big-list ground-up synthesis big-picture nibble database top-n hi-order-bits logic physics math.CA math.CV differential math.FA algebra math.NT probability math.DS geometry topology graph-theory math.CO tcs cs social-science game-theory GT-101 stats

january 2017 by nhaliday

q-n-a overflow math examples list big-list ground-up synthesis big-picture nibble database top-n hi-order-bits logic physics math.CA math.CV differential math.FA algebra math.NT probability math.DS geometry topology graph-theory math.CO tcs cs social-science game-theory GT-101 stats

january 2017 by nhaliday

mg.metric geometry - How to explain the concentration-of-measure phenomenon intuitively? - MathOverflow

q-n-a overflow soft-question math geometry probability intuition tcstariat orourke concentration-of-measure dimensionality tcs math.MG random pigeonhole-markov nibble paradox novelty high-dimension s:** spatial

january 2017 by nhaliday

q-n-a overflow soft-question math geometry probability intuition tcstariat orourke concentration-of-measure dimensionality tcs math.MG random pigeonhole-markov nibble paradox novelty high-dimension s:** spatial

january 2017 by nhaliday

Carathéodory's theorem (convex hull) - Wikipedia

january 2017 by nhaliday

- any convex combination in R^d can be pared down to at most d+1 points

- eg, in R^2 you can always fit a point in convex hull in a triangle

tcs
acm
math.MG
geometry
levers
wiki
reference
optimization
linear-programming
math
linear-algebra
nibble
spatial
curvature
convexity-curvature
- eg, in R^2 you can always fit a point in convex hull in a triangle

january 2017 by nhaliday

reference request - Why are two "random" vectors in $mathbb R^n$ approximately orthogonal for large $n$? - MathOverflow

q-n-a overflow math probability tidbits intuition cartoons math.MG spatial geometry linear-algebra mathtariat dimensionality magnitude concentration-of-measure probabilistic-method random separation inner-product nibble relaxation paradox novelty high-dimension direction

january 2017 by nhaliday

q-n-a overflow math probability tidbits intuition cartoons math.MG spatial geometry linear-algebra mathtariat dimensionality magnitude concentration-of-measure probabilistic-method random separation inner-product nibble relaxation paradox novelty high-dimension direction

january 2017 by nhaliday

(Gil Kalai) The weak epsilon-net problem | What's new

january 2017 by nhaliday

This is a problem in discrete and convex geometry. It seeks to quantify the intuitively obvious fact that large convex bodies are so “fat” that they cannot avoid “detection” by a small number of observation points.

gowers
mathtariat
tcstariat
tcs
math
concept
rounding
linear-programming
research
open-problems
geometry
math.CO
magnitude
probabilistic-method
math.MG
discrete
nibble
org:bleg
questions
curvature
pigeonhole-markov
convexity-curvature
january 2017 by nhaliday

A cheap version of the Kabatjanskii-Levenstein bound for almost orthogonal vectors | What's new

gowers mathtariat exposition tidbits math geometry spatial math.CO magnitude probabilistic-method cartoons linear-algebra math.MG dimensionality random separation inner-product nibble org:bleg relaxation high-dimension direction

january 2017 by nhaliday

gowers mathtariat exposition tidbits math geometry spatial math.CO magnitude probabilistic-method cartoons linear-algebra math.MG dimensionality random separation inner-product nibble org:bleg relaxation high-dimension direction

january 2017 by nhaliday

fa.functional analysis - Almost orthogonal vectors - MathOverflow

january 2017 by nhaliday

- you can pick exp(Θ(nε^2)) ε-almost orthogonal unit vectors in R^n w/ probabilistic method

- can also use Johnson-Lindenstrauss

q-n-a
overflow
math
tidbits
intuition
geometry
spatial
cartoons
dimensionality
linear-algebra
magnitude
gowers
mathtariat
tcstariat
math.CO
probabilistic-method
embeddings
math.MG
random
separation
inner-product
nibble
relaxation
paradox
novelty
high-dimension
direction
shift
- can also use Johnson-Lindenstrauss

january 2017 by nhaliday

ho.history overview - Proofs that require fundamentally new ways of thinking - MathOverflow

january 2017 by nhaliday

my favorite:

Although this has already been said elsewhere on MathOverflow, I think it's worth repeating that Gromov is someone who has arguably introduced more radical thoughts into mathematics than anyone else. Examples involving groups with polynomial growth and holomorphic curves have already been cited in other answers to this question. I have two other obvious ones but there are many more.

I don't remember where I first learned about convergence of Riemannian manifolds, but I had to laugh because there's no way I would have ever conceived of a notion. To be fair, all of the groundwork for this was laid out in Cheeger's thesis, but it was Gromov who reformulated everything as a convergence theorem and recognized its power.

Another time Gromov made me laugh was when I was reading what little I could understand of his book Partial Differential Relations. This book is probably full of radical ideas that I don't understand. The one I did was his approach to solving the linearized isometric embedding equation. His radical, absurd, but elementary idea was that if the system is sufficiently underdetermined, then the linear partial differential operator could be inverted by another linear partial differential operator. Both the statement and proof are for me the funniest in mathematics. Most of us view solving PDE's as something that requires hard work, involving analysis and estimates, and Gromov manages to do it using only elementary linear algebra. This then allows him to establish the existence of isometric embedding of Riemannian manifolds in a wide variety of settings.

q-n-a
overflow
soft-question
big-list
math
meta:math
history
insight
synthesis
gowers
mathtariat
hi-order-bits
frontier
proofs
magnitude
giants
differential
geometry
limits
flexibility
nibble
degrees-of-freedom
big-picture
novelty
zooming
big-surf
wild-ideas
metameta
courage
convergence
ideas
innovation
the-trenches
discovery
creative
Although this has already been said elsewhere on MathOverflow, I think it's worth repeating that Gromov is someone who has arguably introduced more radical thoughts into mathematics than anyone else. Examples involving groups with polynomial growth and holomorphic curves have already been cited in other answers to this question. I have two other obvious ones but there are many more.

I don't remember where I first learned about convergence of Riemannian manifolds, but I had to laugh because there's no way I would have ever conceived of a notion. To be fair, all of the groundwork for this was laid out in Cheeger's thesis, but it was Gromov who reformulated everything as a convergence theorem and recognized its power.

Another time Gromov made me laugh was when I was reading what little I could understand of his book Partial Differential Relations. This book is probably full of radical ideas that I don't understand. The one I did was his approach to solving the linearized isometric embedding equation. His radical, absurd, but elementary idea was that if the system is sufficiently underdetermined, then the linear partial differential operator could be inverted by another linear partial differential operator. Both the statement and proof are for me the funniest in mathematics. Most of us view solving PDE's as something that requires hard work, involving analysis and estimates, and Gromov manages to do it using only elementary linear algebra. This then allows him to establish the existence of isometric embedding of Riemannian manifolds in a wide variety of settings.

january 2017 by nhaliday

**related tags**

Copy this bookmark: