"When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead . . . ."
This book was not in the original novel, and its title is plagiarized.
Blame screenwriter Scott Frank, not Gambit author Walter Tevis.
"When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead . . . ."
This book was not in the original novel, and its title is plagiarized.
Blame screenwriter Scott Frank, not Gambit author Walter Tevis.
The date of the above post was apparently the date of death
for a noted architectural historian. Related material —
"The almond tree flourisheth" — Ecclesiastes … and …
This journal ten years ago today —
This journal on April 10, 2022 —
Be careful what you wish for.
You might get . . .
The Strogatz tweet linking to Gödel's 1951 Gibbs Lecture
in yesterday's Log24 "On the Road" post omitted the name
of the author of the introductory note in the linked-to document.
It was George Boolos:
A visual framework to adapt for the above calendar —
A related geometric illustration
from a New Yorker article —
"Here's a quarter, call someone who cares."
— Country song lyric
(A sequel to this morning's post A Subtle Knife for Sean.)
Exhibit A —
Einstein in The Saturday Review, 1949 —
"In any case it was quite sufficient for me
if I could peg proofs upon propositions
the validity of which did not seem to me to be dubious.
For example, I remember that an uncle told me
the Pythagorean theorem before the holy geometry booklet
had come into my hands. After much effort I succeeded
in 'proving' this theorem on the basis of the similarity
of triangles; in doing so it seemed to me 'evident' that
the relations of the sides of the right-angled triangles
would have to be completely determined by one of the
acute angles. Only something which did not in similar fashion
seem to be 'evident' appeared to me to be in need of any proof
at all. Also, the objects with which geometry deals seemed to
be of no different type than the objects of sensory perception,
'which can be seen and touched.' This primitive idea, which
probably also lies at the bottom of the well-known Kantian
problematic concerning the possibility of 'synthetic judgments
a priori' rests obviously upon the fact that the relation of
geometrical concepts to objects of direct experience
(rigid rod, finite interval, etc.) was unconsciously present."
Exhibit B —
Strogatz in The New Yorker, 2015 —
"Einstein, unfortunately, left no … record of his childhood proof.
In his Saturday Review essay, he described it in general terms,
mentioning only that it relied on 'the similarity of triangles.'
The consensus among Einstein’s biographers is that he probably
discovered, on his own, a standard textbook proof in which similar
triangles (meaning triangles that are like photographic reductions
or enlargements of one another) do indeed play a starring role.
Walter Isaacson, Jeremy Bernstein, and Banesh Hoffman all come
to this deflating conclusion, and each of them describes the steps
that Einstein would have followed as he unwittingly reinvented
a well-known proof."
Exhibit C —
Schroeder presents an elegant and memorable proof. He attributes
the proof to Einstein, citing purely hearsay evidence in a footnote.
The only other evidence for Einstein's connection with the proof
is his 1949 Saturday Review remarks. If Einstein did come up with
the proof at age 11 and discuss it with others later, as Schroeder
claims, it seems he might have felt a certain pride and been more
specific in 1949, instead of merely mentioning the theorem in passing
before he discussed Kantian philosophy relating concepts to objects.
Strogatz says that . . .
"What we’re seeing here is a quintessential use of
a symmetry argument… scaling….
Throughout his career, Einstein would continue to
deploy symmetry arguments like a scalpel, getting to
the hidden heart of things."
Connoisseurs of bullshit may prefer a faux-Chinese approach to
"the hidden heart of things." See Log24 on August 16, 2021 —
http://m759.net/wordpress/?p=96023 —
In a Nutshell: The Core of Everything .
The title is from "Federico Ardila on Math, Music and
the Space of Possibilities," a podcast from Steven Strogatz's
Quanta Magazine series. The transcript is dated March 29, 2021.
Ardila: … in a nutshell, what combinatorics is about is just
the study of possibilities and how do you organize them,
given that there’s too many of them to list them.
Strogatz: So, I love it. Combinatorics is not just
the art of the possible, but the enumeration of the possible,
the counting of the possible and the organizing of the possible.
Strogatz: It’s such a poetic image, actually: the space of possibilities.
This journal on the podcast date, March 29, 2021 —
A more precise approach to the space of possibilities:
This book was not in the original novel, and its title is plagiarized.
Blame screenwriter Scott Frank, not Gambit author Walter Tevis.
Related material:
The previous post, and Gambit star Anya Taylor-Joy
in The Witch: A New England Folktale (2015).
See as well, from the late-October Strogatz date above —
See also the home page of Cornell mathematician Steven Strogatz:
Strogatz is the author of "Why Pi Matters."
Backstory —
See a Haaretz story commemorating the Feb. 14,
1917, birthday of a crystallographer.
Related material in this journal —
At the Still Point (June 15, 2013):
The illustration is for those who, like Andy Magid and
Steven Strogatz in the March 2014 AMS Notices,
enjoy the vulgarization of mathematics.
Backstory: Group Actions (November 14, 2012).
"A generation lost in space"
— American Pie
Click image for details.
See also the concepts of inner-direction
and other-direction in The Lonely Crowd
by David Riesman et al. Riesman was,
according to Harvard Square Library,
a contract termination lawyer for
Sperry Gyroscope before turning
to sociology.
EXERCISE — Discuss inner- and
other-direction in education and
in journalism, using the material
in Monday's entry on the
New York Times dunce cap —
— contrasted with the webpage
excerpted below —
"But wait, there's more!"
– Stanley Fish, NY Times Jan. 28
From the editors at The New York Times who, left to their own devices, would produce yet another generation of leftist morons who don't know the difference between education and entertainment–
A new Times column starts today–
The quality of the column's logo speaks for itself. It pictures a cone with dashed lines indicating height and base radius, but unlabeled except for a large italic x to the right of the cone. This enigmatic variable may indicate the cone's height or slant height– or, possibly, its surface area or volume.
Instead of the column's opening load of crap about numbers and Sesame Street, a discussion of its logo might be helpful.
The cone plays a major role in the historical development of mathematics.
Some background from an online edition of Euclid—
"Euclid proved in proposition XII.10 that the cone with the same base and height as a cylinder was one third of the cylinder, but he could not find the ratio of a sphere to the circumscribed cylinder. In the century after Euclid, Archimedes solved this problem as well as the much more difficult problem of the surface area of a sphere."
For Archimedes and the surface area of a sphere, see (for instance) a discussion by Kevin Brown. For more material on Archimedes, see "Archimedes: Volume of a Sphere," by Doug Faires (2001)– Archimedes' heuristic argument from mechanics that involves the volume of a cone– and Archimedes' more rigorous approach in The Works of Archimedes, edited by T. L. Heath (1897).
The work of Euclid and Archimedes on volumes was, of course, long before the discovery of calculus. For a helpful discussion of cone volumes involving high-school-level calculus, see, for instance, the following–
The Times editors apparently feel that
few of their readers are capable of
such high-school-level sophistication.
For some other geometric illustrations
perhaps more appealing than the Times's
dunce cap, see the symbol of
today's saint– a Bridget Cross—
and a web page on
visualized quaternions.
Powered by WordPress