From the above piece by Colby College professor Scott Taylor —
"… a metaphorical 'Rosetta stone' of analogies between
advanced versions of three basic mathematical objects:
numbers, polynomials and geometric spaces."
This is the same sort of contemptible dumbing-down discussed here in
a May 8, 2024 post. In fact, it links to the Quanta essay discussed in that post.
A rather different connection between the above "three basic
mathematical objects" —
For the significance of the date "February 20," see . . .
|
Google One: Gemini Advanced AI on 13 May 2024. Prompt: How can Weyl's 1946 remarks on coordinatization in "The Classical Groups" be applied to models of finite geometries? Response (after several drafts): In "The Classical Groups," Hermann Weyl discusses the concept of coordinatization, which is the process of assigning numerical coordinates to points in a geometric space. This process is fundamental in connecting abstract geometric concepts with concrete numerical representations, allowing for algebraic manipulation and analysis. Weyl's remarks on coordinatization have significant implications for models of finite geometries. Finite geometries are geometric systems with a finite number of points and lines, and they often exhibit different properties compared to traditional Euclidean geometry. Here's how Weyl's ideas can be applied to finite geometries: 1. **Relativity of Coordinatization:** Weyl emphasizes that the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary and that different coordinate systems can be used to describe the same geometric object. This relativity of coordinatization is particularly relevant in finite geometries, where multiple coordinate systems may exist, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. 2. **Equivalent Coordinatizations:** Weyl introduces the concept of "equivalent coordinatizations," which are different coordinate systems that can be transformed into one another through a group of transformations. In finite geometries, identifying and understanding these equivalent coordinatizations can provide deeper insights into the underlying structure and symmetries of the geometry. 3. **Objective Class of Coordinatizations:** Weyl discusses the problem of fixing an "objective class" of coordinatizations that capture essential features of the geometry while being independent of arbitrary choices. In finite geometries, this could involve identifying coordinatizations that best reflect the specific properties and relationships within the geometry. 4. **Group of Transformations:** Weyl emphasizes the role of the "group of transformations" that mediates between equivalent coordinatizations. In finite geometries, understanding these transformation groups can help classify different types of finite geometries and reveal their underlying symmetries. By applying Weyl's insights, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of finite geometries, including their classification, properties, and relationships. Additionally, exploring different coordinatization schemes can lead to new algebraic and geometric tools for studying finite geometries. For further exploration, you can delve into the works of other mathematicians like Steven H. Cullinane, who has written extensively on finite geometry and its connections to relativity and other areas of mathematics. I hope this explanation is helpful! Please let me know if you have any further questions. |
Update at about 5 PM ET the same day . . .
|
Prompt: Correction: Cullinane has NOT written on finite geometry's "connections to relativity." He has, instead, quoted Weyl's remarks on what Weyl himself called "the relativity problem," but what was in fact his own term for problems involving coordinatization. Such problems are of interest both in physics and in finite geometry, but the latter is a field of pure mathematics, NOT of physics. Response: You are absolutely correct. I apologize for the error in my previous response. Steven H. Cullinane has indeed quoted Weyl's remarks on "the relativity problem" in the context of finite geometry. However, as you rightly pointed out, this term refers to Weyl's own terminology for problems involving coordinatization and not the theory of relativity in physics. Finite geometry is a field of pure mathematics and does not directly connect to the physical theories of relativity. While both areas involve concepts of space and transformations, they operate in fundamentally different domains. Cullinane's work focuses on applying Weyl's insights on coordinatization to the specific challenges and structures within finite geometries. This involves exploring different coordinatization schemes, understanding their equivalences, and identifying transformation groups that reveal the underlying symmetries of finite geometries. Thank you for pointing out this important distinction. It highlights the importance of precise language and accurate attribution when discussing complex mathematical concepts. |
Halle Berry as Rosetta Stone:
Halle Berry as Rosetta Stone:
From Tablet Magazine on Monday, May 6, 2024 . . .
<div class="BlockContent col-12 lg:col-10 xl-wide:col-8 mxauto"> <p>Thus do we find ourselves in a regular <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ToUAkEF_d4"> lattice of coincidence</a>.</p></div>
That link leads to . . .
Those who prefer Sting's approach to synchronistic theory may
consult this journal on the above YouTube date — Dec. 1, 2008.
From Quanta Magazine on Monday, May 6, 2024, in
"A Rosetta Stone for Mathematics," by Kevin Hartnett —
" Then he came to the main point of his letter:
He was building such a bridge. He wrote,
'Just as God defeats the devil: this bridge exists.'
The bridge that Weil proposed
is the study of finite fields…."
This is damned nonsense.
From Log24 on June 23, 2005 —
|
In “A 1940 Letter of André Weil on Analogy in Mathematics,” (pdf), translated by Martin H. Krieger, Notices of the A.M.S., March 2005, Weil writes that “The purely algebraic theory of algebraic functions in any arbitrary field of constants is not rich enough so that one might draw useful lessons from it. The ‘classical’ theory (that is, Riemannian) of algebraic functions over the field of constants of the complex numbers is infinitely richer; but on the one hand it is too much so, and in the mass of facts some real analogies become lost; and above all, it is too far from the theory of numbers. One would be totally obstructed if there were not a bridge between the two. And just as God defeats the devil: this bridge exists; it is the theory of the field of algebraic functions over a finite field of constants…. On the other hand, between the function fields and the ‘Riemannian’ fields, the distance is not so large that a patient study would not teach us the art of passing from one to the other, and to profit in the study of the first from knowledge acquired about the second, and of the extremely powerful means offered to us, in the study of the latter, from the integral calculus and the theory of analytic functions. That is not to say that at best all will be easy; but one ends up by learning to see something there, although it is still somewhat confused. Intuition makes much of it; I mean by this the faculty of seeing a connection between things that in appearance are completely different; it does not fail to lead us astray quite often. Be that as it may, my work consists in deciphering a trilingual text {[cf. the Rosetta Stone]}; of each of the three columns I have only disparate fragments; I have some ideas about each of the three languages: but I know as well there are great differences in meaning from one column to another, for which nothing has prepared me in advance. In the several years I have worked at it, I have found little pieces of the dictionary. Sometimes I worked on one column, sometimes under another.” |
Quanta Magazine's statement:
"The bridge that Weil proposed
is the study of finite fields…."
Here "the study of finite fields" is a contemptibly distorted
dumbing-down of Weil's phrase
"the theory of the field of algebraic functions
over a finite field of constants."
For that topic, see (for instance) . . .
Update at 5:35 PM ET —A different reaction to the Hartnett article —
| Number | Space |
| Arithmetic | Geometry |
| Discrete | Continuous |
Related literature —
From a "Finite Fields in 1956" post —
The Nutshell:
Related Narrative:
Powered by WordPress
