Quantcast

Posts tagged with geometry

OK, not every day. But whenever I shop for packaged retail goods like a coffee or in the grocers.

The Pythagorean theorem demonstrates that a slightly larger circle has twice as much area as a slightly smaller circle.

Pythagorean Theorem  This is how I first really understood the Pythagorean Theorem.  The outer circle looks just a little bit larger than the inner circle. But actually, its area is twice as large.  Kind of like the difference between medium and large soda cups, or how a tiny house still requires kind of a lot of timber, for how much air it encloses. If you buy a slightly wider pizza or cake it will serve proportionally more people; and if an inverse-square force (sound, radio power, light brightness) expands a little bit more it will lose a lot of its energy.  Ideas involved here:  scaling properties of squared quantities(gravitational force, skin, paint, loudness, brightness)  circumcircle & incircle  2  This is also how I first really understood 2, now my favourite number.

(Since the diagonal of that square is √2 long relative to the “1” of the interior radius=leg of the right triangle. So the outer radius=hypotenuse=√2, and √2 squared is 2.)

image

And some of us know from Volume Integrals in calculus class that a cylinder's volume = circle area × height — and something like a sausage with a fat middle, or a cup with a wider mouth than base, can be thought of as a “stack” of circle areas

or in the case of a tapered glass, a “rectangle minus triangle” (when the circle is collapsed so just looking at base-versus-height “camera straight ahead on the table” view).

The shell-or-washer-method volume integral lessons were, I think, supposed to teach about symbolic manipulation, but I got a sense of what shapes turn out to be big or small volume as well.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__wa77chrZVg/SuRA4fj-l8I/AAAAAAAADHM/quRNFMVeHmk/s400/Chou_pei.jpg

By integrating dheight sized slices of circles that make up a larger 3-D shape, I can apply the inverse-square lesson of the Pythagorean theorem to how real-life “cylinders” or “cylinder-like things” will compare in volume.

  • A regulation Ultimate Frisbee can hold 6 beers. (It’s flat/short, but really wide)
    File:Frisbee Catch- Fcb981.jpg
  • The “large” size may not look much bigger but its volume can in fact be.
  • Starbucks keeps the base of their Large cups small, I think, to make the large size look noticeably larger (since we apparently perceive the height difference better than the circle difference). (Maybe also so they fit in cup holders in cars.)




A noncommutative space (picture by Lieven Le Bruyn)

hi-res




one can basically describe each of the classical geometries (Euclideanaffineprojective,sphericalhyperbolicMinkowski, etc.) as a homogeneous space for its structure group.

The structure group (or gauge group) of the class of geometric objects arises from isomorphisms of one geometric object to the standard object of its class.

For example,

  • • the structure group for lengths is ℝ⁺;
  • the structure group for angles is ℤ/2ℤ;
  • the structure group for lines is the affine group Aff(ℝ);
  • the structure group for n-dimensional Euclidean geometry is the Euclidean group E(n);
  • • the structure group for oriented 2-spheres is the (special) orthogonal group SO(3).

Terence Tao

(I rearranged his text freely.)

(Source: terrytao.wordpress.com)




Consider ℂ, the field of complex numbers, as a 1-dimensional vector space. The balanced sets are ℂ itself, the empty set and the open and closed discs centered at 0 (visualizing complex numbers as points in the plane). Contrariwise, in the two dimensional Euclidean space there are many more balanced sets: any line segment with midpoint at (0,0) will do.

As a result, ℂ and ℝ² are entirely different as far as their vector space structure is concerned.

(Source: Wikipedia)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_ring#Ring_of_germs:

we consider real-valued continuous functions defined on some open interval … of ℝ. We are only interested in the local behaviour of these functions … ∴ identify two functions if they agree on some (possibly very small) open interval…. This identification defines an equivalence relation, and the equivalence classes are the “germs of real-valued continuous functions at 0”. These germs can be added and multiplied and form a commutative ring.

(Of course 0 is just an arbitrary centre—but hey, why not 0?)

I feel like this is something I imagined, certainly not in this level of specificity, but at least wished for at some point in the past. Why should I be multiplying numbers like 13 and 27,714 when things in life are so less precise?

But we can still get the general idea of 13 and 27,714 without being so sticklerish about it. And no, the germ doesn’t need to be defined on the frazzwangled continuum, it could be done on other topologies as well. (Wikipedia gets into it.)

Here’s the only picture I could find of a germ online (the crayon splotches are my addition).

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~sjv/GeoFuzzy.pdf :

image

image

Yes, it’s no wonder this Grothendieck stuff is called an impressionistic mathematics.




Railing against “grey areas” has become a favourite rant topic. People think that they’ve covered their bases and are being really open-minded when they switch from {0,1} to [0,1]—but no false dichotomies are avoided in this transition from discrete to continuous.

Let’s take the example of sex & gender. Most of the tick-boxes and bathrooms we face in life are labelled “M” or “F”, which covers most of us but not all.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/57607/thumbs/s-TRANSGENDER-BATHROOM-RULE-large.jpg
http://www.understandthetimes.org/images/nir152i.gif
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01001/460-toilet_1001290c.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5054/5424192256_e8aaaf7256.jpg
http://burstupdates.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/burstupdates-women-urinal-e1338061475122.jpg
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/7/2/1/0/9/hmm-33753092570.jpeg
http://i1.stay.com/images/venue/147/77/e90c14ec/science-fiction-museum-and-hall-of-fame-sfm.jpg
http://www.funnypictures.net.au/images/men-women-alien-bathroom-signs1.JPG

http://www.scatmania.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/29082008165.jpg

(And I want to apply a kernel weighted to extra-count the forgotten individuals, since as minorities they’re more vulnerable. This can be seen in data such as e.g. higher suicide rates and higher murder rates.) The University of Hawai’i’s guidelines for dealing with individuals possessing ambiguous genitalia (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine) use words like

  • chromosomes—XX, XY, or other
  • micropenis, labia-scrotum fusion, gonadal dysgenesis
  • androgen insensitivity syndrome, hypospadias, kiinefelter syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Turner’s syndrome
  • true hermaphroditia

which raises the question of where the “grey area” between [M,F] ~= [0,1] could come from. Chromosomes either come in whole units — for example people with Klinefelter’s syndrome have 47 chromosomes “XXY” — or have a much more complicated structure if you want to dig into the DNA string. Other aneuploidies include XYY, monosomy or partial monosomy, trisomy 21 (which I don’t think affects genitals or sex assignment), distal 18q−, mosaicism, the list goes on. How are we going to assign a total order there in order to define a continuous variable? I don’t see any way to—just more possibilities to add to the domain of a categorical variable (and making it much more confusing than the usual gender dummy!).

The paper above, to give another example of non-orderability, notes that various chemicals usually squirt at you in fœtal development but they vary in their squirtular timing. So androgen, progesterone, and so on aren’t mutually fungible (as the different “coloured edges” in Ramsey theory), and además we’re dealing with time series like Ed Küpfer’s pictures of sports scores:

image

image
image

Those kinds of pitures, but with different coloured spiketrains representing the incommensurability of androgen vs testosterone and so on.

So how do you get total orderability (necessary for a “grey area”) from a time series of incommensurable chemtrains? I don’t see it. The geometry is more interesting than just a line segment.

Further reading: transgender mathematician (Leigh Noble), transgender computer programmer (Tim Chevalier @eassumption), transgender economist (Deirdre McCloskey @deirdremcclosk), transgender electrical engineer (Lynn Conway). Jeff Eugenides’ Middlesex.

(Source: twitter.com)




I had judged The Emperor’s New Mind by the negative reviews but never actually picked it up. It has a lot of great stuff, almost like an “early draft” of The Road to Reality.




All I knew about Emperor’s New Mind before was that it invokes quantum mechanics to explain free will, which was perceived as “icky” by people who study the brain. (Despite that, like quantum nonsense, the “greats” of QM—Bohr, Schrödinger—also weighed in with QM/free-will speculations (do you hear me, Conrad&Kochen? Quantum communication folks?) — because, let’s be real here, free will is a millennia-old conundrum and I think we’d all appreciate it if the people who understand compositions of Hilbert spaces weighed in on whether and what the latest “master theory” (bringer of semiconductors = transistors, LCD’s, lasers, MRI/PET and certain polymers/piezoelectrics/other materials) would say about the age-old question)

I got a bit more of the debate whilst reading about pi-1 sentences, which is a computability/knowability/logic dealio. But again, this was the level of “What’s RP’s argument in a nutshell?” rather than “Is here anything worth reading in the 400 pages?”. It’s a lot of good.