Showing posts with label Clifford Pickover. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clifford Pickover. Show all posts

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Some Picks From Pickover

via Wikipedia

h/t to Clifford Pickover for tweeting out a link to this Wikipedia page about mini- and micro chess -- games I was unfamiliar with, but that look interesting/fun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess

And as long as I'm mentioning Cliff, here are a few other favorite/miscellaneous recent tweets (@pickover) from him:

https://twitter.com/pickover/status/705225378416173057

https://twitter.com/pickover/status/705133220610834432

https://twitter.com/pickover/status/705222692648194048

...and his homepage:  http://www.pickover.com/


Sunday, August 31, 2014

Pickover on Platonism…


Some extended discourse via Cliff Pickover today from his volume, "A Passion For Mathematics" (one of my favorite Pickover offerings):

"I think that mathematics is a process of discovery. Mathematicians are like archaeologists. The physicist Roger Penrose felt the same way about fractal geometry. In his book The Emperor's New Mind, he says that fractals (for example, intricate patterns such as the Julia set or the Mandelbrot set) are out there waiting to be found:

'It would seem that the Mandelbrot set is not just part of our minds, but it has a reality of its own… The computer is being used essentially the same way that an experimental physicist uses a piece of experimental apparatus to explore the structure of the physical world. The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind: it was a discovery. Like Mount Everest, the Mandelbrot set is just there.'

I think we are uncovering truths and ideas independently of the computer or mathematical tools we've invented. Penrose went a step further about fractals in The Emperor's New Mind: 'When one sees a mathematical truth, one's consciousness breaks through into this world of ideas… One may take the view that in such cases the mathematicians have stumbled upon works of God.'

Anthony Tromba, the coauthor of Vector Calculus, said in a July 2003 University of California press release, 'When you discover mathematical structures that you believe correspond to the world around you, you feel you are seeing something mystical, something profound. You are communicating with the universe, seeing beautiful and deep structures and patterns that no one without your training can see. The mathematics  is there, it's leading you, and you are discovering it.'

"Other mathematicians disagree with my philosophy and believe that mathematics is a marvelous invention of the human mind. One reviewer of my book The Zen of Magic Squares used poetry as an analogy when 'objecting' to my philosophy. He wrote,

'Did Shakespeare 'discover' his sonnets? Surely all finite sequences of English words 'exist,' and Shakespeare simply chose a few that he liked. I think most people would find the argument incorrect and hold Shakespeare created his sonnets. In the same way, mathematicians create their concepts, theorems, and proofs. Just as not all grammatical sentences are theorems. But theorems are human creations no less than sonnets.'

Similarly, the molecular neurobiologist Jean-Pierre Changeux believes that mathematics is invented: 'For me [mathematical axioms] are expressions of cognitive facilities, which themselves are a function of certain facilities connected with human language.'
"


[…If you have a favorite math-related passage that might make a nice Sunday morning reflection here let me know (SheckyR@gmail.com). If I use one submitted by a reader, I'll cite the contributor.]


Monday, January 14, 2013

Monday Potpourri


Time to catch up on a few things from the past couple days.

Readers seem to always enjoy 'quickies' as I call 'em, so here's a delectable one from a recent Twitter feed for all the foodies out there:

https://twitter.com/nerdfaced/status/289867477305937920/photo/1

'Wild About Math's' latest podcast is with Mircea Pitici, the editor of the annual "The Best Writing On Mathematics" series. The ~hour-long podcast is here:

http://wildaboutmath.com/2013/01/13/mircea-pitici-inspired-by-math-15/

I reviewed Pitici's latest 2012 edition on the blog HERE, and also included it in my book shopping list recommendations for Christmas a couple months ago.
[ADDENDUM: Yikes! Sol is churning out the podcasts lately and already has a lengthy, newer one up with Steven Strogatz -- haven't had a chance to listen yet, but undoubtedly HAS TO BE good stuff!]

Finally, what's worrying mathematicians these days…? We get a hint from John Brockman.
Brockman's cutting-edge/contemplative 'Edge' site has posted responses to its 2013 question "What should we be worried about?":

http://edge.org/contributors/q2013

Lots (150+) of good contributions of course, but I'll just link to three of the mathematicians who replied, and pique your interest with the first couple of lines from their entries:

Keith Devlin: http://edge.org/response-detail/23783
"Are we about to see advances in mathematics come to an end? Until last year, I would have said no. Now I am not so sure."
Clifford Pickover: http://edge.org/response-detail/23670
"I used to worry that our mathematical and physical descriptions of the universe grow forever, but our brains and language skills remain entrenched. Some of our computer chips and software are becoming mind-numbingly complex."
Steven Strogatz: http://edge.org/response-detail/23820
"In every realm where we exist as a collective — in society, in the global economy, on the Internet — we are blithely increasing the coupling between us, with no idea what that might entail."

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Pickoverisms...

In his Twitter feed, Clifford Pickover (@Pickover) recently linked to this very good, and visual, presentation of Benford's Law:

tinyurl.com/d445tjw

...and here are a few other miscellaneous Pickover tweets I've jotted down over the last few months:

23 is the only prime number p such that p! is p digits long.

Aside from 17, humans will never find a prime that is the average of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers.

 19 is the only known prime of the form n^n - 8. The next prime of this form (if it exists) must be more than 34,000 digits.

Prince Rupert's cube and 1.06066 at Wikipedia: tinyurl.com/8vjep4k

Answer this question with "yes" or "no". Will your next word be "no"?

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Beauty & Mystery... and Mathematics

Nice recent essay from the always-interesting Clifford Pickover:

http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2012/04/the-beauty-and-mystery-of-mathematics.html

excerpt:
"Today, we use computers to help us reason beyond the limitations of our own intuition. Experiments with computers are leading mathematicians to discoveries and insights never dreamed of before the ubiquity of computers...
"... I believe that studying science and mathematics through the telescope of history has profound value for students and anyone curious about the evolution of thought and the limits of mind.  When we study the history of mathematics, we see the challenges of both amateur and professional mathematicians who persevered; we see abacuses morphing into slide rules, and into calculators and computers."

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

"Polygon Circumscribing"

 From Clifford Pickover's "The Math Book":
"Draw a circle, with a radius equal to 1 inch (about 2.5 centimeters). Next, circumscribe (surround) the circle with an equilateral triangle. Next, circumscribe the triangle with another circle. Then circumscribe this second circle with a square. Continue with a third circle, circumscribing the square. Circumscribe this circle with a regular pentagon. Continue this procedure indefinitely, each time increasing the number of sides of the regular polygon by one. Every other shape used is a circle that grows continually in size as it encloses the assembly of predecessors. If you were to repeat this process, always adding larger circles at the rate of a circle a minute, how long would it take for the largest circle to have a radius equal to the radius of our solar system?"
That's the question Cliff Pickover posed in the c.1940 entry of his book. As he then notes, it might seem that the circle radii would continually grow larger and larger toward infinity... however, it ain't so! As he says, "the circles initially grow very quickly in size," but then slow down and approach a limiting value, far short of a solar system [given by the infinite product: R = 1/(cos(π/3) x cos(π/4) x cos(π/5)….]
That limiting value, as calculated in 1965, turns out to be ~8.7000, but incredibly, before that calculation was made it was believed erroneously (for around 20 prior years according to Pickover) to be about 12.

This quickie video from WolframAlpha gives a sense of how rapidly the limit is approached:

Sunday, February 5, 2012

"The Math Book"… ho hum?…..


In recent years there have been a number of what I call math "nugget" books written for a mass audience -- books covering a range of interesting mathematical topics in a brief way, and introducing math to lay folks who might otherwise not give it much attention.  I've especially liked certain volumes from Tony Crilly and Richard Elwes that I've mentioned here previously. They do a good job of giving readers enough interesting material to chew on to possibly seduce them into further study, without overwhelming them.

Clifford Pickover is a well-known polymath (I would almost say poly-polymath) and math popularizer. He's authored several books I've enjoyed, and is just an all-around fascinating fellow! His "The Math Book," came out a couple of years back as a sort of "nugget"/coffee-table/math volume that met with wide acclaim and awards. I don't think I've read a single bad review of it! Still, I hesitated buying it because it just never much  enticed me despite frequent scans of it at my local bookstore. But, with a major discount coupon ;-), I did finally purchase it, and continue to have mixed feelings about it, including some difficulty recommending it to math fans, despite its wide acclaim.

But first let's cover the positives, since it is a book with so many fans. The style and format is beautiful; very glossy, very glitzy; very, as I say, coffee-tablish; unlike most math books. It also touches upon a very wide range of topics, or as the book says, "milestones" (250 by its own count), and does so in an organized, chronological way, that pulls the reader along from antiquity to modern times (although it need not be read from beginning to end, but can be read in a much more random order). The language and level of material is appropriate to a lay audience. Pickover's own love of math shines through on each page, and it seems clear that his goal for the book is not so much to educate people, as perhaps to imbue them with some of the same excitement about the field that he feels. Every page seems to say, 'Isn't this wondrous!'
All of that is obviously to the positive…

My problems with the volume however are these:

Starting with the practical: it is a thick, square, heavy book (especially the hard-back version), not conducive to reading in bed, on one's back, as I often like to do -- a small quibble to many, but for me a major drawback in what is essentially a 'pleasure' book, not a textbook. It's coffee-table quality almost makes it more a volume for show than for reading (which is unfortunate)... Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" was called perhaps the most widely-selling, UNread book in publishing history -- I fear Pickover's book could suffer a similar fate (even though it is more readable than Hawking's). I realize Pickover is probably trying to reach out to a very broad audience, but for my taste it is simply TOO glossy and glitzy; almost gaudy, and almost a turn-off. Moreover, the short, bite-size text entries are simply too brief to really afford the reader much substantive information on the subjects at-hand. Whereas, Crilly and Elwes, give the reader enough, as I say, to chew on, Pickover often just scratches the surface here, instead of fleshing things out. Each page leaves me wanting more, and feeling shortchanged. Take away the artistic presentation and you are left largely with a pithy, somewhat pedantic regurgitation of quite interesting historical math tidbits, for which you need Google standing by if you wish to explore further… it's a somewhat "Cliff"Notes version of math history (...although I also realize Pickover likes to experiment with math writing styles and presentation -- still, this volume seems a bit of a 'puff-piece' compared to some of his other fine works, and it would be ashamed, I think, if he became better known for this book than his other contributions). Overall, I am still glad I bought the book, as a reference source... but am also glad I got it at a heavy discount ;-))

In short, I can recommend this volume to young people beginning their journey in mathematics, as a sort of starter book, an initiation into the field of math, but am more reluctant recommending it to readers who are further-along, for whom there may be many better selections... including fuller text and less glitz. Still, many may (and clearly DO) find its style, format, elegance, and sheer breadth of topics, captivating enough to want it for their bookshelf (...or coffee table) -- indeed, mine seems to be a minority view; those who are particularly enamored of this book, feel free to chime in, in the comments, about what makes it so laudable or useful from your standpoint…

(Also, if you DO like this offering from Pickover, it is worth noting that he followed it up with a similarly-styled volume called "The Physics Book.")

By the way, the books I cited above from Crilly and Elwes that I very much liked and do recommend are:

"The Big Questions: Mathematics" and  "50 Mathematical Ideas You Really Need to Know" -- both by Tony Crilly

and, "Mathematics Without the Boring Bits" -- by Richard Elwes
Also, Elwes did an even more encyclopedic/comprehensive volume of math topics than Pickover's book, called "Mathematics 1001," but minus the glossiness -- I prefer the Elwes offering, if you're looking for terse treatments, but understand it won't carry the popular appeal of Pickover's effort.

Finally, for anyone who especially likes Pickover's book for its 'historical' format, I might just mention that Pat Ballew does a wonderful job of regularly noting mathematics history in his "On this Day in Math" entries over at "Pat's Blog."

Monday, August 2, 2010

Musings of a Polymath

"The Nexus of Wonder".... an interview with prolific writer/thinker/math-elucidator Clifford Pickover, from awhile back:

http://sherryaustin.livejournal.com/3348.html

Monday, June 21, 2010

Simple Riddle

The 3 jungle spiders.... a riddle lifted directly from chapter 9 of Clifford Pickover's "Wonders of Numbers":

"Dr. Googol was in a Peruvian rain forest, 15 miles south of the beautiful Lake Titicaca, when he dreamed up this tortuous brain boggler. A month later, while in Virginia, Dr. Googol gave this puzzle to all CIA employees to help them improve their analytical skills.

"  Three spiders named Mr. Eight, Mr. Nine, and Mr. Ten are crawling on a Peruvian jungle floor. One spider has 8 legs; one spider has 9 legs; one spider has 10 legs. All of them are usually quite happy and enjoy the diversity of animals with whom they share the jungle. Today, however, the hot weather is giving them bad tempers.
"   'I think it is interesting,' says Mr. Ten, 'that none of us have the same number of legs that our names would suggest.'
"  'Who the heck cares?' replies the spider with 9 legs.

"How many legs does Mr. Nine have? Amazingly, it is possible to determine the answer, despite the little information given."

answer below:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr Nine has 10 legs... (Mr. Ten CAN'T have 10 legs, same as his name, and can't have 9, since the spider with 9 replies to him; therefore he must have 8 legs... from there you can likely solve the rest.)

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

In Our Lifetime?

In 2009, when John Brockman asked his "Edge" thinkers' group what scientific development they expected to see "change everything" in their lifetime, the response from polymath Clifford Pickover was that the Riemann Hypothesis (one of math's most enduring unsolved problems involving prime numbers), would be proven:

http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_3.html#pickover