Skip to content →

Tag: blogging

stalking the Riemann hypothesis

There
seems to be a neverending (sic) stream of books and posts on the
Riemann hypothesis. A while ago I
wrote about du Sautoy’s The music of primes and over a snow-sparse
skiing holiday I read Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis by Daniel N. Rockmore.
Here’s the blurb

Like a hunter who sees ‘a bit of blood’
on the trail, that’s how Princeton mathematician Peter Sarnak describes
the feeling of chasing an idea that seems to have a chance of success.
If this is so, then the jungle of abstractions that is mathematics is
full of frenzied hunters these days. They are out stalking big game: the
resolution of ‘The Riemann Hypothesis’, seems to be in their sights. The
Riemann Hypothesis is about the prime numbers, the fundamental numerical
elements. Stated in 1859 by Professor Bernhard Riemann, it proposes a
simple law which Riemann believed a ‘very likely’ explanation for the
way in which the primes are distributed among the whole numbers,
indivisible stars scattered without end throughout a boundless numerical
universe. Just eight years later, at the tender age of thirty-nine
Riemann would be dead from tuberculosis, cheated of the opportunity to
settle his conjecture. For over a century, the Riemann Hypothesis has
stumped the greatest of mathematical minds, but these days frustration
has begun to give way to excitement. This unassuming comment is
revealing astounding connections among nuclear physics, chaos and number
theory, creating a frenzy of intellectual excitement amplified by the
recent promise of a one million dollar bountry. The story of the quest
to settle the Riemann Hypothesis is one of scientific exploration. It is
peopled with solitary hermits and gregarious cheerleaders, cool
calculators and wild-eyed visionaries, Nobel Prize-winners and Fields
Medalists. To delve into the Riemann Hypothesis is to gain a window into
the world of modern mathematics and the nature of mathematics research.
Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis will open wide this window so that all
may gaze through it in amazement.

Personally, I prefer
this book over du Sautoy’s. Ok, the first few chapters are a bit pompous
but the latter half gives a (much) better idea of the ‘quantum chaos’
connection to the RH. At the Arcadian Functor, there was the post
Riemann rumbling on
pointing to the book Dr, Riemann’s zeros by Karl Sabbagh.

From
what Kea wrote I understand it also involves quantum chaos. Im not sure
whether I’ll bother to buy this one though, as one reviewer wrote

I stopped reading this rather fast: it had errors in it,
and while a lovely story for the non-mathematician, for anyone who knows
and loves mathematics (and who else really does buy these books?) it’s
really rather frustrating that, after a few chapters, you’re still not
much clearer on what Reimann’s Hypothesis really is.
Not worth the
money: try The Music of the Primes (utterly brilliant) instead. This
book simply cannot begin to compete.

The last line did it
for me, but then “Des gouts et des couleurs, on ne dispute pas”.
Speaking of which, over at Noncommutative geometry there was a post
by Alain Connes on his approach to the Riemann Hypothesis Le reve mathematique which
some found

A masterpiece of
mathematical blogging, a post by Alain Connes in Noncommutative
Geometry. Strongly recommended.

Leave a Comment

bookmarks tuesday cleanup


Geeky Mom : Why am I blogging?
. Been there before. Sooner or later
all non-pseudonomenous bloggers are faced with the same dilemmas.
There’s really no answer or advice to give except : blog when you feel
like it, if not do something different, after all its just one of those
billion of blogs around.

Texmaker : another
LaTeX-frontend, possibly having a few extras such as : a structure-pane
including labels you gave to formulas, theorems etc. (click on them
brings you to them). Intend to use it now as I’m in another rewrite of
the never-ending-book..

Microformats : “Designed for
humans first and machines second, microformats are a set of simple, open
data formats built upon existing and widely adopted standards.” May
have another look.

Quicksilver : a recurring
link. At times when I feel learning key-strokes may save me a lot of
time I have (another) go at Quicksilver. Last week, Ive reinstalled this
blog more or less post by post and used keystrokes to send a line in the
SQL-file of the database dump of NEB as a clipping to Scrivener to
MultiMarkdown it further. I used the app Service Scrubber
to define my own key-strokes. Must have another go at Quicksilver soon.
Im sure it distinguishes ‚”power mac users” from the rest of
us.


List of GTDTools
: a good list of GTD-software. I’m probably just
too chaotic for GTD to improve my workflow but somehow I cannot resist
trying some of these things out.

LifeDEV : One of those sites that tells
me I should take GTD more seriously

DoIt : One of
these GTD-tools. It is said to go well with Quicksilver, so maybe, one
day.

Think
: Here a little seemingly completely useless tool which works well (at
least for me). No, it does not make you think, but at least it helps you
while you are thinking (or doing anything a bit focussed). Install it
and enjoy! The principle is that it just blocks out all other open
windows (and there are keystrokes (yes, again) to get you quickly in
and out.) Besides, it looks great. It’s in my dock and this says it
all

Thinkature :
a brainstorming tool. Dont know why I did bookmark this. Perhaps one
day, a few years from now

Stafford Talk :
a talk by Toby Stafford I came across by accident. Maybe there are other
interesting talks on the site?

Science Scouts : a great
idea! Give yourself badges for how well you do science (or talk/write
about science). Have to collect my badges soon. I’m sure this only
works for people with a scouting-history, but who
knows?

MacResearch : Here’s a site
that may become useful. MacResearch.org is an open and independent
community for scientists using Mac OS X and related hardware in their
research. It is the mission of this site to cultivate a knowledgeable
and vibrant community of researchers to exchange ideas and information,
and collectively escalate the prominence of Apple technologies in the
scientific research community. They have some interesting articles
and tutorials on e.g. DevonThink and BibDesk etc. Worth to
revisit.

Jennifer in love : well‚ should I say something about this?
probably best not.


Breakthrough CLI
: another pamphlet in favor of the Command Line! A
must read for those who perfer GUIs to CLIs.

<

p>CLI – the
site
: Rod is working hard on CLI-20. Whenever he releases version
2.0, neverendingbooks will be among the first sites to run it. I still
love the idea.

Why do I bother? : an n-category post I got briefly interested in,
but was somehow flooded by professional
math-philosophers

Newton Legacy Reviewed : just that, a first review
on the next bookmark.

the Newton
Legacy
: a free online book, a murder mystery with a physics touch.
Perhaps this is the best investment of time/energy : write a popular
science book rather than another paper. Read half way through it (sorry
but not the best prose Ive read so far), may continue but was held up
reading a (real) murder mystery Equinox featuring also Newton and
alchemy (must be in the air somehow), also not the best mystery read
so far

Stalking with Googleearth
: no comment

(to be continued)

Leave a Comment

ccdantas on blogging

As if I
didnt yet have enough doubts about whether to continue this blog or not,
one of the few people who (imo) did a truly magnificent job decided to
stop her blogging activities right after celebrating her first
blog-anniversary. Christine C. Dantas
maintained Christine’s
Background Independence
, a blog dedicated to quantum gravity, and
motivated her decision to stop as follows :

Hello all.
Here are the facts,
before too much speculation runs wild…
Yes, the blog
is “dead”. The main reason is that I do not have the right
temperament to be in the middle of so much polemics. Yes, I had fun with
the blog and got a lot from it. But lately, although I wanted to make it
seem that everything was all right in its first year anniversary, things
were not that good, at least, not to me.
First, a major
Brazilian journal posted (for the first time here in Brazil) a large
article (with front page) about the current polemics in string theory.
Some weeks earlier, a journalist (the author of the article) contacted
me asking me to help him on the jargon and to correct possible mistakes
and misunderstandings. The article is a review on Smolin’s new
book and also contains an interview with him. I have made some
corrections (as well as another Brazilian physicist working with strings
did, as I came to learn afterwards). The published article, however,
includes a part that was not in the original draft sent for me to
review. It indicates that there are hot discussions over blogs and cites
(including the corresponding links) the blogs of a physics Harvard
professor (you know well who) and my blog, and makes it appear we are
both fighting each other over the web uneducatelly.
Second,
Bert Schroer wrote a paper specially for the the blog anniversary.
Although I felt that some parts were too harsh and unfortunate, I still
believed that it would be interesting to make it available, since there
was also a scientific content that could be of value. In fact, I was
interested to read the constructive comments of readers in these
specific scientific parts. However, after posting it over at my blog, I
soon realized it was too polemic and was already causing a strong
reaction, specially from people I have high consideration, like Bee, and
she was right on what she wrote. Although it was clear that
Schroer’s post was not mine and that I did not necessarily agree
with his points of view, I felt embarrassed and sad. (You see, I do not
have the right temperament for “living in the
blogosphere”…)
These recent past occurences,
plus several other during the past year of its existence, and other
internal pressures, made me realize I was not willing to go on with the
blog, although I understand that it was useful and interesting not only
for me but also for some of you out there.
I’ve made
a (partial) copy of the blog and deleted it from the server. I do not
wish the whole content to be available anymore, so I left no major
traces. I just left Oriti’s contribution because I wanted to do so
and felt it was a right thing to do.
All things come to an
end, so now it seemed to be a good time.
I am a quiet
person, and wish to go back to my quiet life, to my quiet readings and
studies.
Thank you, I’ll continue visiting PF, I
enjoy greatly this place.
Best
wishes, Christine

In fact, the whole
thread at PF
is pretty interesting reading, as is the parallel
comment section at Not Even
Wrong
. Trying to maintain a non-anonymous blog makes you
much more vulnerable than you want. It is always easy to criticize (and
even laugh at) people who express their opinion, thoughts and trivia.
Keeping your mouth shut and your ideas to yourself is generally
considered a much better career move. So, why should one
continue with a science blog? Perhaps the ultimate reason is contained
in Christine’s follow-up comment

I have
created the blog and I have destroyed it. It was just a blog. It was
useful, nice, interesting? Good, I am happy I did something
useful in this life!
Now it’s gone, like many things in
life I suppose…
All the
best, Christine

That’s what it all
should be about, trying to make a positive contribution somehow, even
when you sometimes feel like being the court jester, entertaining the
voyeuristic (and gossipy) masses at maths and physics departments all
around the world…

Leave a Comment