This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 203)
John Baez
Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week203.html
February 24, 2004
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics - Week 203
John Baez
Last week I posed this puzzle: to find a "Golden Object".
A couple days ago I got a wonderful solution from Robin Houston, a computer
science grad student at the University of Manchester. So, I want to say a
bit more about the golden number, then describe his solution, and then
describe how he found it.
Supposedly the Greeks thought the most beautiful rectangle was one such
that when you chop a square off one end, you're left with a rectangle
of the same shape. If your original rectangle was 1 unit across and G
units long, after you chop a 1-by-1 square off the end you're left with
a rectangle that's G-1 units across and 1 unit long:
G
.........................
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1 . . . 1
. . .
. . .
. 1 . G-1 .
.........................
So, to make the proportions of the little rectangle the same as those of
the big one, you want
"1 is to G as G-1 is to 1"
or in other words:
1/G = G - 1
or after a little algebra,
G^2 = G + 1
so that
G = (1 + sqrt(5))/2 = 1.618033988749894848204586834365...
while
1/G = 0.618033988749894848204586834365...
and
G^2 = 2.618033988749894848204586834365...
(At this point I usually tell my undergraduates that the pattern
continues like this, with G^3 = 3.618... and so on - just to see if
they'll believe anything I say.)
These days, the number G is called the Golden Number, the Golden Ratio,
or the Golden Section. It's often denoted by the Greek letter Phi,
after the Greek sculptor Phidias. Phidias helped design the Parthenon -
and supposedly packed it full of golden rectangles, to make it as
beautiful as possible.
The golden number is a great favorite among amateur mathematicians, because
it has a flashy sort of charm. You can find it all over the place if you
look hard enough - and if you look too hard, you'll find it even in places
where it's not. It's the ratio of the diagonal to the side of a regular
pentagon! If you like the number 5, you'll be glad to know that
5 + sqrt(5)
G = sqrt[-------------]
5 - sqrt(5)
If you don't, maybe you'd prefer this:
G = exp(arcsinh(1/2))
My favorite formulas for the golden number are
G = sqrt(1 + sqrt(1 + sqrt(1 + sqrt(1 + sqrt(1 + sqrt(1 + ...
and the continued fraction:
1
G = 1 + ---------
1 + 1
--------
1 + 1
-------
1 + 1
------
1 + 1
----
1 + 1
----
.
.
.
These follow from the equations G^2 = G + 1 and G = 1 + 1/G, respectively.
If you chop off the continued fraction for G at any point, you'll see that
G is also the limit of the ratios of successive Fibonacci numbers. See
"week190" for a very different proof of this fact.
However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract
kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be
careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you
think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden
ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi
after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the
artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...
the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook
dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.
In fact, the whole "golden" terminology can only be traced back to 1826,
when it showed up in a footnote to a book by one Martin Ohm, brother of
Georg Ohm, the guy with the law about resistors. Before then, a lot of
people called 1/G the "Divine Proportion". And the guy who started
*that* was Luca Pacioli, a pal of Leonardo da Vinci who translated Euclid's
Elements. In 1509, Pacioli published a 3-volume text entitled Divina
Proportione, advertising the virtues of this number. Some people think
da Vinci used the divine proportion in the composition of his paintings.
If so, perhaps he got the idea from Pacioli.
Maybe Pacioli is to blame for the modern fascination with the golden
ratio; it seems hard to trace it back to Greece. These days you can buy
books and magazines about "Elliot Wave Theory", a method for making money
on the stock market using patterns related to the golden number. Or, if
you're more spiritually inclined, you can go to workshops on "Sacred
Geometry" featuring talks about the healing powers of the golden ratio.
But Greek texts seem remarkably quiet about this number.
The first recorded hint of it is Proposition 11 in Book II of Euclid's
"Elements". It also shows up elsewhere in Euclid, especially Proposition
30 of Book VI, where the task is "to cut a given finite straight line in
extreme and mean ratio", meaning a ratio A:B such that
A:B::(A+B):A (i.e., "A is to B as A+B is to A")
This is later used in Proposition 17 of Book XIII to construct
the pentagonal face of a regular dodecahedron.
Of course, Euclid wasn't the first to do all these things; he just wrote
them up in a nice textbook. By now it's impossible to tell who discovered
the golden ratio and just what the Greeks thought about it. For a sane
and detailed look at the history of the golden ratio, try this:
1) J. J. O'Connor and E. F. Robertson, The Golden Ratio,
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Golden_ratio.html
While I'm at it, I should point out that you that Theodore Cook's
book introducing the notation "Phi" is still in print:
2) The Curves of Life: Being an Account of Spiral Formations and Their
Application to Growth in Nature, to Science, and to Art: with Special
Reference to the Manuscripts of Leonardo da Vinci, Dover Publications,
New York, 1979.
If you want to see what Euclid said about the golden ratio, you can
also pick up a cheap copy of the Elements from Dover - but it's probably
quicker to go online. There are a number of good places to find Euclid's
Elements online these days.
Topologists know David Joyce as the inventor of the "quandle" - an
algebraic structure that captures most of the information in a knot.
Now he's writing a high-tech edition of Euclid, complete with Java applets:
3) David E. Joyce's edition of Euclid's Elements,
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html
Joyce is carrying on a noble tradition: back in 1847, Oliver Byrne did
a wonderful edition of Euclid complete with lots of beautiful color
pictures and even some pop-up models. You can see this online at
the Digital Mathematics Archive:
4) Oliver Byrne's edition of Euclid's Elements, online at the Digital
Mathematics Archive, http://www.sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/
The most famous scholarly English translation of Euclid was done by
Sir Thomas Heath in 1908. You can find it together with an edition
in Greek and a nearly infinite supply of other classical texts at
the Perseus Digital Library:
5) Thomas L. Heath's edition of Euclid's Elements, online at
The Perseus Digital Library, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
But I'm digressing! My main point was that while G = (1 + sqrt(5))/2
is a neat number, it's a lot easier to find nuts raving about it on the
net than to find truly interesting mathematics associated with it - or
even interesting references to it in Greek mathematics! The cynic might
conclude that the charm of this number is purely superficial. However,
that would be premature.
First of all, there's a certain sense in which G is "the most irrational
number". To get the best rational approximations to a number you use its
continued fraction expansion. For G, this converges as slowly as possible,
since it's made of all 1's:
1
G = 1 + ---------
1 + 1
--------
1 + 1
-------
1 + 1
------
1 + 1
----
1 + 1
----
.
.
.
We can make this more precise. For any number x there's a constant
c(x) that says how hard it is to approximate x by rational numbers,
given by
lim inf |x - p/q| = c(x)/q^2
q -> infinity
where q ranges over integers, and p is an integer chosen to minimize
|x - p/q|. This constant is as big as possible when x is the golden
ratio!
It'd be ironic if the famously "rational" Greeks, who according to legend
even drowned the guy who proved sqrt(2) was irrational, chose the most
irrational number as the proportions of their most beautiful rectangle!
But, it wouldn't be a coincidence. Their obsession with ratios and
proportions led them to ponder the situation where A:B::(A+B):A,
and this proportion instantly implies that A and B are incommensurable,
since if you assume A and B are integers and try to find their greatest
common divisor using Euclid's algorithm, you get stuck in an infinite loop.
Euclid even mentions this idea in Proposition 2 of Book X:
If, when the less of two unequal magnitudes is continually subtracted
in turn from the greater that which is left never measures the one
before it, then the two magnitudes are incommensurable.
He doesn't explicitly come out and apply it to what we now call the golden
ratio - but how could he not have made the connection? For more info on
the Greek use of continued fractions and the Euclidean algorithm, check
out the chapter on "antihyphairetic ratio theory" in this book:
6) D. H. Fowler, The Mathematics of Plato's Academy: A New Reconstruction,
Oxford U. Press, Oxford, 1987.
Anyway, it's actually important in physics that the golden number is so
poorly approximated by rationals. This fact shows up in the Kolmogorov-
Arnold-Moser theorem, or "KAM theorem", which deals with small perturbations
of completely integrable Hamiltonian systems. Crudely speaking, these are
classical mechanics problems that have as many conserved quantities as
possible. These are the ones that tend to show up in textbooks, like the
harmonic oscillator and the gravitational 2-body problem. The reason is
that you can solve such problems if you can do a bunch of integrals - hence
the term "completely integrable".
The cool thing about a completely integrable system is that time evolution
carries states of the system along paths that wrap around tori. Suppose
it takes n numbers to describe the position of your system. Then it also
takes n numbers to describe its momentum, so the space of states is
2n-dimensional. But if the system has n different conserved quantities -
that's basically the maximum allowed - the space of states will be foliated
by n-dimensional tori. Any state that starts on one of these tori will
stay on it forever! It will march round and round, tracing out a kind of
spiral path that may or may not ever get back to where it started.
Things are pretty simple when n = 1, since a 1-dimensional torus is a
circle, so the state *has* to loop around to where it started. For example,
when you have a pendulum swinging back and forth, its position and momentum
trace out a loop as time passes.
When n is bigger, things get trickier. For example, when you have n
pendulums swinging back and forth, their motion is periodic if the
ratios of their frequencies are rational numbers.
This is how it works for any completely integrable system. For any torus,
there's an n-tuple of numbers describing the frequency with which paths on
this torus wind around in each of the n directions. If the ratios of these
frequencies are all rational, paths on this torus trace out periodic orbits.
Otherwise, they don't!
KAM theory says what happens when you perturb such a system a little.
It won't usually be completely integrable anymore. Interestingly, the
tori with rational frequency ratios tend to fall apart due to resonance
effects. Instead of periodic orbits, we get chaotic motions instead.
But the "irrational" tori are more stable. And, the "more irrational" the
frequency ratios for a torus are, the bigger a perturbation it takes to
disrupt it! Thus, the most stable tori tend to have frequency ratios
involving the golden number. As we increase the perturbation, the last
torus to die is called a "golden torus".
You can actually *watch* tori breaking into chaotic dust if you check out
the applet illustrating the "standard map" on this website:
7) Takashi Kanamaru and J. Michael T. Thompson, Introduction to Chaos
and Nonlinear Dynamics,
http://www.sekine-lab.ei.tuat.ac.jp/~kanamaru/Chaos/e/Standard/
The "standard map" is a certain dynamical system that's good for
illustrating this effect. You won't actually see 2d tori, just
1d cross-sections of them - but it's pretty fun. For more details,
try this:
8) M. Tabor, Chaos and Integrability in Nonlinear Dynamics: An Introduction,
Wiley, New York, 1989.
In short, the golden number is the best frequency ratio for avoiding
resonance!
Some audiophiles even say this means the best shaped room for listening
to music is one with proportions 1:G:G^2. I leave it to you to find the
flaw in this claim. For more dubious claims, check out the ad for expensive
speaker cables at the end of this article.
KAM theory is definitely cool, but we shouldn't rest content with this
when skeptics ask if the golden number is all it's cracked up to be.
I figure it's part of our job as mathematicians to keep on discovering
mind-blowing facts about the golden number. A small part, but part:
we shouldn't give up the field to amateurs!
Penrose has done his share. His "Penrose tiles" take crucial advantage
of the self-similarity embodied by the golden number to create nonperiodic
tilings of the plane. This helped spawn a nice little industry, the study
of "quasicrystals" with 5-fold symmetry. Here's a good introduction for
mathematicians:
9) Andre Katz, A short introduction to quasicrystallography, in From
Number Theory to Physics, eds. M. Waldschmit et al, Springer, Berlin,
1992, pp. 496-537.
By the way, this same book has some nice stuff on the role of the
golden number in KAM theory and the theory of iterated maps from
the circle to itself:
10) Predrag Cvitanovic, Circle maps: irrationally winding, in From
Number Theory to Physics, eds. M. Waldschmit et al, Springer, Berlin,
1992, pp. 631-658.
11) Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Introduction to small divisors problems,
in From Number Theory to Physics, eds. M. Waldschmit et al, Springer,
Berlin, 1992, pp. 659-679.
Conway and Sloane are also pulling their weight. Starting from the
relation between the golden ratio, the isosahedron, and the 4-dimensional
big brother of the icosahedron (the "600-cell"), they've described how
to construct the coolest lattices in 8 and 24 dimensions using "icosians" -
which are certain quaternions built using the golden ratio. I discussed
this circle of ideas in "week20", "week59" and "week155".
But if you want some really scary formulas involving the golden ratio,
Ramanujan is the one to go to. Check these out:
1
--------------
1 + exp(-2pi)
-------------
1 + exp(-4pi) = exp(2pi/5) [sqrt(G sqrt(5)) - G]
------------
1 + exp(-6pi)
-----------
1 + exp(-8pi)
---------
.
.
.
and
1 + exp(-2pi sqrt(5))
-------------------
1 + exp(-4pi sqrt(5))
-----------------
1 + exp(-6pi sqrt(5))
------------------
1 + exp(-8pi sqrt(5))
------------------
.
.
.
sqrt(5)
= exp(2pi/5) [ ------------------------------------- - G]
1 + [5^{3/4} (G - 1)^{5/2} - 1]^{1/5}
These are special cases of a monstrosity called the Rogers-Ramanujan
continued fraction, which is a kind of "q-deformation" of the continued
fraction for the golden ratio. For details, start here:
12) Eric W. Weisstein, Rogers-Ramanujan Continued Fraction,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rogers-RamanujanContinuedFraction.html
The golden number also shows up in the theory of quantum groups.
I talked about this in "week22" so I won't explain it again here.
But, I can't resist mentioning that Freedman, Larsen and Wang have
subsequently shown that a certain topological quantum field theory
called Chern-Simons theory, built using the quantum group SU_q(2),
can serve as a universal quantum computer when the parameter q is a
fifth root of unity. And, this is exactly the case where the spin-1/2
representation of SU_q(2) has quantum dimension equal to the golden number!
13) Michael Freedman, Michael Larsen, Zhenghan Wang,
A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation,
available at quant-ph/0001108.
But don't get the wrong idea: it's not that some magic feature of the
golden number is required to build a universal quantum computer! It's
just that the 5 seems to be the *smallest* number n such that SU_q(2)
Chern-Simons theory is computationally universal when q is an nth root of 1.
That's pretty much everything I know about the golden number. So now,
what about this "Golden Object" puzzle?
Basically, the problem was to find an object that acts like the golden
number. The golden number has G = G^2 + 1, so we want to find
a object G equipped with a nice isomorphism between G and G^2 + 1.
If G is just a set, this means we want a nice one-to-one correspondence
between pairs of elements of G, and elements of G together with one other
It doesn't matter what that other thing is, so let's call it "@".
(You may be wondering about the word "nice". The point is, the problem
is too easy if we don't demand that the solution be nice in some way -
some way that I don't feel like making precise.)
Here's Robin Houston's answer:
Define a "bit" to be either 0 or 1. Define a "golden tree" to be a
(planar) binary tree with leaves labelled by 0, 1, or *, where every
node has at most one bit-child. For example:
/\ is a golden tree, but /\ is not.
/\ 1 /\ *
0 * 0 1
Let G be the set of golden trees. We define an isomorphism
f: G^2 -> G + {@}
as follows. First we define f(X, Y) when both X and Y are golden
trees with just one node, this node being labelled by a bit. We
can identify such a tree with a bit, and doing this we set
f(0, 0) = 0
f(0, 1) = 1
f(1, 0) = *
f(1, 1) = @
In the remaining case, where the golden trees X and Y are not just bits,
we set
f(X, Y) = /\
X Y
There are different ways to show this function f is a one-to-one
correspondence, but the best way is to see how Houston came up with
this answer! He didn't just pull it out of a hat; he tackled the
problem systematically, and that's why his solution counts as "nice".
It's easy to find a set S equipped with an isomorphism
S = P(S)
where P is some polynomial with natural number coefficients. You
just use the fixed-point principle described in "week108". Namely,
you start with the empty set, keep hitting it with P forever, and take
a kind of limit. This is how I built the set of binary trees last week,
as a solution of T = T^2 + 1.
The problem is that the isomorphism we seek now:
G^2 = G + 1 (1)
is not of this form. So, what Houston does is to make a substitution:
G = H + 2
Given this, we'd get (1) if we had
H^2 + 4H + 4 = H + 3 (2)
and we'd get (2) if we had
H^2 + 4H + 1 = H (3)
which is of the desired form.
We can rewrite (3) as
H = 1 + H^2 + 2H + H2
and in English this says "an element of H is either a *, or
a pair consisting of two guys that are either bits or elements
of H - but not both bits". So, a guy in H is a golden tree!
But, if it has just one node, that node can only be labelled
by a *, not a 0 or 1. This means there are precisely 2 golden trees
not in H. So, G = H + 2 is the set of all golden trees, and our
calculation above gives an isomorphism G^2 = G + 1.
Voila!
Note that to derive (3) from (1) we need to subtract, which in general
is not allowed in this game. Here we are subtracting constants, and
Houston says that's allowed by the "Garsia-Milne involution theorem".
I don't know this theorem, so I'll make a note to myself to learn it.
But luckily, we don't really need it here: we only need to derive (1)
from (3), and that involves addition, so it's fine.
Part of what makes Houston's solution "nice" is that it suggests a
general method for turning polynomial equations into recursive definitions
of the form S = P(S). Another nice thing is that his trick delivers
a structure type G(X) that reduces to G when X = 1. To get this, first
use the fixed-point method to construct a structure type H(X) with an
isomorphism
H(X) = (H(X) + X)^2 + 2H(X)
Then, define
G(X) = H(X) + X + 1
and note that this gives
G(X)^2 = G(X) + X
which reduces to G^2 = G + 1 when X = 1.
As if this weren't enough, Houston also gave another solution to the
puzzle. He showed that James Propp's proposed Golden Object, described
last week, really is a Golden Object! Maybe Propp already knew this,
but I sure didn't.
The idea of the proof is pretty general. Suppose we're in some category
with finite products and countable coproducts, the former distributing
over the latter. And, suppose we've got an object X equipped with an
isomorphism
X = 1 + 2X (4)
so that X acts like "-1". For example, following Schanuel and Propp,
we can take the category of "sigma-polytopes" and let X be the open
interval: then isomorphism (4) says
(0,1) = (0,1/2) + {1/2} + (1/2,1)
Or, following Houston, we can take the category of sets and let X be
the set of finite bit-strings. Then (4) says "a finite bit-string is
either the empty bit-string, or a bit followed by a finite bit-string".
The relation between these two examples is puzzling to me - if anyone
understands it, let me know! But anyway, either one works.
Now let G be the object of "binary trees with X-labelled leaves":
G = X + X^2 + 2X^3 + 5X^4 + 14X^5 + 42X^6 + ...
where the coefficients are Catalan numbers. Let's show that G is a
Golden Object. To do this, we'll use (4) and this isomorphism:
G = G^2 + X (5)
which says "a binary tree with X-labelled leaves is a pair of such
trees, or a degenerate tree with just one X-labelled node". The formula
for G involving Catalan numbers is really just the fixed-point solution
to this!
Here is Houston's fiendishly clever argument. Suppose Z is any type
equipped with an isomorphism
Z = Z' + X
for some Z'. Then
Z + X + 1 = Z' + 2X + 1
= Z' + X
= Z
This applies to Z = G^2, since
G^2 = (X + G^2)^2 = (2X + 1 + G^2)^2
has a X term in it when you multiply it out, so it's of the form Z' + X.
Therefore we have an isomorphism
G^2 = G^2 + X + 1
But we also have an isomorphism G + 1 = G^2 + X + 1 by (5). Composing
these, we get our isomorphism
G^2 = G + 1.
Golden! I'll stop here.
Quote of the week:
"As a high-end cable manufacturer, Cardas Audio strives to address every
detail of cable and conductor construction, no matter how small. An
elegant solution deals with quality, not quantity. Cable geometry problems
are resolved in the cable's design, not after the fact with filters. George
Cardas received U.S. Patent Number 4,628,151 for creating Golden Section
Stranding Audio Cable. It is truly unique. George introduced the concept
of Golden Section Stranding to high-end audio, but the Golden Ratio,
1.6180339887... : 1, is as old as nature itself. The Golden Ratio is the
mathematical proportion nature uses to shape leaves and sea shells, insects
and people, hurricanes and galaxies, and the heart of musical scales and
chords. "Discovered" by the Greeks, but used by the Egyptians in the Great
Pyramid centuries before, man has employed the Golden Ratio to create his
most beautiful and naturally pleasing works of art and architecture." -
Cardas Audio speaker cable advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on
mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be
obtained at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf.html
A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html
If you just want the latest issue, go to
Torquemada
The n-colourings of the set X are N^X.
The colourings of a set X (where a colouring of X is a choice of n and a
subsequent n-colouring) are 1+2^X+3^X+4^X+... where '+' is, of course,
disjoint union.
exp(nZ) is the structure type of n-colouring.
So C=exp(Z)+exp(2Z)+exp(3Z)+... is the structure type of colouring
C can be written formally as 1/(1-exp(Z))
The set of colourings on a set is infinite, nonetheless 1/(1-exp(z)) has
a Laurent expansion -1/2+1/2-z/12+... so it looks a bit like the set of
colourings of the set with one element has cardinality -1/12.
So the colourings of the 1-element set form a -1/12-object (by analogy
with 'Golden object'). Unfortunately I was hoping to find some nice
isopmorphism between objects made out of this set that would make
clear why it's a -1/12-object but I haven't come up with one yet.
--
Torque
"John Baez" <ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in message
news:c1t5do$jpa$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
[Moderator's note: Ludicrous amounts of quoted text deleted. Please
don't do this. -TB]
John Baez
Torquemada <torqu...@nospam.sigfpe.com> wrote:
>Let's see if I can get the hang of this stuff.
Long time no see!
>The n-colourings of the set X are N^X.
>The colourings of a set X (where a colouring of X is a choice of n and a
>subsequent n-colouring) are 1+2^X+3^X+4^X+... where '+' is, of course,
>disjoint union.
>exp(nZ) is the structure type of n-colouring.
>So C=exp(Z)+exp(2Z)+exp(3Z)+... is the structure type of colouring
>C can be written formally as 1/(1-exp(Z))
>The set of colourings on a set is infinite, nonetheless 1/(1-exp(z)) has
>a Laurent expansion -1/2+1/2-z/12+... so it looks a bit like the set of
>colourings of the set with one element has cardinality -1/12.
Right, but we need to use the analytic continuation of the zeta
function, or some other trick, to justify this - and there's some
thought required to fit this into a good general framework...
thought that goes deeper than the "Golden Object" example.
>So the colourings of the 1-element set form a -1/12-object (by analogy
>with 'Golden object'). Unfortunately I was hoping to find some nice
>isopmorphism between objects made out of this set that would make
>clear why it's a -1/12-object but I haven't come up with one yet.
I don't know a snappy answer to this particular question,
but I've been thinking about structure types, quantum mechanics,
colorings, Bernoulli numbers and
zeta(-1) = -1/12
ever since we talked about them quite a while ago. I eventually
want to show how this stuff ties in with string theory, modular
forms, and stuff like that.
You can find some of my thoughts in these homework problem
sets for the quantum gravity seminar here at UCR. I hope to
say more later.
"k-colorings as categorified coherent states"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/coherent.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/coherent_miguel.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/coherent_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/coherent_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/coherent_derek.pdf
"Euler's proof that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta_miguel.pdf
"Bernoulli numbers"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bernoulli.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bernoulli_morton.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bernoulli_miguel.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bernoulli_erin.pdf
"The Riemann zeta function"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta2.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta2_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta2_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/zeta2_miguel.pdf
Igor Khavkine
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<c30e71$80u$1...@glue.ucr.edu>...
A random sampling of the links below indicates that they
are broken.
Igor
John Baez
>You can find some of my thoughts in these homework problem
>sets for the quantum gravity seminar here at UCR. I hope to
>say more later.
As Igor Khavkine noticed, I left out the crucial phrase "qg-winter2004"
on all of these links. The correct links are as follows:
"k-colorings as categorified coherent states"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/coherent.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/coherent_miguel.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/coherent_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/coherent_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/coherent_derek.pdf
"Euler's proof that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta_miguel.pdf
"Bernoulli numbers"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/bernoulli.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/bernoulli_morton.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/bernoulli_miguel.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/bernoulli_erin.pdf
"The Riemann zeta function"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta2.pdf
answers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta2_erin.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta2_jeffrey.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta2_miguel.pdf
Torquemada
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week202.html
It seems to me that following the observation that in Lisp the lists, L,
satisfy L=A+L^2, 'nice' means something like 'runs in bounded time on a
computer' (sorry, the original article has dropped off my news server so I
haven't given the author name).
More precisely: in many computer languages with a type system, given types A
and B we can form types corresponding to A+B and AxB. Some of these
languages allow us to handle references to these objects in bounded time.
For example, in Lisp a list is represented internally by a pointer to the
list. So to pass a list into a function takes only the time it requires to
copy a pointer no matter how long the list is. In such a language,
evaluating functions like the projection AxB->A take constant time
regardless of the length of A and B. For example the proof that T^7=T in the
rig where T=T^2+1 translates directly to an algorithm that runs in bounded
time, each axiom used in the proof corresponding to a short piece of code.
--
Torque