jump to navigation

New developments in the blnosphere September 26, 2009

Posted by Noah Snyder in Blogroll, blegs, blog triumphalism, math life.
7 comments

Let me start out by apologizing for two things, first the horrible pun in the title, and second my absence from the blog for the summer. Between moving twice (once cross-country), graduating, getting set up at a new job, buying furniture, trying to finish some papers, and being academic coordinator at Mathcamp I was pretty swamped. As a result I missed out on some developments in the math blogging.

Frequent commenter Danny Calegari started a blog in May. It pays to occasionally click on the links in comments here as sometimes you’ll find brand new blogs. My mathcamp friend, Matt Kahle, who is a postdoc at Stanford also started a blog. It has a fun mix of some elementary stuff (like the Rubik’s cube) and some of his research (which as an interesting mix of topology, combinatorics, and statistical mechanics, it definitely involves a lot of sending n to infinity in ways that would make my advisor happy). I’ve been meaning to link to both of those since sometime in June but just haven’t gotten around to it (though I did manage to add them both to the blogroll). It’s been that sort of summer, just ask me about my passport. Also, low dimensional topology has become a group blog. I find group blogging a great model both as a reader and blogger because it promotes conversations and allows one to maintain a reasonably updated blog even when someone disappears a whole summer.

Finally, over the summer there was a great conversation about what mathematicians need to know about blogging. Here’s my two cents. One thing incredibly valuable thing about blogging is the opportunity to have discussions and get advice about how to be a mathematician. It’s often hard in real life to have a discussion involving people at many different places in their careers about professional questions. In that spirit, here’s a question I’ve been wrestling with lately. How do you balance your research time between the following three activities: working on problems you basically know how to solve, working on problems you don’t know how to solve but are important problems, and learning new tools. When I was in graduate school I felt like it was pretty easy to balance things because any time I had any idea that was at all worthwhile I just worked on it and when I didn’t, I learned new things. I had few enough research-worthy ideas that it was feasible to think about all of them. Now that I know more I can’t keep doing that because I simply don’t have time to work on all the easy problems that I could solve. So the need comes to prioritize. I was wondering how other people strike this balance.

Is massively collaborative mathematics scalable? May 25, 2009

Posted by Ben Webster in blog triumphalism, crazy ideas, fun problems.
13 comments

I’ve been watching, though not particularly intently, Tim Gowers’s attempt massively collaborative mathematics. I’m not sure if I’ve looked hard enough to judge, but it certainly looks as though it were quite successful. This of course, answers Tim’s original question “is massively collaborative mathematics possible?” positively, but I still have to wonder if it’s sustainable in the long term. Of course, it never seems smart to bet against the possibilities of the Internet combining disperate contributions into valuable knowledge. Certainly, I would say people have tended to underestimate the possibilities of real advances coming from the technology of wikis and blogs. At the same time, it seems hard to imagine that people will really have the energy and time, not to mention mental organization, to follow several such projects at all closely. One of Tim’s take away lessons from the project seemed to be that it shrank in number of participants faster than he expected. And this was in a collaboration prominently featuring two Fields medalists and promoted on what is probably the world’s most prestigious math blog! It seems more likely that as the number of such projects expands the average number of participants will shrink until most are functionally equivalent of the collaborations we are used to today, just with more efficient coauthor location. By which I mean, the important advance will not be the number of people involved, but rather the identity of them.

Not that the value of efficient coauthor location should be minimized! The broader array of people we can stay in contact with due to the Internet is a huge boon to mathematics. It’s just that I suspect any concern over how we will deal with the allocating credit in a 20 person collaboration is a bit premature, at least outside of exceptional cases.

On the other hand, I’m kind of excited about the possibility of proving myself wrong, but haven’t been able to come up with any good projects. Does anyone wanna do that massively collaboratively?

L’affaire El Naschie November 30, 2008

Posted by Ben Webster in Off Topic, blog triumphalism, crazy ideas, evil journals, things I don't understand.
79 comments

So I know I’m a little late to the party on this, but I couldn’t resist commenting on the strange case of M. el Naschie (I assume that this is just the German transliteration of the name English speakers would be more likely to spell al Nashi). Zoran Škoda brought him up in the comments to a post at the n-Category Cafe, and John Baez did an excellent job exposing the level of intellectual bankruptcy at the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. The details are better recounted elsewhere, (unfortunately the posts above have been removed. Those interested in following the case can try Richard Poynder’s blog Open and Shut) but in a nutshell, El Naschie published dozens of papers in his own journal (he’s the editor-in-chief) which appear to be of no scientific or mathematical merit (this is my judgment based on excerpts and titles, and also seems to be the consensus of commenters at nCC), which make rather grandiose claims based on rather incoherent numerology. John Baez characterized him as “worse than the Bogdanov brothers,” which is pretty high up in the food chain of physics hoaxes.

But my intent here is not to beat up on El Naschie. He’s already set to retire in shame. The people who really have egg on their face here are those who enabled the man who is for all intents and purposes a crank to run a superficially prestigious-seeming journal. (more…)

Requests requested June 14, 2008

Posted by Ben Webster in blog triumphalism.
2 comments

You may have noticed that there’s a new tab up at the top of the page. That’s because I’ve added a new page called Requests where our blog’s readers are encouraged to suggest blogging topics. Of course, we’re not qualified to discourse on everything (and we do try to stay roughly on topic) so we may not be able to do everything, but I’m really curious to see what good suggestions there are out there. Other bloggers should feel free to poach ideas as well, and link in comments there.

New blogroll denizens March 3, 2008

Posted by Ben Webster in Blogroll, blog triumphalism.
12 comments

In a fit of housekeeping zeal, I went on something of a blogcrawl (like a barcrawl, with less delirium, but about the same amount of nausea) to find some new deserving blogs for our roll of bloggery.

The most notable thing was the shocking number of blogs that link to us (see for your self). The sheer mass of them had never hit me at once before. A fair number have petered out already, but a lot are still active. As I think I said before, this math blogging thing is gonna be BIG.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was that my old friend Jesse Johnson (we went to Budapest Semesters in Mathematics together 7 years ago) now has a blog on low dimensional topology, which I somehow managed to look at months ago without registering the identity of its author. Jesse is (and from my recollection, always has been) a real low-dimensional topologist, as opposed to myself who is egregiously faking it (and yet somehow I still manage to get myself invited to conferences). Jesse and I also seem to have a remarkable knack for following each other around the country (we both went to college in western New England, grad school in Northern California, and now he’s at Yale, and I’m in Princeton on my way to MIT). We’ll have to see how long we can keep that up.

I do recommend perusing some of the other additions as well. Neverending Books and Ars Mathematica both have extremely deep archives that I have barely begun to spelunk, and I’m definitely intrigued by Charles’s attempt to do algebraic geometry from the beginning at Rigorous Trivialities, though I’m sure the series reads pretty differently for someone who’s already read Hartshorne.

Reality Blogging February 28, 2008

Posted by Scott Morrison in blog triumphalism, crazy ideas, mathematical physics.
72 comments

If you’re ever looking for a great example of an online technical discussion gone wrong, look no further than the comments section of this post over at Cosmic Variance, from last December.

Now maybe I don’t get out enough, but I haven’t seen anything like this since the Usenet days of yore. It had everything — name calling, anonymous cowards, hecklers, crackpots, vicious ad hominem attacks, a media circus, angry string theorists, elephants and a cast of thousands, and, all the above notwithstanding, two physicists trying to discuss some physics. (In fact, it’s mostly maths — can you embed SL(2,ℂ)×SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) in a real form of E8 so the adjoint representation breaks up in a particular way? — unfortunately not.) There’s some reasonable background on what started it all at wikipedia.

I feel a little bad about encouraging people to go read this (be warned, it’s long, often tedious, but also strangely engrossing), in part because I think it ends up reflecting rather poorly on both the principal protagonists, not to mention everyone else involved. I know one of them, and have corresponded briefly with the other, and I suspect that the both of them are well meaning, friendly, reasonable people, and contrary to some claims, not crackpots. Quite what went wrong in the above exchange I’ll leave up to you. The whole farce is perhaps a warning against blog triumphalism; this could have been a great example of the potential of online public forums, and in fact at times it threatened to all turn out okay. In the end, however, I’m sure several of the people involved are wishing that the internet’s memory isn’t quite so long. Eventually, one of the Cosmic Variance bloggers closed the thread, with the comment:

“Essentially everyone in this comment thread has managed to be some combination of whiny, obnoxious, incorrect, disingenuous, unhelpful, and plain old embarrassing. “

So why doesn’t this happen in the maths blogosphere? Or is asking tempting fate?

Liveblogging: Jacob Lurie on 2-d TQFT February 20, 2008

Posted by Noah Snyder in Category Theory, blog triumphalism, liveblogging, talks, tqft.
4 comments

We seem to still get a lot of google searches for this post. Jacob has an expository article out now that does a much better job of addressing this material than my liveblogging. You should read that paper instead.

Jacob Lurie is in town giving two topology talks. The first one is on classifying 2-d extended TQFT (a topic near and dear to my heart), and the second is a more leisurely introduction to extended 2-dimensional TQFTs . As is often the case when Jacob is in town, the room is rather packed.

At the moment I’m liveblogging the second talk, for the first talk go past the flip.

Jacobs 2nd talk is starting now, and since Peter Teichner just described it as “the talk where you start from the beginning” I’m going to try to continue the liveblogging, and hopefully it’ll make the earlier talk make more sense.

In this talk, Jacob is describing his joint work with Mike Hopkins on extended TQFT inspired by Kevin Costello’s papers.

Jacob starts off recalling Atiyah’s celebrated definition that an n-dimensional TQFT is a tensor functor from nCob to complex vector spaces. The “functor” part here means that gluing cobordisms corresponds to composition of linear maps. The “tensor” part says that F(M \cup N) = F(M) \otimes F(N).

Then he recalls the well-known result that 2-dimensional TQFTs are classified by Frobenius algebras. To see this, you first consider the vector space assigned to a circle. Then a pair of pants gives a multiplication on this space, and a disc gives a trace. Using the relations between cobordisms you can see that these algebraic structures fit together to make a Frobenius algebra.

The moral of this story is that we should understand n-dimensional TQFT you want to understand it on some simple pieces, and then take your manifold and chop it up into those simple pieces. This is nice, but unfortunately you can’t chop things too finely. You aren’t allowed to chop it up in ways that have corners. This suggests another definition.

Definition: An extended TQFT (in dimension n) is a rule

  • closed n-manifold –> complex number
  • closed (n-1)-manifold –> vector space
  • bordism of (n-1)-manfiold –> map of vector spaces
  • closed (n-2)-manifold –> linear category
  • bordism (n-2)-manifold –> linear functor

The “…” is not intended to mean that it is easy to keep going, only that you’re meant to try. But since we’re only talking about low-dimensional topology and “here low means n<2” we don’t really need to understand the “…”.

This definition can be summarized as “An extended TQFT is a functor between n-categories.”

At this point there’s a bit of a digression in which Rob Kirby wants to know why we should think about this hard problem of what an n-category is when we don’t have any examples in dimensions above 3. Jacob says “I’m the wrong man to ask, I only understand what’s going on in dimension less than 2.”

After that digression he moves on to describe the Baez-Dolan Cobordism Hypothesis (paraphrased by Jacob): “Extended TQFTs are “easy to describe/construct.” Elaborating a bit further he says that you only need to describe the TQFT on very small building blocks, and then n-category theory will do all the work for you. Rather than making the conjecture more precise he’s going to give examples where the conjecture is known to hold.

(non-)example (n=2): We restrict our attention to a smaller category where we only allow certain bordisms allowed by string topology based on some manifold M. To a circle we assign the homology of the loop space on M. To a pair of pants we assign the Chas-Sullivan product on homology. (To a disc we don’t get anything, since that’s a bordism that isn’t allowed.)

But rather than just assigning homology, we’d rather assign the chain complex itself. Unfortunately given a bordism you only get a chain homotopy between the corresponding complexes. Nonetheless we can cook up out of this more operations on F(circle) associated to higher homology of Bord(M,N).

A better way to restate this is that Bord(M,N) = Map(F(M), F(N)) where the latter space of chain complexes is thought of as a topological space. So our TQFT here is actually a functor of (\infty, 2)-categories! That is the 2-morphism spaces aren’t just a set, they’re actually topological spaces, and the functor respects this topological structure.

Now we get down to the question at hand. Define the monoidal (\infty, 2)-category 2Bord defined by

  • The objects of 2Bord are oriented (compact) 0-manifolds
  • The morphisms of 2Bord are bordisms between 0-manifolds
  • The space of 2-morphisms from f to g is the classifying space of bordisms from f to g which are trivial on their boundary

We want to classify tensor functors from this (\infty, 2)-category to other (\infty, 2)-categories. By Baez-Dolan we should expect this question to have an easy answer: all we need to know is where a point goes!

A point corresponds to some object C. The point with the opposite orientation corresponds to a dual to C (using a line segment as the map), so we need to require that C be dualizable. Then we can figure out where a circle goes just by making the circle out of two segments. So the circle goes to the “dimension” of C, which is an element of End(C).

This is already enough to classify 1-dimensional extended TQFTs! Exciting. Now we need to figure out how to promote 1-dim extended TQFTs to 2-dimensional ones.

So where is a disc going to go? Well, it must land in 2Hom(1_1, dim C). Using the circle action on dim C (given by the circle action on the circle) we know that the disc lands in the circle fixed points of 2Hom(1_1, dim C).

The punchline is that this is all that you need to know. The only data is a dualizable object and a circle fixed point in 2Hom(1_1, dim C). You may need to check lots of relations, but you don’t need any more data than that.

This fact allows Jacob to give a quick description of string topology, and a proof that it is homotopy invariant.  Since I don’t understand string topology, I’ll stop here.

(more…)

(Anton Geraschenko) The Salamander lemma November 13, 2007

Posted by Noah Snyder in Anton Geraschenko, blog triumphalism, guest post, homological algebra.
4 comments

[I'm happy to introduce Anton, our very first guest blogger.]

A couple of years ago, George Bergman gave me a copy of a fun preprint that he never got around to preparing for publication. A scan of it is posted here. It starts

The “magic” of diagram-chasing consists in establishing relationships between distant points of a diagram—exactness implications, connecting morphisms, etc.. These “long” connections are in general composits of “short” (unmagical) connections, but the latter, and even the objects they join, are frequently not visible in the diagram-chasing proof. We attempt to remedy this situation here.

If you don’t like diagram chases, it’s likely that you still won’t like them once you know the Salamander lemma. The salamanders chase the diagrams for you, but you still have to chase the salamanders. I think the salamander proofs are easier to explain (once you know the Salamander lemma), and it’s easier to see where you use the hypotheses. For example, it is totally clear that the argument for the 3\times 3 lemma can prove the “20\times 20 lemma” as well.
(more…)

Go go gadget Web 2.0! October 19, 2007

Posted by Ben Webster in blog triumphalism, wiki.
3 comments

We’re cited in Wikipedia now.  Huzzah!

Typesetting Question September 28, 2007

Posted by David Speyer in blog triumphalism.
28 comments

Stephen Hawking’s publisher told him that, for every equation Hawking included, his readership would drop in half. I think it is fair to say that readers of the Secret Blogging Seminar are made of sterner stuff! However, including LaTeX objects in blog posts is a burden on the reader because (1) they are displayed as images and hence take longer to load (2) they can’t be cut and pasted, reducing the usefulness of the post and (3) on many browsers (particularly Safari) they can cause problems with text alignment. For this reason, I have tried to use fewer LaTeX objects writing here than I do when writing works meant to be read as PDF’s.

What I am wondering is whether or not to use LaTeX objects to display symbols that can be represented with ordinary characters. For example, which of the following is best?

We denote by \lfloor a \rfloor the greatest integer less than or equal to a.
We denote by \lfloor a \rfloor the greatest integer less than or equal to a.
We denote by \lfloor a \rfloor the greatest integer less than or equal to a.

(If you can’t tell, the “a” on the second line is italicized, using the HTML tag “<i>”.)