Browse Our 2018 Math Catalog

Our new Mathematics catalog includes the story of ten great ideas about chance and the thinkers who developed them, an introduction to the language of beautiful curves, and a look at how empowering mathematics can be.

If you plan on attending the Joint Mathematics Meeting this week, stop by Booths 504-506 to see our full range of Mathematics titles and more.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, gamblers and mathematicians transformed the idea of chance from a mystery into the discipline of probability, setting the stage for a series of breakthroughs that enabled or transformed innumerable fields, from gambling, mathematics, statistics, economics, and finance to physics and computer science. This book tells the story of ten great ideas about chance and the thinkers who developed them, tracing the philosophical implications of these ideas as well as their mathematical impact.

Complete with a brief probability refresher, Ten Great Ideas about Chance is certain to be a hit with anyone who wants to understand the secrets of probability and how they were discovered.

Curves are seductive. These smooth, organic lines and surfaces—like those of the human body—appeal to us in an instinctive, visceral way that straight lines or the perfect shapes of classical geometry never could. In this large-format book, lavishly illustrated in color throughout, Allan McRobie takes the reader on an alluring exploration of the beautiful curves that shape our world—from our bodies to Salvador Dalí’s paintings and the space-time fabric of the universe itself.

The Seduction of Curves focuses on seven curves and describes the surprising origins of their taxonomy in the catastrophe theory of mathematician René Thom. In an accessible discussion illustrated with many photographs of the human nude, McRobie introduces these curves and then describes their role in nature, science, engineering, architecture, art, and other areas.  The book also discusses the role of these curves in the work of such artists as David Hockney, Henry Moore, and Anish Kapoor, with particular attention given to the delicate sculptures of Naum Gabo and the final paintings of Dalí, who said that Thom’s theory “bewitched all of my atoms.”

In The Calculus of Happiness, Oscar Fernandez shows us that math yields powerful insights into health, wealth, and love. Using only high-school-level math (precalculus with a dash of calculus), Fernandez guides us through several of the surprising results, including an easy rule of thumb for choosing foods that lower our risk for developing diabetes (and that help us lose weight too), simple “all-weather” investment portfolios with great returns, and math-backed strategies for achieving financial independence and searching for our soul mate. Moreover, the important formulas are linked to a dozen free online interactive calculators on the book’s website, allowing one to personalize the equations.

Fernandez uses everyday experiences—such as visiting a coffee shop—to provide context for his mathematical insights, making the math discussed more accessible, real-world, and relevant to our daily lives. A nutrition, personal finance, and relationship how-to guide all in one, this book invites you to discover how empowering mathematics can be.

SUMIT 2018: A math collaboration

by C. Kenneth Fan
President and Founder of Girls’ Angle, an organization that connects mentors with girls who love math

For decades, math extracurricular activity in the United States has been dominated by the math competition. I, myself, participated in and enjoyed math competitions when I was growing up. Many school math clubs are centered on math contest prep. Today, there are dozens upon dozens of math competitions. While many students gain much from math competitions, many others, for a variety of good reasons, do not find inspiration in math competitions to do more math, and the best way to learn math is to do math.

When I founded Girls’ Angle over ten years ago, a main task was to create new, non-competitive, mathematically compelling avenues into math that appeal to those who, for whatever reason, may not be so inspired by math competitions. To celebrate the end of our first year, we baked a brownie for the girls, but it wasn’t a rectangular brownie—it was a trapezoid, and nobody could have any brownie until members figured out how to split the brownie into equal pieces for all. We were counting on them to succeed because we wanted brownie!

It became a Girls’ Angle tradition to celebrate the conclusion of every semester with a collaborative math Single Digitspuzzle, and every semester the puzzle has grown more elaborate. It finally dawned on me that these collaborative end-of-session math puzzles could well serve as robust, mathematically-intense, but fully collaborative alternatives to the math competition. To directly contrast the concept with that of the math competition, we called these events “math collaborations.” On January 21, 2012, after 4 years of in-house development, we took the concept out of Girls’ Angle with SUMIT 2012, which took place at MIT in conjunction with MIT’s Undergraduate Society of Women in Mathematics. Then, on March 7, 2012, the Buckingham, Browne, and Nichols Middle School became the first school to host a math collaboration. The success of these events led to annual math collaborations at Buckingham, Browne, and Nichols, and, to date, over 100 other math collaborations at schools, libraries, and other venues, such as Girl Scout troops.

The upcoming SUMIT 2018 is going to be our biggest and best math collaboration ever. For girls in grades 6-10, participants will be put in a predicament from which they must extricate themselves using the currency of the world they’ll find themselves immersed in: mathematics! They must self-organize and communicate well as there will be no one to help them but themselves. It’ll be an epic journey where participants must become the heroines of their own saga.

Should they succeed, they’ll be rewarded with the knowledge of genuine accomplishment—and gifts, such as Marc Chamberland’s captivating book, Single Digits: In Praise of Small Numbers courtesy of long-time SUMIT sponsor Princeton University Press.

The best way to learn math is to do math, and what better way to do math than to do it while laughing out loud and making new friends?

There are a limited number of spots still available for 9th and 10th graders. Register today!

Pariah Moonshine Part III: Pariah Groups, Prime Factorizations, and Points on Elliptic Curves

by Joshua Holden

This post originally appeared on The Aperiodical. We republish it here with permission. 

In Part I of this series of posts, I introduced the sporadic groups, finite groups of symmetries which aren’t the symmetries of any obvious categories of shapes. The sporadic groups in turn are classified into the Happy Family, headed by the Monster group, and the Pariahs. In Part II, I discussed Monstrous Moonshine, the connection between the Monster group and a type of function called a modular form. This in turn ties the Monster group, and with it the Happy Family, to elliptic curves, Fermat’s Last Theorem, and string theory, among other things. But until 2017, the Pariah groups remained stubbornly outside these connections.

In September 2017, John Duncan, Michael Mertens, and Ken Ono published a paper announcing a connection between the Pariah group known as the O’Nan group (after Michael O’Nan, who discovered it in 1976) and another modular form. Like Monstrous Moonshine, the new connection is through an infinite-dimensional shape which breaks up into finite-dimensional pieces. Also like Monstrous Moonshine, the modular form in question has a deep connection with elliptic curves. In this case, however, the connection is more subtle and leads through yet another set of important mathematical objects: the quadratic fields.

At play in the fields quadratic

What mathematicians call a field is a set of objects which are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (except division by zero). The rational numbers form a field, and so do the real numbers and the complex numbers. The integers don’t form a field because they aren’t closed under division, and the positive real numbers don’t form a field because they aren’t closed under subtraction.  (It’s also possible to have fields of things that aren’t numbers, which are useful in lots of other situations; see Section 4.5 of The Mathematics of Secrets for a cryptographic example.)

A common way to make a new field is to take a known field and enlarge it a bit. For example, if you start with the real numbers and enlarge them by including the number i (the square root of -1), then you also have to include all of the imaginary numbers, which are multiples of i, and then all of the numbers which are real numbers plus imaginary numbers, which gets you the complex numbers. Or you could start with the rational numbers, include the square root of 2, and then you have to include the numbers that are rational multiples of the square root of 2, and then the numbers which are rational numbers plus the multiples of the square root of 2. Then you get to stop, because if you multiply two of those numbers you get

Holden

which is another number of the same form. Likewise, if you divide two numbers of this form, you can rationalize the denominator and get another number of the same form. We call the resulting field the rational numbers “adjoined with” the square root of 2. Fields which are obtained by starting with the rational numbers and adjoining the square root of a rational number (positive or negative) are called quadratic fields.

Identifying a quadratic field is almost, but not quite, as easy as identifying the square root you are adjoining. For instance, consider adjoining the square root of 8. The square root of 8 is twice the square root of 2, so if you adjoin the square root of 2 you get the square root of 8 for free. And since you can also divide by 2, if you adjoin the square root of 8 you get the square root of 2 for free. So these two square roots give you the same field.  For technical reasons, a quadratic field is identified by taking all of the integers whose square roots would give you that field, and picking out the integer D with the smallest absolute value that can be written in the form b2 – 4ac for integers a, b, and c.  (This is the same b2 – 4ac as in the quadratic formula.)  This number D is called the fundamental discriminant of the field. So, for example, 8 is the fundamental discriminant of the quadratic field we’ve been talking about, not 2, because 8 = 42 – 4 × 2 × 1, but 2 can’t be written in that form.

Prime suspects

After addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, one of the really important things you can do with rational numbers is factor their numerators and denominators into primes. In fact, you can do it uniquely, aside from the order of the factors. If you have number in a quadratic field, you can still factor it into primes, but the primes might not be unique. For example, in the rational numbers adjoined with the square root of negative 5 we have

Holden

where 2, 5, 1 + √–5, and 1 – √–5 are all primes. You’ll have to trust me on that last part, since it’s not always obvious which numbers in a quadratic field are prime. Figures 1 and 2 show some small primes in the rational numbers adjoined with the square roots of negative 1 and negative 3, respectively, plotted as points in the complex plane.

Holden 3

Figure 1. Some small primes in the rational numbers adjoined with the square root of -1 (D = -4), plotted as points in the complex plane. By Wikimedia Commons User Georg-Johann.)

 

Holden

Figure 2. Some small primes in the rational numbers adjoined with the square root of -3 (D = -3), plotted as points in the complex plane. By Wikimedia Commons User Fropuff.)

We express this by saying the rational numbers have unique factorization, but not all quadratic fields do. The question of which quadratic fields have unique factorization is an important open problem in general. For negative fundamental discriminants, we know that D = ‑3, ‑4, ‑7, ‑8, ‑11, ‑19, ‑43, ‑67, ‑163 are the only such quadratic fields; an equivalent form of this was conjectured by Gauss but fully acceptable proofs were not given until 1966 by Alan Baker and 1967 by Harold Stark. For positive fundamental discriminants, Gauss conjectured that there were infinitely many quadratic fields with unique factorization but this is still unproved.

Furthermore, Gauss identified a number, called the class number, which in some sense measures how far from unique factorization a field is. If the class number is 1, the field has unique factorization, otherwise not. The rational numbers adjoined with the square root of negative 5 (D = -20) have class number 2, and therefore do not have unique factorization. Gauss also conjectured that the class number of a quadratic field went to infinity as its discriminant went to negative infinity; this was proved by Hans Heilbronn in 1934.

Moonshine with class (numbers)

What about Moonshine? Duncan, Mertens, and Ono proved that the O’Nan group was associated with the modular form

F(z) = e -8 π i z + 2 + 26752 e 6 π i z + 143376 e 8 π i z  + 8288256 e 14 π i z  + …

which has the property that the coefficient of e 2 |D| π I z  is related to the class number of the field with fundamental discriminant < 0.  Furthermore, looking at elements of the O’Nan group sometimes gives us very specific relationships between the coefficients and the class number.  For example, the O’Nan group includes a symmetry which is like a 180 degree rotation, in that if you do it twice you get back to where you started.  Using that symmetry, Duncan, Mertens, and Ono showed that for even D < -8, 16 always divides a(D)+24h(D), where a(D) is the coefficient of  e 2 |D| π i z  and h(D) is the class number of the field with fundamental discriminant D.  For the example D = -20 from above, a(D) = 798588584512 and h(D) = 2, and 16 does in fact divide 798588584512 + 48.  Similarly, other elements of the O’Nan group show that 9 always divides a(D)+24h(D) if D = 3k+2 for some integer k and that 5 and 7 always divide a(D)+24h(D) under other similar conditions on And 11 and 19 divide a(D)+24h(D) under (much) more complicated conditions related to points on an elliptic curve associated with each D, which brings us back nicely to the connection between Moonshine and elliptic curves.

How much Moonshine is out there?

Monstrous Moonshine showed that the Monster, and therefore the Happy Family, was related to modular forms and elliptic curves, as well as string theory. O’Nan Moonshine brings in two more sporadic groups, the O’Nan group and its subgroup the “first Janko group”. (Figure 3 shows the connections between the sporadic groups. “M” is the Monster group, “O’N” is the O’Nan group, and “J1” is the first Janko group.) It also connects the sporadic groups not just to modular forms and elliptic curves, but also to quadratic fields, primes, and class numbers. Furthermore, the modular form used in Monstrous Moonshine is “weight 0”, meaning that k = 0 in the definition of a modular form given in Part II. That ties this modular form very closely to elliptic curves.

Holden

Figure 3. Connections between the sporadic groups. Lines indicate that the lower group is a subgroup or a quotient of a subgroup of the upper group. “M” is the Monster group and “O’N” is the O’Nan group; the groups connected below the Monster group are the rest of the Happy Family. (By Wikimedia Commons User Drschawrz.)

The modular form in O’Nan Moonshine is “weight 3/2”. Weight 3/2 modular forms are less closely tied to elliptic curves, but are tied to yet more ideas in mathematical physics, like higher-dimensional generalizations of strings called “branes” and functions that might count the number of states that a black hole can be in. That still leaves four more pariah groups, and the smart money predicts that Moonshine connections will be found for them, too. But will they come from weight 0 modular forms, weight 3/2 modular forms, or yet another type of modular form with yet more connections? Stay tuned! Maybe someday soon there will be a Part IV.

Joshua Holden is professor of mathematics at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He is the author of The Mathematics of Secrets: Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption.

Pariah Moonshine Part II: For Whom the Moon Shines

by Joshua Holden

This post originally appeared on The Aperiodical. We republish it here with permission. 

HoldenI ended Part I with the observation that the Monster group was connected with the symmetries of a group sitting in 196883-dimensional space, whereas the number 196884 appeared as part of a function used in number theory, the study of the properties of whole numbers.  In particular, a mathematician named John McKay noticed the number as one of the coefficients of a modular form.  Modular forms also exhibit a type of symmetry, namely if F is a modular form then there is some number k for which

Figure 1

for every set of whole numbers a, b, c, and d such that adbc=1.  (There are also some conditions as the real part of z goes to infinity.)

Modular forms, elliptic curves, and Fermat’s Last Theorem

In 1954, Martin Eichler was studying modular forms and observing patterns in their coefficients.  For example, take the modular form

Figure 2

(I don’t know whether Eichler actually looked at this particular form, but he definitely looked at similar ones.)  The coefficients of this modular form seem to be related to the number of whole number solutions of the equation

y2 = x3 – 4 x2 + 16

This equation is an example of what is known as an elliptic curve, which is a curve given by an equation of the form

y2 = x3 + ax2 + bx + c

Note that elliptic curves are not ellipses!  Elliptic curves have one line of symmetry, two open ends, and either one or two pieces, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. They are called elliptic curves because the equations came up in the seventeenth century when mathematicians started studying the arc length of an ellipse.  These curves are considered the next most complicated type of curve after lines and conic sections, both of which have been understood pretty well since at least the ancient Greeks.   They are useful for a lot of things, including cryptography, as I describe in Section 8.3 of The Mathematics of Secrets.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The elliptic curve y2= x3 + x has one line of symmetry, two open ends, and one piece.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The elliptic curve y2 = x3 – x has one line of symmetry, two open ends, and two pieces.

 

In the late 1950’s it was conjectured that every elliptic curve was related to a modular form in the way that the example above is.  Proving this “Modularity Conjecture” took on more urgency in the 1980’s, when it was shown that showing the conjecture was true would also prove Fermat’s famous Last Theorem.  In 1995 Andrew Wiles, with help from Richard Taylor, proved enough of the Modularity Conjecture to show that Fermat’s Last Theorem was true, and the rest of the Modularity Conjecture was filled in over the next six years by Taylor and several of his associates.

Modular forms, the Monster, and Moonshine

Modular forms are also related to other shapes besides elliptic curves, and in the 1970’s John McKay and John Thompson became convinced that the modular form

J(z) = e -2 π i z + 196884 e 2 π i z + 21493760 e 4 π i z  + 864299970 e 6 π i z  + …

was related to the Monster.  Not only was 196884 equal to 196883 + 1, but 21493760 was equal to 21296876 + 196883 + 1, and 21296876 was also a number that came up in the study of the Monster.  Thompson suggested that there should be a natural way of associating the Monster with an infinite-dimensional shape, where the infinite-dimensional shape broke up into finite-dimensional pieces with each piece having a dimension corresponding to one of the coefficients of J(z).   This shape was (later) given the name V♮, using the natural sign from musical notation in a typically mathematical pun.  (Terry Gannon points out that there is also a hint that the conjectures “distill information illegally” from the Monster.) John Conway and Simon Norton formulated some guesses about the exact connection between the Monster and V♮, and gave them the name “Moonshine Conjectures” to reflect their speculative and rather unlikely-seeming nature. A plausible candidate for V♮ was constructed in the 1980’s and Richard Borcherds proved in 1992 that the candidate satisfied the Moonshine Conjectures.  This work was specifically cited when Borcherds was awarded the Fields medal in 1998.

The construction of V♮ turned out also to have a close connection with mathematical physics.  The reconciliation of gravity with quantum mechanics is one of the central problems of modern physics, and most physicists think that string theory is likely to be key to this resolution.  In string theory, the objects we traditionally think of as particles, like electrons and quarks, are really tiny strings curled up in many dimensions, most of which are two small for us to see.  An important question about this theory is exactly what shape these dimensions curl into.  One possibility is a 24-dimensional shape where the possible configurations of strings in the shape are described by V♮.  However, there are many other possible shapes and it is not known how to determine which one really corresponds to our world.

More Moonshine?

Since Borcherds’ proof, many variations of the original “Monstrous Moonshine” have been explored.  The other members of the Happy Family can be shown to have Moonshine relationships similar to those of the Monster.  “Modular Moonshine” says that certain elements of the Monster group should have their own infinite dimensional shapes, related to but not the same as V♮.  (The “modular” in “Modular Moonshine” is related to the one in “modular form” because they are both related to modular arithmetic, although the chain of connections is kind of long. )  “Mathieu Moonshine” shows that one particular group in the Happy Family has its own shape, entirely different from V♮, and “Umbral Moonshine” extends this to 23 other related groups which are not simple groups.  But the Pariah groups remained outsiders, rejected by both the Happy Family and by Moonshine — until September 2017.

Joshua Holden is professor of mathematics at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He is the author of The Mathematics of Secrets: Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption.

Pariah Moonshine Part I: The Happy Family and the Pariah Groups

by Joshua Holden

This post originally appeared on The Aperiodical. We republish it here with permission. 

HoldenBeing a mathematician, I often get asked if I’m good at calculating tips. I’m not. In fact, mathematicians study lots of other things besides numbers. As most people know, if they stop to think about it, one of the other things mathematicians study is shapes. Some of us are especially interested in the symmetries of those shapes, and a few of us are interested in both numbers and symmetries. The recent announcement of “Pariah Moonshine” has been one of the most exciting developments in the relationship between numbers and symmetries in quite some time. In this blog post I hope to explain the “Pariah” part, which deals mostly with symmetries. The “Moonshine”, which connects the symmetries to numbers, will follow in the next post.

What is a symmetry?

First I want to give a little more detail about what I mean by the symmetries of shapes. If you have a square made out of paper, there are basically eight ways you can pick it up, turn it, and put it down in exactly the same place. You can rotate it 90 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise. You can rotate it 180 degrees. You can turn it over, so the front becomes the back and vice versa. You can turn in over and then rotate it 90 degrees either way, or 180 degrees. And you can rotate it 360 degrees, which basically does nothing. We call these the eight symmetries of the square, and they are shown in Figure 1.

Figure1

Figure 1. The square can be rotated into four different positions, without or without being flipped over, for eight symmetries total.

If you have an equilateral triangle, there are six symmetries. If you have a pentagon, there are ten. If you have a pinwheel with four arms, there are only four symmetries, as shown in Figure 2, because now you can rotate it but if you turn it over it looks different. If you have a pinwheel with six arms, there are six ways. If you have a cube, there are 24 if the cube is solid, as shown in Figure 3. If the cube is just a wire frame and you are allowed to turn it inside out, then you get 24 more, for a total of 48.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The pinwheel can be rotated but not flipped, for four symmetries total.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The cube can be rotated along three different axes, resulting in 24 different symmetries.

These symmetries don’t just come with a count, they also come with a structure. If you turn a square over and then rotate it 90 degrees, it’s not the same thing as if you rotate it first and then flip it over. (Try it and see.) In this way, symmetries of shapes are like the permutations I discuss in Chapter 3 of my book, The Mathematics of Secrets: you can take products, which obey some of the same rules as products of numbers but not all of them. These sets of symmetries, which their structures, are called groups.

Groups are sets of symmetries with structure

Some sets of symmetries can be placed inside other sets. For example, the symmetries of the four-armed pinwheel are the same as the four rotations in the symmetries of the square. We say the symmetries of the pinwheel are a subgroup of the symmetries of the square. Likewise, the symmetries of the square are a subgroup of the symmetries of the solid cube, if you allow yourself to turn the cube over but not tip it 90 degrees, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The symmetries of the square are contained inside the symmetries of the cube if you are allowed to rotate and flip the cube but not tip it 90 degrees.

In some cases, ignoring a subgroup of the symmetries of a shape gets us another group, which we call the quotient group. If you ignore the subgroup of how the square is rotated, you get the quotient group where the square is flipped over or not, and that’s it. Those are the same as the symmetries of the capital letter A, so the quotient group is really a group. In other cases, for technical reasons, you can’t get a quotient group. If you ignore the symmetries of a square inside the symmetries of a cube, what’s left turns out not to be the symmetries of any shape.

You can always ignore all the symmetries of a shape and get just the do nothing (or trivial) symmetry, which is the symmetries of the capital letter P, in the quotient group. And you can always ignore none of the nontrivial symmetries, and get all of the original symmetries still in the quotient group. If these are the only two possible quotient groups, we say that the group is simple. The group of symmetries of a pinwheel with a prime number of arms is simple. So is the group of symmetries of a solid icosahedron, like a twenty-sided die in Dungeons and Dragons. The group of symmetries of a square is not simple, because of the subgroup of rotations. The group of symmetries of a solid cube is not simple, not because of the symmetries of the square, but because of the smaller subgroup of symmetries of a square with a line through it, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. The quotient group there is the same as the symmetries of the equilateral triangle created by cutting diagonally through a cube near a corner.

Figure 5

Figure 5. The symmetries of a square with line through it. We can turn the square 180 degrees and/or flip it, but not rotate it 90 degrees, so there are four.

Figure 6

Figure 6. The symmetries of the square with a line through it inside of the symmetries of the cube.

Categorizing the Pariah groups

As early as 1892, Otto Hölder asked if we could categorize all of the finite simple groups. (There are also shapes, like the circle, which have an infinite number of symmetries. We won’t worry about them now.)  It wasn’t until 1972 that Daniel Gorenstein made a concrete proposal for how to make a complete categorization, and the project wasn’t finished until 2002, producing along the way thousands of pages of proofs. The end result was that almost all of the finite simple groups fell into a few infinitely large categories: the cyclic groups, which are the groups of symmetries of pinwheels with a prime number of arms, the alternating groups, which are the groups of symmetries of solid hypertetrahedra in 5 or more dimensions, and the “groups of Lie type”, which are related to matrix multiplication over finite fields and describe certain symmetries of objects known as finite projective planes and finite projective spaces. (Finite fields are used in the AES cipher and I talk about them in Section 4.5 of The Mathematics of Secrets.)

Even before 1892, a few finite simple groups were discovered that didn’t seem to fit into any of these categories. Eventually it was proved that there were 26 “sporadic” groups, which didn’t fit into any of the categories and didn’t describe the symmetries of anything obvious — basically, you had to construct the shape to fit the group of symmetries that you knew existed, instead of starting with the shape and finding the symmetries. The smallest of the sporadic groups has 7920 symmetries in it, and the largest, known as the Monster, has over 800 sexdecillion symmetries. (That’s an 8 with 53 zeros after it!) Nineteen of the other sporadic groups turn out to be subgroups or quotient groups of subgroups of the Monster. These 20 became known as the Happy Family. The other 6 sporadic groups became known as the ‘Pariahs’.

The shape that was constructed to fit the Monster lives in 196883-dimensional space. In the late 1970’s a mathematician named John McKay noticed the number 196884 turning up in a different area of mathematics. It appeared as part of a function used in number theory, the study of the properties of whole numbers. Was there a connection between the Monster and number theory? Or was the idea of a connection just … moonshine?

Joshua Holden is professor of mathematics at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He is the author of The Mathematics of Secrets: Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption.

Announcing the trailer for The Seduction of Curves by Allan McRobie

CurvesCurves are seductive. These smooth, organic lines and surfaces—like those of the human body—appeal to us in an instinctive, visceral way that straight lines or the perfect shapes of classical geometry never could. In this large-format book, lavishly illustrated in color throughout, Allan McRobie takes the reader on an alluring exploration of the beautiful curves that shape our world—from our bodies to Salvador Dalí’s paintings and the space-time fabric of the universe itself. A unique introduction to the language of beautiful curves, this book may change the way you see the world.

Allan McRobie is a Reader in the Engineering Department at the University of Cambridge, where he teaches stability theory and structural engineering. He previously worked as an engineer in Australia, designing bridges and towers.

Global Math Week: Counting on Math

by Tim Chartier

The Global Math Project has a goal of sharing the joys of mathematics to 1 million students around the world from October 10th through the 17th. As we watch the ever-increasing number of lives that will share in math’s wonders, let’s talk about counting, which is fundamental to reaching this goal.

Let’s count. Suppose we have five objects, like the plus signs below. We easily enough count five of them.

 

 

 

You could put them in a hat and mix them up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take them out, they might be jumbled but you’d still have five.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy enough! Jumbling can induce subtle complexities, even to something as basic as counting.

Counting to 14 isn’t much more complicated than counting to five. Be careful as it depends what you are counting and how you jumble things! Verify there are 14 of Empire State Buildings in the picture below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you cut out the image along the straight black lines, you will have three pieces to a puzzle. If you interchange the left and right pieces on the top row, then you get the configuration below. How many buildings do you count now? Look at the puzzle carefully and see if you can determine how your count changed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you spot any changes in the buildings in the first versus the second pictures? How we pick up an additional image is more easily seen if we reorder the buildings. So, let’s take the 14 buildings and reorder them as seen below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swapping the pieces on the top row of the original puzzle has the same effect as shifting the top piece in the picture above. Such a shift creates the picture below. Notice how we pick up that additional building. Further, each image loses 1/14th of its total height.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s look at the original puzzle before and after the swap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This type of puzzle is called a Dissection Puzzle. Our eyes can play tricks on us. We know 14 doesn’t equal 15 so something else must be happening when a puzzle indicates that 14 = 15. Mathematics allows us to push through assumptions that can lead to illogical conclusions. Math can also take something that seems quite magical and turn it into something very logical — even something as fundamental as counting to 14.

Want to look at counting through another mathematical lens? A main topic of the Global Math Project will be exploding dots. Use a search engine to find videos of James Tanton introducing exploding dots. James is a main force behind the Global Math Project and quite simply oozes joy of mathematics. You’ll also find resources at the Global Math Project web page. Take the time to look through the Global Math Project resources and watch James explain exploding dots, as the topic can be suitable from elementary to high school levels. You’ll enjoy your time with James. You can count on it!

ChartierTim Chartier is associate professor of mathematics at Davidson College. He is the coauthor of Numerical Methods and the author of Math Bytes: Google Bombs, Chocolate-Covered Pi, and Other Cool Bits in Computing.

Vickie Kearn kicks off Global Math Week

October 10 – 17 marks the first ever Global Math Week. This is exciting for many reasons and if you go to the official website, you’ll find that there are already 736,546—and counting— reasons there. One more: PUP will be celebrating with a series of posts from some of our most fascinating math authors, so check this space tomorrow for the first, on ciphers, by Craig Bauer. Global Math Week provides a purposeful opportunity to have a global math conversation with your friends, colleagues, students, and family.

Mathematics is for everyone, as evidenced in the launch of Exploding Dots, which James Tanton brilliantly demonstrates at the link above. It is a mathematical story that looks at math in a new way, from grade school arithmetic, all the way to infinite sums and on to unsolved problems that are still stumping our brightest mathematicians. Best of all, you can ace this and no longer say “math is hard”, “math is boring”, or “I hate math”.

Vickie Kearn visits the Great Wall during her trip to our new office in Beijing

I personally started celebrating early as I traveled to Beijing in August to attend the Beijing International Book Fair. I met with the mathematics editors at a dozen different publishers to discuss Chinese editions of our math books. Although we did not speak the same language, we had no trouble communicating. We all knew what a differential equation is and a picture in a book of a driverless car caused lots of hand clapping. I was thrilled to be presented with the first Chinese editions of two books written by Elias Stein (Real Analysis and Complex Analysis) from the editor at China Machine Press. Although I love getting announcements from our rights department that one of our math books is being translated into Chinese, Japanese, German, French, etc., there is nothing like the thrill I had of meeting the people who love math as much as I do and who actually make our books come to life for people all over the world.

Because Princeton University Press now has offices in Oxford and Beijing, in addition to Princeton, and because I go to many conferences each year, I am fortunate to travel internationally and experience global math firsthand. No matter where you live, it is possible to share experiences through doing math. I urge you to visit the Global Math Project website and learn how to do math(s) in a global way.

Check back tomorrow for the start of our PUP blog series on what doing math globally means to our authors. Find someone who says they don’t like math and tell them your global math story.

Oscar Fernandez: A Healthier You is Just a Few Equations Away

This post appears concurrently on the Wellesley College Summer blog.

How many calories should you eat each day? What proportion should come from carbohydrates, or protein? How can we improve our health through diets based on research findings?

You might be surprised to find that we can answer all of these questions using math.  Indeed, mathematics is at the heart of nutrition and health research. Scientists in these fields often use math to analyze the results from their experiments and clinical trials.  Based on decades of research (and yes, math), scientists have developed a handful of formulas that have been proven to improve your health (and even help you lose weight!).

So, back to our first question: How many calories should we eat each day?  Let’s find out…

Each of us has a “total daily energy expenditure” (TDEE), the total number of calories your body burns each day. Theoretically, if you consume more calories than your TDEE, you will gain weight. If you consume less, you will lose weight. Eat exactly your TDEE in calories and you won’t gain or lose weight.

“Great! So how do I calculate my TDEE?” I hear you saying. Good question. Here’s a preliminary answer:

TDEE = RMR + CBE + DIT         (1)                                                                                                                                                                  

Here’s what the acronyms on the right-hand side of the equation mean.

  • RMR: Your resting metabolic rate, roughly defined as the number of calories your body burns while awake and at rest
  • CBE: The calories you burned during the day exercising (including walking)
  • DIT: Your diet’s diet-induced thermogenesis, which quantifies what percentage of calories from dietary fat, protein, and carbohydrates are left over for your body to use after you ingest those calories

So, in order to calculate TDEE, we need to calculate each of these three components. This requires very precise knowledge of your daily activities, for example: what exercises you did, how many minutes you spent doing them, what foods you ate, and how much protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat these foods contained. Luckily, nutrition scientists have developed a simpler formula that takes all of these factors into account:

    TDEE = RMR(Activity Factor) + 0.1C.         (2)

Here C is how many calories you eat each day, and the “Activity Factor” (below) estimates the calories you burn through exercise:

 

Level of Activity Activity Factor
Little to no physical activity 1.2
Light-intensity exercise 1-3 days/week 1.4
Moderate-intensity exercise 3-5 days/week 1.5
Moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise 6-7 days/week 1.7
Vigorous daily training 1.9

 

As an example, picture a tall young man named Alberto. Suppose his RMR is 2,000 calories, that he eats 2,100 calories a day, and that his Activity Factor is 1.2. Alberto’s TDEE estimate from (2) would then be

TDEE = 2,000(1.2) + 0.1(2,100) = 2,610.

Since Alberto’s caloric intake (2,100) is lower than his TDEE, in theory, Alberto would lose weight if he kept eating and exercising as he is currently doing.

Formula (2) is certainly more user-friendly than formula (1). But in either case we still need to know the RMR number. Luckily, RMR is one of the most studied components of TDEE, and there are several fairly accurate equations for it that only require your weight, height, age, and sex as inputs. I’ve created a free online RMR calculator to make the calculation easier: Resting Metabolic Heart Rate. In addition, I’ve also created a TDEE calculator (based on equation (2)) to help you estimate your TDEE: Total Daily Energy Expenditure.

I hope this short tour of nutrition science has helped you see that mathematics can be empowering, life-changing, and personally relevant. I encourage you to continue exploring the subject and discovering the hidden math all around you.

Oscar E. Fernandez is assistant professor of mathematics at Wellesley College. He is the author of Everyday Calculus: Discovering the Hidden Math All around Us and The Calculus of Happiness: How a Mathematical Approach to Life Adds Up to Health, Wealth, and Love. He also writes about mathematics for the Huffington Post and on his website, surroundedbymath.com.

 

Joshua Holden: Quantum cryptography is unbreakable. So is human ingenuity

Two basic types of encryption schemes are used on the internet today. One, known as symmetric-key cryptography, follows the same pattern that people have been using to send secret messages for thousands of years. If Alice wants to send Bob a secret message, they start by getting together somewhere they can’t be overheard and agree on a secret key; later, when they are separated, they can use this key to send messages that Eve the eavesdropper can’t understand even if she overhears them. This is the sort of encryption used when you set up an online account with your neighbourhood bank; you and your bank already know private information about each other, and use that information to set up a secret password to protect your messages.

The second scheme is called public-key cryptography, and it was invented only in the 1970s. As the name suggests, these are systems where Alice and Bob agree on their key, or part of it, by exchanging only public information. This is incredibly useful in modern electronic commerce: if you want to send your credit card number safely over the internet to Amazon, for instance, you don’t want to have to drive to their headquarters to have a secret meeting first. Public-key systems rely on the fact that some mathematical processes seem to be easy to do, but difficult to undo. For example, for Alice to take two large whole numbers and multiply them is relatively easy; for Eve to take the result and recover the original numbers seems much harder.

Public-key cryptography was invented by researchers at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) – the British equivalent (more or less) of the US National Security Agency (NSA) – who wanted to protect communications between a large number of people in a security organisation. Their work was classified, and the British government neither used it nor allowed it to be released to the public. The idea of electronic commerce apparently never occurred to them. A few years later, academic researchers at Stanford and MIT rediscovered public-key systems. This time they were thinking about the benefits that widespread cryptography could bring to everyday people, not least the ability to do business over computers.

Now cryptographers think that a new kind of computer based on quantum physics could make public-key cryptography insecure. Bits in a normal computer are either 0 or 1. Quantum physics allows bits to be in a superposition of 0 and 1, in the same way that Schrödinger’s cat can be in a superposition of alive and dead states. This sometimes lets quantum computers explore possibilities more quickly than normal computers. While no one has yet built a quantum computer capable of solving problems of nontrivial size (unless they kept it secret), over the past 20 years, researchers have started figuring out how to write programs for such computers and predict that, once built, quantum computers will quickly solve ‘hidden subgroup problems’. Since all public-key systems currently rely on variations of these problems, they could, in theory, be broken by a quantum computer.

Cryptographers aren’t just giving up, however. They’re exploring replacements for the current systems, in two principal ways. One deploys quantum-resistant ciphers, which are ways to encrypt messages using current computers but without involving hidden subgroup problems. Thus they seem to be safe against code-breakers using quantum computers. The other idea is to make truly quantum ciphers. These would ‘fight quantum with quantum’, using the same quantum physics that could allow us to build quantum computers to protect against quantum-computational attacks. Progress is being made in both areas, but both require more research, which is currently being done at universities and other institutions around the world.

Yet some government agencies still want to restrict or control research into cryptographic security. They argue that if everyone in the world has strong cryptography, then terrorists, kidnappers and child pornographers will be able to make plans that law enforcement and national security personnel can’t penetrate.

But that’s not really true. What is true is that pretty much anyone can get hold of software that, when used properly, is secure against any publicly known attacks. The key here is ‘when used properly’. In reality, hardly any system is always used properly. And when terrorists or criminals use a system incorrectly even once, that can allow an experienced codebreaker working for the government to read all the messages sent with that system. Law enforcement and national security personnel can put those messages together with information gathered in other ways – surveillance, confidential informants, analysis of metadata and transmission characteristics, etc – and still have a potent tool against wrongdoers.

In his essay ‘A Few Words on Secret Writing’ (1841), Edgar Allan Poe wrote: ‘[I]t may be roundly asserted that human ingenuity cannot concoct a cipher which human ingenuity cannot resolve.’ In theory, he has been proven wrong: when executed properly under the proper conditions, techniques such as quantum cryptography are secure against any possible attack by Eve. In real-life situations, however, Poe was undoubtedly right. Every time an ‘unbreakable’ system has been put into actual use, some sort of unexpected mischance eventually has given Eve an opportunity to break it. Conversely, whenever it has seemed that Eve has irretrievably gained the upper hand, Alice and Bob have found a clever way to get back in the game. I am convinced of one thing: if society does not give ‘human ingenuity’ as much room to flourish as we can manage, we will all be poorer for it.Aeon counter – do not remove

Joshua Holden is professor of mathematics at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and the author of The Mathematics of Secrets.

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

A peek inside The Calculus of Happiness

What’s the best diet for overall health and weight management? How can we change our finances to retire earlier? How can we maximize our chances of finding our soul mate? In The Calculus of Happiness, Oscar Fernandez shows us that math yields powerful insights into health, wealth, and love. Moreover, the important formulas are linked to a dozen free online interactive calculators on the book’s website, allowing one to personalize the equations. A nutrition, personal finance, and relationship how-to guide all in one, The Calculus of Happiness invites you to discover how empowering mathematics can be. Check out the trailer to learn more:

The Calculus of Happiness: How a Mathematical Approach to Life Adds Up to Health, Wealth, and Love, Oscar E. Fernandez from Princeton University Press on Vimeo.

FernandezOscar E. Fernandez is assistant professor of mathematics at Wellesley College and the author of Everyday Calculus: Discovering the Hidden Math All around Us. He also writes about mathematics for the Huffington Post and on his website, surroundedbymath.com.

Oscar E. Fernandez on The Calculus of Happiness

FernandezIf you think math has little to do with finding a soulmate or any other “real world” preoccupations, Oscar Fernandez says guess again. According to his new book, The Calculus of Happiness, math offers powerful insights into health, wealth, and love, from choosing the best diet, to finding simple “all weather” investment portfolios with great returns. Using only high-school-level math (precalculus with a dash of calculus), Fernandez guides readers through the surprising results. He recently took the time to answer a few questions about the book and how empowering mathematics can be.

The title is intriguing. Can you tell us what calculus has to do with happiness?

Sure. The title is actually a play on words. While there is a sprinkling of calculus in the book (the vast majority of the math is precalculus-level), the title was more meant to convey the main idea of the book: happiness can be calculated, and therefore optimized.

How do you optimize happiness?

Good question. First you have to quantify happiness. We know from a variety of research that good health, healthy finances, and meaningful social relationships are the top contributors to happiness. So, a simplistic “happiness equation” is: health + wealth + love = happiness. This book then does what any good applied mathematician would do (I’m an applied mathematician): quantify each of the “happiness components” on the left-hand side of the equation (health, wealth, and love), and then use math to extract valuable insights and results, like how to optimize each component.

This process sounds very much like the subtitle, how a mathematical approach to life adds up to health, wealth, and love. But just to be sure, can you elaborate on the subtitle?

That’s exactly right. Often we feel like various aspects of our lives are beyond our control. But in fact, many aspects of our lives, including some of the most important ones (like health, wealth, and love), follow mathematical rules. And by studying the equations that emerge from these rules you can quickly learn how to manipulate those equations in your favor. That’s what I do in the book for health, wealth, and love.

Can you give us some examples/applications?

I can actually give you about 30 of them, roughly the number discussed in the book. But let me focus on my three favorite ones. The first is what I called the “rational food choice” function (Chapter 2). It’s a simple formula: divide 100 calories by the weight (say, in grams) of a particular food. This yields a number whose units are calories per gram, the units of “energy density.” Something remarkable then happens when you plot the energy densities of various foods on a graph: the energy densities of nearly all the healthy foods (like fruits and vegetables) are at most about 2 calories per gram. This simple mathematical insight, therefore, helps you instantly make healthier food choices. And following its advice, as I discuss at length in the book, eventually translates to lower risk for developing heart disease and diabetes, weight loss, and even an increase in your life span! The second example comes from Chapter 3; it’s a formula for calculating how many more years you have to work for before you can retire. Among the formula’s many insights is that, in the simplest case, this magic number depends entirely on the ratio of how much you save each year to how much you spend. And the formula, being a formula, tells you exactly how changing that ratio affects your time until retirement. The last example is based on astronomer Frank Drake’s equation for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy (Chapter 5). It turns out that this alien-searching equation can also be used to estimate the number of possible compatible partners that live near you! That sort of equates a good date with an intelligent alien, and I suppose I can see some similarities (like how rare they are to find).

The examples you’ve mentioned have direct relevance to our lives. Is that a feature of the other examples too?

Absolutely. And it’s more than just relevance—the examples and applications I chose are all meant to highlight how empowering mathematics can be. Indeed, the entire book is designed to empower the reader—via math—with concrete, math-backed and science-backed strategies for improving their health, wealth, and love life. This is a sampling of the broader principle embodied in the subtitle: taking a mathematical approach to life can help you optimize nearly every aspect of your life.

Will I need to know calculus to enjoy the book?

Not at all. Most of the math discussed is precalculus-level. Therefore, I expect that nearly every reader will have studied the math used in the book at some point in their K-12 education. Nonetheless, I guide the reader through the math as each chapter progresses. And once we get to an important equation, you’ll see a little computer icon next to it in the margin. These indicate that there are online interactive demonstrations and calculators I created that go along with the formula. The online calculators make it possible to customize the most important formulas in the book, so even if the math leading up to them gets tough, you can still use the online resources to help you optimize various aspects of health, wealth, and love.

Finally, you mention a few other features of the book in the preface. Can you tell us about some of those?

Sure, I’ll mention two particular important ones. Firstly, at least 1/3 of the book is dedicated to personal finance. I wrote that part of the book to explicitly address the low financial literacy in this country. You’ll find understandable discussions of everything from taxes to investing to retirement (in addition to the various formulas derived that will help you optimize those aspects of your financial life). Finally, I organized the book to follow the sequence of math topics covered in a typical precalculus textbook. So if you’re a precalculus student, or giving this book to someone who is, this book will complement their course well. (I also included the mathematical derivations of the equations presented in the chapter appendixes.) This way the youngest readers among us can read about how empowering and applicable mathematics can be. It’s my hope that this will encourage them to continue studying math beyond high school.

Oscar E. Fernandez is assistant professor of mathematics at Wellesley College and the author of Everyday Calculus: Discovering the Hidden Math All around Us and The Calculus of Happiness: How a Mathematical Approach to Life Adds Up to Health, Wealth, and Love.