Nicolas Bourbaki: The Greatest Mathematician who NEVER Lived

Nicolas Bourbaki is the greatest mathematician who NEVER lived.  He produced outstanding advances in set theory, algebra, and topology among many others. Bourbaki published 40 volumes of work. Though he waxed and waned, he was a steady contributor for 50 years after the 1930s, especially in France.  But he's never drawn breath or put pencil to paper.  He never existed.

In fact, Nicolas Bourbaki wasn't a mathematician.  He was a conspiracy.

I'm not a mathematician, but I'm interested in math.  And I'm not paranoid, but I'm partial to my share of conspiracies (and I don't care if they are watching me!)  So that makes him my kind of historical figure and, apart from Newton,  Nicolas Bourbaki stands as my favorite math guy. 

He was invented in the 1930's by five students who wanted to rewrite the standard math text under the cloak of secrecy! [Insert the sound of the Twilight Zone here].   They operated for years, publishing under a pseudonym and adopted persona.  They were highly exclusive and had rigorous standards for their approach to their work.   They recruited in secrecy.  The academic community assumed that there was some brilliant, quirky recluse operating in his own bubble and cranking out brilliant work.  Turns out there were a bunch of brilliant, quirky recluses operating in a bubble.  The ruse eventually ran its course and the final Bourbaki publication was in 1983.

The story is much better told at Planet Math.  

Because this appeals to me on so many levels, I fashioned Sir Robin Louis Baack*, the antagonist in my novel "A Body at Rest", after Nicolas Bourbaki*.    In the novel, Sir Robin is the head of an academic secret society bent on destroying Cambridge University.  Oh man, there's going to be some trouble coming from the House of Baack.  Big trouble.

The Fine Print

*Twelve bonus points to you if you figured out that these two are anagrams (leaving out the "sir").   No, wait.  I'm just giving ten bonus points.  I mean, come on!  They have all the same letters in their names, just rearranged...Hey now!  Don't get snippy with me.  I'll knock it down to 8 points.  I will.** 

**I mean it.

Introducing a New Feature: Cool or Creepy?

The Secret of Newton is adding a new item called "Cool or Creepy?". Regular updates will pose the question about technology that pushes the limit, gadgets that raise the hair on your head, pictures that might have a high pucker factor. Your participation in the polls is most welcome. Also, please forward ideas to me that you think would make good candidates for a Cool or Creepy posting.

And the First Inaugural "Cool or Creepy" candidate is the Boston Dynamics Battlefield Quadruped.



Update 1/8/08: Poll closed with creepy winning by a nose.

The Crayon Physics Paradox: V1,000,001

Here's a thought experiment in response to Assaf of Physically Incorrect, who gave me some good fodder to chew regarding my post "When Virtual Reality Approaches Reality". I agree with Assaf in that there is intrigue in the act of digital creation. Also agreed that virtual reality and reality are different systems.  

I still think, however, that there is something odd that takes place at the boundary between the virtual and the real. It is easiest to wrap my head around it by reducing it to a simple system of single ball drop onto table. If the ideal for virtual reality is to approach reality, then there is a continuum between unrealistic and realistic systems, culminating in an actually real system. Part of this is tongue and cheek, but I'm also genuinely interested in the math of this thought experiment. I suspect that a form of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox of Motion is at the foundation of this. 

And now the thought experiment. Let's use Crayon Physics.   Let's imagine that the first iteration of the program was crude.  They could digitally create a ball that dropped and hit a table, but the bounce wasn't realistic.  It just bounced up and down repeatedly at the same height, not losing momentum.  Also, if you drew an oblate sphere it still bounced straight up when it landed on a side that, in reality, would clearly send it rebounding at an angle.   It was cool to bounce the Version 1 (v1) ball but not cool enough because it was far from reality.  Version two is vastly improved and a giant step was made to get closer to reality.  The v2 ball lost momentum as it should but the rebound angle wasn't solved.  The V3 Ball took another big step toward reality by adjusting the angle of incidence and reflection.  That was even cooler than v1 and v2.  However, the makers weren't satisfied because it didn't take into account the introduction of wind, air resistance, elasticity of the ball, etc...  So they make V4, V5, V6... each time taking one step closer to reality, and each time the ball drop system increased on the "Cool Factor Scale", albeit at a smaller amount with each iteration.    

Now here's where it gets fascinating to me.  Let's jump ahead to V1,000.  At this time Crayon Physics has become adopted by the Federal Government and there are NSF dollars invested in the project.  The ball drop is now extremely cool and very realistic, in fact the "Cool Factor vs Reality" graph has been changed to a logarithmic scale on both axes.    At V1,000,000 the project goes international.  The Large Hadron Collider project has been abandoned in favor of Crayon Physics.   It is now the BIG SCIENCE project (neglect the corrupting influences of politics and other Big Science inefficiencies and garbage.)  Billions of dollars are spent.   It reaches the point that you are immersed in a 3D holographic VR chamber.  The virtual ball is transmitted though integrated biotechnological circuits into your brain so that you actually feel the temperature, weight and texture of the ball.  Crayon Physics shamed the VR system in The Matrix long ago, way back around V754,982.   Movie stars, literati, dignitaries are paying six figures to "Drop the Ball" because it is so cool.  

Then the funding dries up and the plug is threatening to be pulled on the entire project. (A comet struck the earth, caused global cooling and all the money was diverted to discovering ways of heating up the planet.)

Under tremendous pressure from trade unions, the Prime Minister of the "International Ball Drop Consortium" comes up with a brilliant idea. He figures that since V1,000,000 is so close to reality that nobody will be able to tell the difference if he substitutes a real ball for the virtual one.    And since people are still lining up and paying big bucks to "Drop the Ball" he makes V1,000,001:  a real ball dropped on a real table.  Nobody could tell the difference because the prior version was soooooo realistic.  The V1,000,001 scam went well for a decade and was a closely held secret within the consortium.   The IBDC made millions in revenue (not to mention the endorsements deals!)  

That is, until Snerd Jackely got disgruntled.  Snerd was the Junior Undersecretary to the Sub-Warden of the Security Division of the IBDC (JUSWSD - IBDC) and got passed over for a promotion to become SUSWSD - IBDC.  Oh he was mad!  His revenge?  He turned states evidence and informed the world that the VR ball was in fact real!  After the U.N. tribunals and World Court trials, what was left?    The cool factor of dropping the real ball dropped like a stone.  The "Line of Reality" was crossed.    

Forgive please the drama and tongue-in-cheek of this thought experiment.  Set aside the economics of supply/demand in dropping V1,000,000 versus V1,000,001.  There's calculus in here.  I know it.  And there still lies a paradox and something strange occurs when the limit of reality is approached in smaller and smaller increments.   In fact, I'm going way out on a limb* and coining a new paradox: The Crayon Physics Paradox.  

And, I'm also going to be the first to shorten the paradox name to CPP.  And I'm going to go drop a ball in the kitchen.

Thanks again Physically Incorrect.

Fine Print

*Or I'm exposing my ignorance of an ancient debate in the VR community by naming that which has already been named and elucidated much clearer than above.

Compendia vs CERN

The appeal of older scientific instruments are their craftsmanship . Not that craftsmanship is absent in the Large Hadron Collider.   Many old scientific instruments have an artistic element. Not that ground penetrating radar isn't artistic in its own way.  But the poster child of gorgeous historic instruments is a compendium: the swiss army knife of seventeenth and eighteenth centrury.     The flash exhibit of the Tobias Volkmer compendium at the Whipple Museum shows why. Within one box are tightly folded volvelles, calculators, quandrants, compass and other useful devices.  Yet gorgeous engravings and details overpower the utility.  I was so intrigued by these devices that it became imperative for a compdendium to figure  prominently in "A Body at Rest". But the novel has no ordinary compendium, it is Newton's own device.  And like the man himself, his compendium holds a few secrets.  

When virtual reality approaches real reality

Crayon Physics is the best thing since sliced bread.  Why?  Because it closely simulates reality. Very closely. You digitally draw a crayon box, it falls, hits a CG board, then tilts, falls, knocks a CG ball which then rolls off of an edge.  The virtural springs spring like springs, virtual gravity pulls like gravity, virtual pendulums pendulate(?) like pendulums.  The "cool factor" lies in how close it approaches reality.

But why don't I have the same awe, fascination and intrigue about real reality?  Why not spend hours taking a ball, dropping it on the table, and watch it roll to the floor?  Some real life games capture this (marble contraptions, hot wheels tracks, etc...) but they have a different intrigue somehow.   A real pendulum that gets knocked by a box doesn't have the same wonder of its virtual counterpart.  But why shouldn't it?    The "cool factor" of computer simulation/games/CG increases exponentially the closer it gets to "Reality", but then takes a sudden dive when the line of reality is crossed.  This is why a very realistic, but virtural, Crayon Physics ball dropping seems cooler than a real ball dropping.  

But shouldn't it be different?  Why shouldn't the cool factor increase (assymptotically?) just after it crosses the line into real reality?  Why shouldn't a real ball dropping hold even more fascination that the CG one?  Why not this?

I'd like somebody more mathematically adept to help me describe what is happening at the points on the two graphs where the red line crosses the dashed line. It seems that calculus infinitesimals and geometric asymptotes are playing a role here, but I'd be very grateful for your help and thoughts on that. (The truth? This call for cooperation and community is just a thin veil that tries to cover for my laziness. But I would be thankful nonetheless!)

Six Random Things About Me

I'm "it" after being tagged by Newton's Ocean for the Six Random Things meme.  Here goes.

1. I am accomplished in the fine art of footbag (AKA "Hacky Sack").  Not at the insane level of those competing in tournaments, but much more than your average joe.   I've been playing for about 25 years.  I credit (blame?) footbag  in Red Square for extending my geology graduate degree at Western Washington University.   I spent way too much time kicking the footbag and not enough work on the paleomagnetism thesis.  A two year program got stretched to three.
2. I love to backpack.  Washington State has a lifetime worth of exploration in the Cascades and Olympic mountains.  A few years ago a good friend and I completed the Wonderland Trail in 9 days.  This was an amazing 97 mile loop around Mt. Rainier.  It is stunning in beauty, but greuling and the most physically challenging experience of my life.  There is a total of about 30,000 feet of elevation gain across the trail--the equivalent of climbing Mt. Everest from sea level.  I highly recommend it to any lover of the alpine.
3. One of the most rewarding summers I ever had was spent volunteering at the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center in Ohio.    Wellspring helps victims of  abusive churches, organizations and cults with world-class licensed counselors and professionals.  
4. I provide the voices of about 20 stuffed animals that my kid has.  In ten years I've come to love Bunny, Dumpy, Pengy, Space Jam, Nigel, Beuford, Meemer and the rest of the characters as much as my son does. Or more?
5. I'm currently writing the third draft of a historical fiction novel about Newton.    The novel is called "A Body at Rest" and is something of a mix between "The da Vinci Code", "Good Will Hunting" and "A Beautiful Mind".  It's my first novel and I'm ready to reach the end of a 6 year process it's taken to get this far.
6. I am creeped out by the sound of styrofoam rubbing together (is that random enough?)

Now I'm tagging six of my favorite bloggers that are worth your viewing (Newton's Ocean has already been tagged but he is worth a read too):

Physically Incorrect

Urikalization

Capturing Chaos

Pagesmith.info

SkipRatt

Leave the Lights On

Tag Rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they were tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

What's in a name? The Cambridge University Colleges

When was the divorce decree issued, making official the separation of the faith/reason or faith/science marriage?  If you look strictly at the naming of Cambridge University colleges the end of the 19th century corresponds well with Schaeffer's "Line of Despair".  Pre-20th century colleges at Cambridge include: 

• Trinity Hall, founded 1350
• Corpus Christi, f. 1352
• Magdalene, f. 1428
• St. Catharine's, f. 1473
• Jesus, f. 1496
• Christ's, f. 1505
• St. John's, f. 1511
• Trinity, f. 1546
• Emmanuel, f. 1584
• St. Edmund's, f. 1896

After St. Edmund's, the colleges are exclusively secular in name, including among others:

• New Hall
• Churchill
• Darwin
• Robinson

Granted that among those early religiously named are also colleges named for secular dignitaries, mostly royalty (King's College, Queens, Clare, etc...)  Granted that the earlier colleges were first training grounds for the clergy, then took on the secular academic role.  Also granted that there continue to be seminary subjects within the modern colleges.    But the see-saw which once tilted heavily toward faith-centered thought, turned on it's fulcrum (seemingly in the late 1800's) and now faith-based-thought dangles with it's little legs kicking the air across from a bloated non-faith-based-thought see-saw partner.  (To stretch a metaphor and over-use hyphens!)

The "what" of this transition seems beyond doubt, the "when" and "where" are clear but less certain.   To me, the "why" and "how" are the least clear, up for the most debate, and  the most interesting.  

My preference is that the tyke at the top of the see-saw starts growing up and that the chubby guy at the other end should call Jenny Craig.  But that both stay on and play.  Because you know what happens when one jumps off.

Happy Birthday to Newton, 365 Years Old!

Born on Christmas Day, 1643.

And what gift would I give Newton for his birthday?  

• An Apple iPhone with the Quick Graph 3D graphing application (because... you know... Apple...)
• A Night Vision Pinch Bunk Bot (because he probably didn't have a plush robot to sleep with when he was a kid)
• And a block of frozen smoke (because aerogels are just too cool)

An Unholy Marriage in Newton's Principia

Newton's masterpiece  Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (or, "The Principia") stands as one of the most important scientific texts in history.   But modern people who read it have major problems with it (and not just because it is exceedingly thick and technical).  There are problems at one's gut level when it is examined.  Why? An odd marriage of faith and science within the same volume.  It was not odd for Newton's time, but is for ours.  He pairs theology along with the codification of the laws of motion, gravity, and geometric proofs.  An example of the theology from The Principia:

The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God' usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.

Our squirming has no end.  Many modern scientists squirm because their cart typically isn't attached to that horse.  What was the last issue of Nature or Scientific American to have theological contributions?  But many Christians squirm because their cart is attached to that horse, but a different breed.  Newton's public faith often deviated from traditional doctrine.    

The source (but unnecessary, I believe) of the unease is the separation of faith and science as disciplines.  Francis Schaeffer argues that humanity crossed "The Line of Despair" in the early 1900's where faith and reason were ultimately separated and people were forced to live either in the lower story of a house (reason) or the upper story (faith), but not both upstairs and downstairs within the post-modern framework.  Perhaps a lion's share of moderns' unease with The Principia, is that Newton lived on both stories of the house at once.  Or rather, he had no separate stories, just one unified abode where faith and reason lived together, shared meals, and (probably) argued about whether the toilet paper roll should pull up or down. 

In his book Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton describes the terrible result of the effort to separation faith from reason:

With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.

Welcome to "The Secret of Newton" Blog from Brian Steele

By education and trade I'm a geologist which makes me a scientist. But I'm not an authority on science though I know a thing or two about rocks. I'm fascinated by history, but not a historian. I am a Christian, but not  a theologian. I am Newton enthusiast but am far from a Newton scholar. I wrote  the novel "A Body at Rest" to pursue my passions in the areas of science, history, faith and the interaction of the three. The only mantle of authority I claim is the history and inner workings of Elyon College, the fictional school I created for the sake of the novel. For matters relating to Elyon I'll accept criticism and correction only from the novel characters themselves, and, since by my keyboard I hold them by the lips, that's not likely to happen.

In all other matters on this blog (religious, scientific, historical) I welcome your input, discussion, dialogue and correction where I stand to be corrected. As I said, my command and understanding of the realm of Elyon is unimpeachable, in all else fire away. From this blog and the novel, I welcome input from Cambridge alumni, Newton devotees, scientists, people of faith and people without faith. All are expected and I hope will be shared with my same passions and intentions to highlight some brilliant subjects, times, places and characters in history. Cheers!

Open Comments for Early Readers of "A Body at Rest"

If you've been given an early copy of my novel "A Body at Rest", here's a place to leave comments, interact with the other readers, shoot spit balls, or hurl rotten vegetables.  No spoilers please.   

Australian Brush Fires

Updated: Over 150 lives lost in the worst fires of Australia modern history.

This photo is from The Big Picture:

More 700 homes have been lost to date in Southern Australia.    More information about the ongoing tragedy below on the updated map.

Bonus Point Leader Board

In case you missed it on ESPN Sports Center night, here is the most current standings on the Bonus Points Leader Board.  They are always available on the sidebar in case you want to feverishly check where you're on the heap.  And you know you want to be feverish about this!

Points Name

74.5 Rocket Scientist

45   The Deeps of Time

33          Letters from Lausanne

26          Black Holes and Astrostuff

22          Lea (early reader of "A Body at Rest")

20 Newton's Ocean

20 Leave the Lights On

20         Imagining the Tenth Dimension

15          Make

15 Dallin

10          Glue4Families

10          Shakespeare Mom

10          Thom L.

10 Arash's World

10 Nested Universe

10 Ether Wave Propaganda

5            Nonfiction Lover

Bonus Points are for those who make great contributions to The Secret of Newton.  See the FAQ for more info about how to get these highly coveted points and be the envy of your peers.

Or, if you want to forsake the honor, fame and respect of your peers on the Leader Board you can buy neat stuff with your Bonus Points.  Just visit the Store House O' Prizes.

Free Comedy Gold From Craig's List: Large Pumpkin

[WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGE OF MOLDY PUMPKIN BELOW.  NOT WORK SAFE, OR HOME SAFE, OR DINNER SAFE, OR LUNCH SAFE, OR BREAKFAST SAFE, OR MIDDLE AFTERNOON SNACK SAFE, OR FREE-SAMPLE-TABLE-AT-COSTCO SAFE.  But you know you want to see it anyway.]

OK, it is Friday, and I'm really in the mood for a pumpkin.  An old pumpkin, left over from Fall.  A big one! A large, old pumpkin. But I don't want to eat it, so it should be an inedible, large, old pumpkin.  And I don't want to pay for it.  What to do?  Ah... check the Craig's List free classifieds and see if I'm in luck.

Bingo!

-------------------------------------------------
Large Pumpkin (Bellingham)

via craigslist | free stuff in bellingham on 2/2/09

We have a large (approx. 10" in diameter) pumpkin left over from fall. It is probably not edible so we're giving it away to anyone that has a use for it. Email if interested; can meet at a mutually convenient location.

-------------------------------------------------

It is now almost the middle of February.  I don't know about you, but my pumpkin looked like this after about Mid November.  I suppose that's why it is a free pumpkin.  And comedy gold!

Image from Glitch City.

Snap Shots: A Bonus for Those on the Leader Board

2/4/09 Update: Snap Shots went down like a lead ballon.  Didn't work for folks.  5 Bonus Points also to Boris for alerting me to the dark, dark underbelly of the widget.  Snap Shots are no more.  I'll have to find a much less evil way of rewarding followers of the blog than Snap Shot Shares!  Cheers!

Three announcements:

1. I'm trying out Snap Shots, which allows you to take a sneak peak at links on my blog before clicking.  More details about this below.
2. Snap Shots has a feature called "Snap Shares" which gives me a percentage of the ad space on the Snap displays.  Because I'm grateful to the visitors and participants to TSON, I'm dedicating my Snap Shares to the top three sites on the Bonus Points Leader Board.  Each of the top three will get  a week's worth of Snap Shares where their blogs and links will be  plugged.  Since Rocket Scientist is in the BP lead, she will be getting the first round of Snap Shares.
3. I made sixth place on the "Top Ten Coolest People You Meet" list on the Nonfiction Lover blog.  (Being new to blogging, I appreciate the back-pat.)  Because the blog author, Hava, didn't put me on the "Top Ten Creepiest People You Meet" list and because her blog is a must read for book lovers, she is now on the Bonus Point Leader Board.  I've also added her to the blog roll.

Curious about Snap Shots?  This widget enhances links with visual previews of the destination site, interactive excerpts of Wikipedia articles, MySpace profiles, IMDb profiles and Amazon products, display inline videos, RSS, MP3s, photos, stock charts and more.

Sometimes Snap Shots bring you the information you need, without your having to leave the site, while other times it lets you "look ahead," before deciding if you want to follow a link or not.

Should you decide this is not for you, just click the Options icon in the upper right corner of the Snap Shot and opt-out.

Cheers.

Go Cardinals!