Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:09:46 JST Paul Cantrell

   I fully expect that string theory will eventually turn out to be completely unrelated to physical reality, but give rise to a new family of useful encryption algorithms or something. Research is like that.
   https://mastodon.social/@gutenberg_org/113097055499105571

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:14:58 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     In _A Mathematician’s Apology_, G. H. Hardy argues for the virtue of mathematics as a beautiful aesthetic pursuit with intrinsic value that is not dependent on any kind of applied utility. He talks about various fields that in his view will •never• have any sort of practical application, and the two examples he gives are…number theory and relativity.

     Oops!

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:17:33 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Ah, I see some Wikipedia editor noticed the same thing — and I’m slightly misremembering what Hardy said.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Apology#Critiques

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:21:58 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Number theory and relativity are great examples not just of how theories find surprising applications, but how ethically decoupled the applications are from the theory.

     Number theory gave us encryption, but also blockchain.

     Relativity gave us accurate GPS, but also nuclear weapons.

     You just can’t know. Simultaneously hopeful and grim news for the theoretician who wonders whether their abstruse work might have tangible, practical value! Hardy’s “focus on the beauty” stance may be the wise one.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:23:26 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     (To be clear: “the wise one” for the theoretician for whom application is beyond the horizon of predictability. Those of us who engineer practical applications can and should be on the hook for what we build!)

   • Embed this notice
     Pollenated Dan :Schwerified: (thedansimonson@lingo.lol)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:27:16 JST Pollenated Dan :Schwerified:

     in reply to

     @inthehands fwiw, they largely developed GPS to get nuclear weapons on target.

     really great video on Polaris and the technical challenges needed to make it happen back in the late 50s: https://youtu.be/dSih6Ch0Hzs

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:27:25 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Pollenated Dan :Schwerified:

     @thedansimonson
     I did not know this story!

   • Embed this notice
     Dave Ackley (livcomp@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:33:48 JST Dave Ackley

     in reply to

     @inthehands
     A related challenge: Is there any bound on how many abstruse theoreticians society should be prepared to support for the unpredictable eventual value of their output?

   • Embed this notice
     Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora: (bookwar@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:34:37 JST Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora:

     in reply to

     @inthehands

     I think the statement is still correct.

     It is indeed "a beautiful aesthetic pursuit with intrinsic value that is not dependent on any kind of applied utility".

     The applied utility can be found later, and we will be glad if and when it happens. But it is not the reason *why* we do it. Applied utility is just a nice sideeffect, not a driving force.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:34:37 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora:

     @bookwar
     (Yes, his larger premise stands; see downthread re all this)

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:36:32 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Dave Ackley

     @livcomp
     And conversely, is there a lower bound on how many we need to support for a healthy society?

   • Embed this notice
     Brian Repko (brianrepko@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:56:36 JST Brian Repko

     in reply to

     @inthehands The immense changes in mathematics from 1900 to 1940 (when this book was written) could also be a reason for writing it. Like, the literal foundations of math were changing. And he really wanted applied mathematics to not be just military efforts (in the UK)

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 03:59:29 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Brian Repko

     @brianrepko
     I think that’s probably both true and an important insight!

   • Embed this notice
     Brian Repko (brianrepko@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:00:24 JST Brian Repko

     in reply to

     @inthehands Never say never - and now physicists and coming with new math

     https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theorists-accidentally-find-a-new-formula-for-pi/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:04:53 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Brian Repko

     @brianrepko
     That’s the link that started the thread!

   • Embed this notice
     Leon P Smith (leon_p_smith@ioc.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:25:15 JST Leon P Smith

     in reply to

     @inthehands I've collected some notes about how I stumbled into this curiosity here:

     https://github.com/constructive-symmetry/constructive-symmetry/blob/master/T002_Tools_of_Math_Construction/Part03_Aggregate_Theory.md

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:25:15 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Leon P Smith

     @leon_p_smith
     Some days it just seems like everything is group theory! I can see how people go all Golden Hammer about it.

   • Embed this notice
     Leon P Smith (leon_p_smith@ioc.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:25:16 JST Leon P Smith

     in reply to

     @inthehands then you have the connections between number theory and relativity.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnS4hduP5xg

     Is that connection relevant to anything? Probably, but I have no idea how.

   • Embed this notice
     Brian Repko (brianrepko@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:27:47 JST Brian Repko

     in reply to

     @inthehands I saw you posted that after I replied - apologies!

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:28:08 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Brian Repko

     @brianrepko no worries, great minds etc!

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:36:22 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Tariq

     @rzeta0
     You need matter-energy equivalence, and chain reactions involve relativistic speeds. Beyond that, I’m pretty much out of my depth!

   • Embed this notice
     Tariq (rzeta0@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 08-Sep-2024 04:36:23 JST Tariq

     in reply to

     @inthehands

     I'm no expert but can someone explain how relatively led to nuclear fission?

     I thought quantum mechanics would be the key enabler, whereas relatively only manifests at large scales and velocities?