For a long time I felt like I didn't really understand the Yoneda Lemma. I knew some things that people said about it ('we can understand objects by the maps into them' and 'the Yoneda embedding is full and faithful') but the statement 'Hom(Hom(A, -), F) = F(A)' itself was something I could only use as a symbolic manipulation without understanding.
On the other hand, I did separately know facts like 'In the category of quivers there are objects which look like • and •→•, such that the maps out of them tell you exactly the vertices and edges in your quiver' and 'In the category of simplicial sets there are objects which are just an n-simplex; maps out of them are the n-simplices of the object you are mapping into'.
Somehow I only recently realised that these examples are precisely the Yoneda Lemma. These objects are precisely presheaves of the form Hom(A, -), and the Yoneda Lemma tells you what you get when you map out of them.
In particular I think it would be useful to give the quiver example to students when they learn the Yoneda Lemma.
Here I tried to prove the Existence Theorem for Laplace Transforms. I don't know what the/a "conventional proof" looks like, but this is what I came up with.
"I can't draw" is almost (but not quite) as common a misconception as "I can't do #maths". Prove yourself wrong for one of these at Olivia's free drop-in #drawing workshop at @NPGLondon on 21st June:
A couple of weeks ago, I posted an #animation of a point on a circle generating a #cycloid.
If you turn the curve "upside down", you get the #BrachistochroneCurve. This curve provides the shortest travel time starting from one cusp to any other point on the curve for a ball rolling under uniform #gravity. It is always faster than the straight-line travel time.
The fascinating Heegner numbers [1] are so named for the amateur mathematician who proved Gauss' conjecture that the numbers {-1, -2, -3, -7, -11, -19, -43, -67,-163} are the only values of -d for which imaginary quadratic fields Q[√-d] are uniquely factorable into factors of the form a + b√-d (for a, b ∈ ℤ) (i.e., the field "splits" [2]). Today it is known that there are only nine Heegner numbers: -1, -2, -3, -7, -11, -19, -43, -67, and -163 [3].
Interestingly, the number 163 turns up in all kinds of surprising places, including the irrational constant e^{π√163} ≈ 262537412640768743.99999999999925... (≈ 2.6253741264×10^{17}), which is known as the Ramanujan Constant [4].
Here's something I just learned: the lucky numbers of Euler.
Euler's "lucky" numbers are positive integers n such that for all integers k with 1 ≤ k < n, the polynomial k² − k + n produces a prime number.
Leonhard Euler published the polynomial k² − k + 41 which produces prime numbers for all integer values of k from 1 to 40.
Only 6 lucky numbers of Euler exist, namely 2, 3, 5, 11, 17 and 41 (sequence A014556 in the OEIS).
The Heegner numbers 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, 163, yield prime generating functions of Euler's form for 2, 3, 5, 11, 17, 41; these latter numbers are called lucky numbers of Euler by F. Le Lionnais.
h/t John Carlos Baez
(@johncarlosbaez) for pointing this out.
"It seems to me now that mathematics is capable of an artistic excellence as great as that of any music, perhaps greater ; not because the pleasure it gives (although very pure) is comparable [...] to that of music [...]" – Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) #quote#mathematics#art#maths#math
Il reprochait à #DidierRaoult des erreurs "niveau brevet des collèges" : accusé de diffamation, un prof de #maths relaxé
Attaqué en #justice par Didier Raoult pour diffamation et injure publique, Guillaume Limousin a été relaxé, mardi 14 mai [...]. Sur Twitter, ce professeur de mathématiques isérois, reprochait à l'infectiologue une série d'erreurs de "niveau brevet des collèges". Didier Raoult devra lui verser 2000€, au titre des frais de justice.
I have a question about the aperiodic spectre tile (or the hat/turtle).
I know that the proof of aperiodicity works by showing that the tiles must fit together in a hierarchical structure that eventually repeats itself at a larger scale. But the larger units aren't literally scaled copies of the spectre. I also know that there is some freedom as to how you draw the edges of the spectre.
Is there a way you can draw the edges that allows you to literally use spectres to cover a larger copy of themselves? If so, is this way of doing it unique?
It's aimed at anyone who fits the aforementioned bill and is interesting in exploring the mathematical potential of their stories, objects and exhibitions, with participation in Maths Week Scotland in mind.
(compared to python when it is forced to apply arbitrary functions with loops inside, element-wise to an array - that is, can't benefit from vectorised numpy functions)
this #maths experiment took about an hour in python and about 1 second in julia lang
sure my python isn't professional, but today was my first time with julia lang so that will be far from optimal either
"Mathematics must subdue the flights of our reason; they are the staff of the blind; no one can take a step without them; and to them and experience is due all that is certain in physics." – Voltaire (1694-1778) #quote#mathematics#math#maths
"Numbers are free creations of the human mind, they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the diversity of things." – Richard Dedekind (1831-1916) #quote#mathematics#math#maths#numbers