Well Done Simon!

1st April, 2010

Simon Singh has won his appeal against the British Chiropractic Association, who sued him for libel after he wrote that the BCA “happily promotes bogus treatments”.

The appeal court has decided that this is fair comment, which of course it is. This is excellent news for him, and for all of us. It should mean that scientific debates can now be held robustly and in public, without the fear of libel writs being slapped down left, right, and centre. The libel laws have long been a weapon for well-funded cranks, and it is tremendous news that Simon has stood up to them, and disarmed them.

As Milton said, and their Lordships quoted:

“I have sat among their learned men, for that honour I had, and been counted happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan the servile condition into which learning among them was brought; …. that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought.”

Categories: Uncategorised | Comments (0) | Permalink

Curved Spaces

5th March, 2010

I’m currently having terrific fun playing around on Jeff Weeks’ flight simulator, Curved Spaces. Unlike most flight-simulators, the action takes place not in regular Euclidean space, but in a selction of 3-manifolds. (It’s also comforting that you don’t have to worry about crashing.) Highly recommended!

Categories: Uncategorised | Comments (3) | Permalink

Dark Matter Madness

17th December, 2009

There have been wild rumours flying around the web about an exciting finding at the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search.

Dark matter is a (still!) hypothetical invisible substance, which accounts for the universe behaving as if it is 5 times heavier than can be accounted for by the total visible matter. There are various searches underway for dark particles, but by definition they are hard to see, barely interacting with other particles. However they must have mass, and therefore cannot be completely imperceptible. They have been dubbed WIMPS: weakly interacting massive particles.

CDMS works by detecting heat from collisions between particles passing through discs of germanium and silicon, frozen to near absolute zero. Then they have to discount the collisions by particles we already know about.

So have they found a WIMP? Or have they just narrowed down the size that any such particle may have? This would be scientifically valuable, but less spectacular.

All should become clear at 10pm GMT today, in Jodi Cooley’s webcast. (If you’re watching it and the answer doesn’t become clear, then the answer is probably the latter.)

UPDATE: there is 77% chance that they have found WIMPs!

Categories: Physics, Uncategorised | Comments (0) | Permalink

The Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic

7th December, 2009

It’s a new one on me, but I like it:


Almost all natural numbers are very, very, very large.

We could extend it by saying that for any n, almost all natural numbers are veryn large. But that might not be so frivolous.

Categories: Uncategorised | Comments (0) | Permalink

He who isn’t Shaw

30th November, 2008

Everyone is familiar with George Bernard Shaw’s line: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.”

Apparently it isn’t universally popular in educational circles.

But what did Shaw actually mean? I’d always taken it in the same way as everyone else: as a nasty swipe at the teaching profession. But my contact in the Shaw Society suggested an alternative explanation.

The quote comes from Shaw’s slightly odd 1903 work Maxims for Revolutionists: just a categorised list of aphorisms, which includes others of his most famous lines[1].

Interpreted as such a maxim, the quote takes on another meaning altogether: it’s a description of how revolutionary societies should organise themselves. Everyone who can should get involved in the fighting, cooking, carrying, building, etc: doing. And those who cannot (on account of being too old, wounded, or whatever) should teach the others.

So, I believed this interpretation for a little while. But now I’m not so, erm, sure.

If you look at Maxims for Revolutionists, it’s quite short on practical advice for organising uprisings, and despite its title it does seem like a depository for his thoughts on various topics. Advice on “How to Beat Children”, for example, strikes me as being of limited use to people actively preparing for revolution. In particular the section on Education (line 31) does contain general snarking at teachers, or at least teachers of certain types: “When a man teaches something he does not know to somebody else who has no aptitude for it, and gives him a certificate of proficiency, the latter has completed the education of a gentleman.”

So now I don’t know. At any rate it doesn’t seem plausible that Shaw would have failed to notice the more obvious reading, and that interpretation doesn’t exactly run contrary to his attitude to the education system of his time (I’m told he described his own school in Dublin as a “futile boy prison” where he learnt “dishonourable submission to tyranny”). So it’s difficult to conclude that he didn’t intend it, at least as an overtone.

In any case, we can perhaps agree that teaching, as it should happen, was better summed up by Aristotle: “Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.”

Sorry for the feeble pun in the title, by the way, but it’s a sort of unwritten rule when discussing Shaw.

[1] Though not my favourite: “I like flowers, I also like children, but I do not chop their heads and keep them in bowls of water around the house.”

Categories: Uncategorised | Comments (1) | Permalink

Arithmetician Wanted

26th August, 2008

Forget working at MIT, or winning the Field’s medal, there’s currently a vacancy for the most prestigious position in maths: apply here.

Categories: Maths, Nonsense, Uncategorised | Comments (0) | Permalink

What’s woolly and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?*

5th August, 2008

Here’s a paper [pdf] about mathematical humour. Most of it is a list of jokes:

Q: Why didn’t Newton discover group theory?
A: Because he wasn’t Abel.

Q: What goes “Pieces of seven! Pieces of seven!”
A: A parroty error.

Q: What’s purple and commutes?
A: An abelian grape.

I don’t know why puns should be the main comedy-currency for mathematicians, but they undoubtedly are. There are a few others though:

Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: 0.999999….

Q: Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
A: To get to the same side.

Any offerings welcome in the comments, no matter how groan-worthy…

*Zorn’s Llama. (That’s my addition to the canon.)

[Via Elliott]

Categories: Uncategorised | Comments (4) | Permalink