tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858163756848490902014-10-04T21:24:08.164-07:00Non-Standard DeviationsMath, stats, science, teaching, geekosity and queerness.Mojave66http://www.blogger.com/profile/04362210572079193195noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385816375684849090.post-58931881665035635122009-02-17T16:11:00.000-08:002009-02-17T18:17:20.575-08:00My Anti-hero, ZeroThis is the first in a series about a bunch of numbers. We're starting at zero, because it's easily the beginning or center of it all-- whole numbers, integers, reals, complex numbers. Well, all of it except for the natural or "counting" numbers, but I think we can blame the Greeks for that, frankly. (see Seife. More on his book below). <br /><br />Zero, in a more innocent time:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OPE_xB0HIbw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OPE_xB0HIbw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The number 0 is a weird number to claim as heroic. Sure, it makes multiplication dead easy-- anything times zero is zero. It also makes addition and subtraction a bit of a snap, but you have to remember that, say, 4 - 0 =/= 0 - 4. The first is 4, the second is -4. But that's as hard as it gets.<br /><br />Until you get to division, anyways. Watching an elementary school math teacher who doesn't have a degree in a math subject explain why division by zero is wrong is like asking your priest why premarital sex is wrong-- the answer is always "it just IS", followed by some very uncomfortable squirming. It's actually fun to watch, especially since kids love the word "why?" and will repeat it in a high-pitched whine: "WHYYYYYYYYYY?"<br /><br />Well, there is no real reason why, except that any number divided by zero is, well, NOT a number the same way infinity isn't a number. Although that doesn't make any sense, either. <br /><br />Well, here's a basic reason:<br /><br />If n is any number, we know n * 0 = 0. Don't take my word on this-- intuitively, it makes sense. Zero n's means there are no n's to count-- nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.<br /><br />Yet notice that if n is any number, and n * 0 = 0, then n = 0/0. Meaning that 0 divided by itself can be anything you want it to be, which is impossible. Nothing divided by nothing can't be any something... can it? This leads to n * 0 = m * 0 -> n * 0/0 = m * 0/0 therefore n = m. Try it with n=1 and m=2 and you come up with 1 = 2. <br /><br />Things get weirder. Think of 1/n where you try to get n as close to zero as possible. This is the notion of "limits", calculus' best friend. As n gets smaller and smaller, 1/n gets closer and closer to infinity. It'll never reach it because, well, infinity. It isn't a "real" number and it can't be reached. There's been a few attempts to try to force 1/0 = a conceivable infinity, but alas, it turns out this can't be consistently worked into our number systems. <br /><br />I won't even get into 0 raised to the 0 power (which isn't 1), or the 0th root of 0 (which isn't 1 either), or L'Hospital's rules (which can resolve functions of 0/0 or 0^0 into actual living, breathing functions), or for that matter, 0! (zero factorial) which DOES equal 1. That last one confounds me, but it works mathematically. And it's critical in probability. The proof just hurts my head, though. <br /><br />This is but a taste of the paradox of zero. I highly recommend Charles Seife's <a target=_blank href=http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234923010&sr=8-1>Zero, the Biography of a Dangerous Idea</a>, which is a great read no matter how much you like or dislike math. It's almost as much about the cultural idea of zero as it is about the mathematical idea of nothingness. <br /><br />Next up: Something between 0 and 1, and one of the least celebrated but most important concepts in the number system.Mojave66http://www.blogger.com/profile/04362210572079193195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385816375684849090.post-7790989415904495802009-02-12T13:30:00.000-08:002009-02-12T14:49:19.368-08:00Darwin Day/Inaugural Post<center><br /><a href="http://citizenship.typepad.com/blogfordarwin/"> <img src="http://citizenship.typepad.com/blogfordarwin/DarwinBadge.gif" border=0> </a><br /></center><br /><br /><font size=+3>D</font>arwin Day seems like a great time to reboot the latest of several attempts to start a blog. <a target=_blank href=http://citizenship.typepad.com/blogfordarwin/2008/11/how-to-participate-in-blog-for-darwin.html>Blog for Darwin</a> is trying to combat a hijacking by folks who want to portray Darwin as something of a proto-Nazi intent on introducing godlessness and euthanasia. He wasn't anything like that personally; any biography of Darwin shows him to be a mildly religious man who had very progressive ideas about racial equality for his time. He was also something of a mensch, he ensured his friend and intellectual rival Alfred Wallace had a regular stipend at the end of his life. <br /><br />Thus it's troubling that Darwin is still considered something of a heretic in some circles. The Economist notes <a target=_blank href=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13059028>in an article on the 200th Anniversary of Darwin's birth</a> that although everyone accepts Einstein (while very few actually understand him), Darwin represents science's most troubling ideas.<br /><br />That Einstein is beloved and Darwin is still controversial would be funny if it didn't have the political implications it does. The only other person that I can think of that has had even close to the same kind of denialism has been Georg Cantor and his proof that there are infinitely more rational numbers than integers (Here's <a target=_blank href=http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/01/the_continuum_hypothesis_solve.php>a good story about an attempt at a counter-proof</a> in one of my favorite math blogs, "Good Math, Bad Math.") Still, Cantor gets the grief because his theorem is mind-blowingly counterintuive; Darwin on the other hand makes a great deal of sense if you ponder it long enough. Plus Cantor doesn't have dozens upon dozens of articles, websites, theologians and politicians trying to blame his ideas for everything from the Holocaust to imperialism to street crime. <br /><br />So why the problem? I think one subtle reason is that Darwin was the latest scientist to knock humans off their Western Divinity pedestal. It (arguably) starts with Enlightenment materialism and gets pushed along by Galileo's heliocentric solar system, but Darwin finally proved that if humans were made in the image of God, God is ultimately a great ape. It makes me feel bad for the future scientist that solves the <a target=_blank href=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-quest-to-find-conscio>hard question of consciousness.</a> He or she is in for one helluva historical ride.<br /><br /><i>Go check out my buddies' Darwin Day posts: <a target=_blank href=http://bookishgal.today.com/2009/02/12/why-did-nobody-tell-me-this/>Bookishgal</a> and <a target=_blank href=http://aliveontheshelves.blogspot.com/2009/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin.html>minds alive on the shelf</a>. Good stuff.</i>Mojave66http://www.blogger.com/profile/04362210572079193195noreply@blogger.com3