The History Of Numbers
Karl Kempton sent me this link ... all I could say was WOW!
check out all these books (click here)
Karl Kempton sent me this link ... all I could say was WOW!
check out all these books (click here)
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 12:07 AM 0 comments
I tend to think that without logic, you cannot communicate and without communication, you cannot have a philosophy. To me logic presupposes philosophy ... Logic is the supportive structure for thought without it everything would fall apart, no one could predict where our next meal would come from, much less anything else. The other side of the coin is that without a philosophy coloring ones theory of logic, ones logic has no starting point. In this sense, ones logic can have no logic without a philosophical stone to stand on. It is a vicious circle!
The clipping below originally came from a polytope list and was sent to me by my friend the mathematician Paul Gailiunas. My original question to him a few weeks ago concerned the importance of infinity within modern scientific equations. Math poets seem to gravitate toward using infinity in our math poems and as professor Gailiunas told me scientists tend to avoid infinity as much as they can. The following is an example of scientific thinking in this area.
Kaz,
This came from a completely different direction.
I thought you might beinterested.
Paul
On Thu 7 Sep 2006 (21:46:48 +0100), guy@steelpillow.com wrote:On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:54:09, "Wenninger, Magnus"
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:09 AM 0 comments
My friend Keith Rowley pointed me at the equation above by 19th century American Mathematician George David Birkhoff. The equation comes from Birkhoff’s 1933 book entitled “Aesthetic Measure”. Here is a perfect example of an equation intended for artistic purpose and yet denotative. Here Birkhoff intends to write an equation to measure levels of aesthetic based on a ratio of order and complexity. Personally, I feel trying to quantify something as broad as the word ‘aesthetic’ is extremely difficult and elusive. I have not read his book so I withhold more comment until I have read what he has to say. My intuition tells me what he is doing is much like my syncopation theory. It will be interesting to see what differences there are.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 10:22 PM 1 comments
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:15 AM 0 comments
i
am a
quotient of the
sun
i am
a quotient of
the
moon i
am a quotient
of
the one
i am a
quotient
of the
two i am
a
quotient of
the burn i
am
a quotient
of the dew
2.
i
am a
multiple of the
earth
i am
a multiple of
the
sea i
am a multiple
of
the birth
i am a
multiple
of the
tree i am
a
multiple of
the word i
am
a multiple
of the air
3.
i
subtract myself
from you for
luck
i add
myself to you
for
love i
subtract myself from
you
for luck
i add myself
to
you for
love i subtract
myself
from you
for luck i
add
myself to
you for love
4.
i
am zero
over you +
1
i am
zero over you
+
2 minus
0 over you
+
1 minus
0 over you
plus
2 minus
you over me
+
0 minus
1 over you
The poem above is a poem by Scott Glassman called factorial taken from his blog.
I find this poem of Scott Glassman very interesting in that I can see it as an example of mathematical poetry buried inside mathematics poetry. (Click here for the difference between mathematical poetry, mathematics poetry and mathematical visual poetry) The first section of Scott’s poem I have transformed into a piece of mathematical visual poetry. (above) This mathematical visual poem shows four separate mathematical poems that are contained within section one of his mathematics poem.
The verses in the second section have different meanings dependent on whether the poem is lineated or written without lineation. However, both ideas are present in the poem. You can feel the tension between differing statements and the shift in context between the statements due to reading it lineated and then reading it not lineated. I have written out all the mathematical poems/verses I could find contained within this section and displayed them in the image shown above.
The third section functions much the same as the second as far as tension between lineation and reading it without the lineation. However this section has only two statements repeated three times. The interesting part in this section is that the lineation creates two more mathematical poems which are shown in black (above).
The fourth section is a bit more difficult to map out. Therefore I shot a photo of my deductions from the poem. (above) You can see the brackets point to three mathematical poems that are delineated by the brackets inside the mathematics poem. The third one of the three I used algebra to simplify the expression into a compact form/context. Watch the meaning change in this poem through all the metamorphoses.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 10:42 PM 2 comments
This page is reserved for Geof Huth's Mathematical Poems and related material
Algebraic Poem #1
Algebraic Poem #2
Algebraic Poem #3
Algebraic Poem #4
Mathematical Graffiti
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:12 PM 0 comments
Labels: Geof Huth
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 2:37 PM 0 comments
Here is a timely mathematics poem by JoAnne Growny:
Perelman and Me
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman declined the Fields Medal for his contribution to the proof of a well-known and difficult conjecture first posed by Henri Poincare in 1904. I applaud Perelman’s seclusion.
The gravity of the universe
requires dark matter.
Choosing one thought
prevents another.
Little girls learn social graces
to make others feel at ease.
But friendly greetings
are never mathematics.
Difficult thoughts
are born in isolation :
genius slips away if socialized—
and so he must refuse the prize.
JoAnne Growney
25 August 2006
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 1:31 PM 0 comments
Bob Grumman has just posted Marko Niemi’s translation of Friedrich Schlegel’s equation for poetry and God on his blog at this URL: click here
Bob has made the following comments:
“This is a translation by Marko Niemi of the 19th-Century German philosopher Friedrich Schlegel’s formula for poetry. Kaz thinks it may be the world's first mathematical poem. I'm not sure. It seems mostly informrature to me--i.e., intended to inform rather than provide beauty, as literature is intended to do (in my poetics). It is a way of mathematically defining something philosophical as e equals mc squared mathematically defines energy, rather than creating a poetic experience. It is entirely asensual--at least for one like me, who has no notion what material feature "God" has. Mathematically, it is a little silly, too--for if "shit" were substituted for "FSM," the equation would be in no way altered. On the other hand, it is a marvelously step toward what Kaz and I and Geof and Karl are doing, perhaps a pivotal one (although I don't know of anyone who was inspired to create mathematical poetry by it).”
I would like to address a few things from his comments.
Bob says, “Kaz thinks it may be the world's first mathematical poem. I'm not sure.”
I would like to note that I doubt that this poem was the first mathematical poem ever written. It is however the earliest mathematical poem that I have seen. I have seen earlier mathematical visual poems but no mathematical poems this early. For an understanding of the difference between mathematical poem and mathematical visual poem, please check my terminology at this link: click here
Bob says, “It seems mostly informrature to me--i.e., intended to inform rather than provide beauty, as literature is intended to do (in my poetics).”
I see this as expressive rather than informative. The question to ask is, “Was Schlegel’s equation meant to be denotative or connotative. It is hard if not impossible to be denotative when you are dividing by zero. Concerning aesthetics, Bob has a very different idea of beauty than I and his views of mythology are very different from mine as well. Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. Although I also would have to say that Schlegel’s view of God is about as different to my view as mine is to Bob’s. I think the main aesthetical point to Schlegel’s poem is tying “The Transcendent” to an expression of infinity … not just once but six times. There are many things beautiful to mathematicians and infinity is definitely one of them if not the greatest idea of beauty. On the other hand, those who believe in “God” would also believe that the idea of God is the greatest beauty. However, I am certain that my idea of God is heretical to those same believers, for I do not believe in using lower case letters for the ‘G’ in God. All Gods are metaphors to The Transcendent.
Bob says, It is a way of mathematically defining something philosophical as e equals mc squared mathematically defines energy, rather than creating a poetic experience.
Here Bob equates philosophy with science … That was certainly true in 300 BC. However, there is nothing scientific about this equation for a scientist in Schlegel's time would never divide by zero (it is undefined for scientific use but perfect for poetry in fact it is the crux of metaphor)
Here is Schlegel’s view:
“Schlegel argued that poetry should be at once philosophical and mythological, ironic and religious. As a literary critic Schlegel sought not to reveal objective truths, but to write criticism so that the usual discursive prose becomes a work of art itself.” **
Bob says, It is entirely asensual--at least for one like me, who has no notion what material feature "God" has.
I am confused … I do not know where ‘anything’ physical was stated or implied.
Bob says, Mathematically, it is a little silly, too--for if "shit" were substituted for "FSM," the equation would be in no way altered.
The latter statement is another aesthetic judgment and again Bob is entitled to any scatological view he desires ;)
Bob says, On the other hand, it is a marvelously step toward what Kaz and I and Geof and Karl are doing, perhaps a pivotal one (although I don't know of anyone who was inspired to create mathematical poetry by it).”
If Schlegel inspired anyone to write mathematical poetry then Marko Niemi may be the closest person to know for he is our source.
**The quote was taken from this web site: click here
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 10:20 PM 2 comments
Labels: Bob Grumman, first mathematical poem, Friedrich Schlegel
Karl Kempton sent us this Emerson Quote:
Every word was once a poem.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher(1803-1882)
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 6:25 PM 0 comments
Language is fossil poetry.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 8:45 AM 0 comments
Waterfall by M. C. Escher 1961
The biggest problem to overcome with math-art in general is that it is tied to two mutually exclusive aesthetic ideas. One idea being that pure mathematics pervades all cultures. The second is that Art is the expression of a particular culture. Math being the language of logic shares the same logic in France as it does in China. Art may express an archetype but the ‘expression’ is cultural. I believe these two ideas are true in a broad sense although there is a little room for argument in the finer details.
I feel that using math as a language for art demands that the mathematical expression or structure has to have some relationship to the cultural idea put forward. There is much mathematical art expressed which is beautiful from a mathematical perspective but trivial from an art perspective. Furthermore, the converse of this is true as well. There is mathematical art that artists may find beautiful however, evokes yawns from the mathematics community.
I think the measure of success of any mathematical art lies in how well it is accepted by both communities. This is a very difficult task and there is a plethora of work accepted by one community but not the other. I think the most successful artist that is accepted by both communities is M C Escher. Even though his acceptance is expressed more by the math community than the art community this cannot be helped. Finding the middle ground would be near if not impossible. At the other end of the spectrum, I am going to risk saying that I believe you are delusional if you believe you have made great math art/poetry and you are accepted by only one community no matter how much croaking the one community does.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:15 AM 6 comments
When I was first introduced to hyper-dimensional geometry I was quite fascinated but really didn’t have any clear path to understand it. I had seen two dimensional images of a hypercube (four-dimensional cube) but really understood nothing about what I was looking at. With computer imagery we are able to see things a little better because we can simulate three-dimensions in a video or other moving imagery. The following link will take you to a polytope slicer which allows you to take three-dimensional slices through a four-dimensional object.
Let me expound upon this a little bit. Just about all of us have experienced slicing a near two-dimensional piece of paper with a pair of scissors. When we do this we experience seeing a near one-dimensional line at the edge of the paper where we just cut. Many of us have also experienced slicing a ‘three-dimensional’ orange in half and noticing a two-dimensional surface showing the cells inside the orange. However things get a little trickier when we slice a four-dimensional object. If you notice on our previous examples that the slice is a dimension less than the object we started with. That is a slice of a three dimensional object is two-dimensional and a slice of a two-dimensional object is one dimensional. Therefore, to imagine a slice of a four-dimensional object our result would be something that has three-dimensions. Our polytope slicer does just that! It gives us a three dimensional-section cut of a four-dimensional regular polytope. Your next question may be, “what is a polytope?” A polytopes are to four dimensions as polyhedrons are to three dimensions or what polygons are to two dimensions.
As you vary the parameters in the polytope slicer you will get three-dimensional slices of our four-dimensional polytope. (click here for the polytope slicer).
Now what does this have to do with mathematical poetry? All maths can be used as language for poetry. Use your imagination … I predict that someone will write a poem on a hypercube so that we can read it by projecting it down to the third dimension. This may have already been done but I am not aware of it. After one does it with a hypercube then try doing it on a 120 cell hyperdodecahedron or maybe an epic poem on a 600 cell hypericosahedron
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:08 PM 0 comments
Here is a math joke sent to me by Aerospace engineers Paul Mossel and Keith Rowley on the subject of why I don’t want to teach.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:31 AM 2 comments
Here is the last of Geof’s Poems from this group. I find it wonderful to see other people making these types of mathematical poems. I especially enjoy this form with a series of poems building a context from which we can stand. Thanks Geof for sharing these with us!
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 7:41 PM 2 comments
I would classifiy the poem above as a pure mathematical poem except for one small element that I would classify as mathematical visual poetry ... can you find it?
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 7:28 PM 0 comments