Scruffy's math program for kids

Traditionally, math begins with addition, subtraction, and the multiplication tables in the 3rd grade or so. Then, there is an introduction to geometry, algebra, and calculus in high school. Finally, there is usually a course in differential equations in college, and maybe some complex analysis if you're in a STEM field, and somewhere along the way there is also probability and statistics.

Scruffy says, this is not enough. To be competent in the modern world, a college graduate should understand differential geometry and tensor calculus (same thing, kind of), topology, and abstract algebra including but not limited to the theory of groups, rings, modules, and categories. Waiting for graduate school to understand these things is a guarantee of difficulty. These topics should be well studied prerequisites for any kind of graduate work.

Scruffy proposes to condense the course work at the high school level, as the beginning of a new mathematics program. BEFORE we start learning about triangles, we need an exposure to surfaces. Otherwise, there is no motivation for triangles, trigonometry, or conic sections. 7th grade is the perfect time for a "survey of mathematics" course. Why are we learning abstract algebra? What good is it? Why is calculus important? What is topology, and what is differential geometry?

In 6th grade, is when we want to cover basic algebra, combinatorics, and probability.

The 8th grade algebra course should include systems of linear equations, matrix math, and change of coordinates in addition to polynomials.

The 9th grade geometry course should include manifolds and an introduction to dot product, cross product, and tensor product.

The 10th grade calculus course should include multi variable calculus and de-emphasize the memorization of integrals and derivatives. It should specifically include an introduction to differential equations. Students should understand Stokes' and Green's theorems by the end of the course.

All this will prepare the student for the typical 11th grade introduction to physics, which should include Hamiltonian and LaGrangian mechanics (introductory dynamics, the LaPlacian, what is a wave equation, and so on). Math in 11th grade should be fun, not rigorous. It should include topology, abstract algebra, and probability as an introduction to quantum science. It should also specifically include an introduction to non-Euclidean geometries. It should provide motivation for the continuing study of math in college.

This is an example of a math curriculum that provides motivation for continuing study:


Then, by the time we get to college, we ALREADY know what an orbit is, before we start taking first year physics and chemistry. We know what polar coordinates are BEFORE we have to solve problems involving angular momentum, and thus we can easily and intuitively understand concepts like quantum spin, and we can already start to manipulate them using spinors and quantum computing gates.

First year math in college should be hard core differential equations. (Since we already learned linear algebra and multi variable calculus in high school). It should also include an introduction to stochastic equations (like Brownian motion, which fits right in with first year chemistry and physics).

Second year math should be differential geometry and topology, with a focus on tensor calculus. By the end of the second year in college, students should be able to seamlessly transition between coordinates systems, both geometrically and algebraically. The course should include an introduction to measure theory and invariances, so we understand measure preserving and conformal transformations, and it should also include the mechanics of distances and angles on curved surfaces.

After all this, third year college math should focus on abstract algebra and algebraic topology, starting with immersions and including fiber bundles, sheaves, foliations, simplexes with graph theory, and so on.

Finally, senior level.math in college should once again be fun and motivational. Dimensionality is a good topic, fractional dimensions, dusts, space filling curves, fractal geometries, and so on. Electives might include a course in quantum field theory, for instance the creation and annihilation operators tie right in with dimensionality and also pertain to neural networks and machine learning. Advanced probability theory could be another elective - the Ito, Langevin, and Malliavin calculuses, how to solve non-equilibrium equations in open systems, information geometry, stochastic dynamics and stability, and entropy.

Anyone who graduates from college should be conversational with mathematics. It doesn't mean you have to pull equations out of your butt, it just means you have to be familiar with the principles. You don't have to know what a Lorentz boost is unless you're a physicist, but you should know enough about coordinates systems so someone could explain it to you in 5 minutes.

This business of graduating from college without knowing how to balance a checkbook has to stop. Scruffy says: if you want to graduate, you WILL learn math. If you can't do it, go to trade school instead. (Where you'll learn it anyway lol). :p
How about Wave Mechanics? Quantum Physics? Unified Field Theory?
 
How about Wave Mechanics? Quantum Physics? Unified Field Theory?
Well, hopefully I covered that by suggesting a childhood "Erlangen program" (for algebra, and other things).

You should read about Felix Klein, the inventor of the Klein bottle and the leader of the Erlangen program.


1736842455053.webp


His work is the reason all the things you mentioned exist today.

Felix Klein is the one who invited Emmy Noether to work at his school, at a time when women mostly couldn't get a job (much less Jewish women).

Emmy Noether was Einstein's math tutor. She was the first one to axiomatize rings, which today is the central foundation of algebra and algebraic topology.

Felix Klein worked with Sophus Lie, the inventor of Lie groups, which are also central to all the things you mentioned. Lie groups tell us how to rotate a quantum state, they're behind all of wave mechanics and quantum computing. The Pauli vectors I mentioned in previous posts, are basis vectors for quantum rotations. All such rotations are outer products of Pauli vectors, which is why the Grassmann algebra is so important.

Felix Klein is the one who brought together a bunch of seemingly disparate and complicated math under one umbrella, and made it simple. Scruffy wants to do the same thing for kids.

Felix Klein is the one who organized a team of mathematicians and guided them to show that non-Euclidean geometries are all algebraic. For instance relativity involves hyperbolic geometry, and Emmy Noether (under Felix Klein's tutelage and guidance) is the one who first showed that it's just changing a + sign to a - sign in the metric. When Einstein learned about this he was ecstatic, because it allowed him to understand the work of the Polish mathematician Minkowski, who preceded him by 50 years. Minkowski discovered the metric for "special" relativity, without knowing what it really was mathematically. With Emmy Noether's help, Einstein was able to understand, and expanded it into the metric tensor for "general" relativity.

My question is, why aren't kids learning about tensors in high school? Every kid knows what a vector is, right? So how come you gotta be a rocket scientist to learn about tensors? Tensors are easy, they're just outer products of vectors. If you're into maps, you've probably seen how they represent elevations, right? They do it with "contour lines", kind of like this:

1736844223376.gif


The contour lines are "equal elevations", and more importantly, they are what is known in mathematics as "co-vectors". How come kids learn about vectors but not co-vectors? A tensor is just the product of a vector and a co-vector, and even more importantly, a co-vector is a function that takes a vector to a tensor.

Scruffy says, why not complete the picture for kids? You have scalars, vectors, tensors, and versors. Scalars are just numbers, they're like vectors with only one entry. Temperature is a scalar, if you have a temperature at every point in space you have a "scalar field". Vectors are little arrows that have length and direction. Electricity and magnetism are vectors, if you have an electromagnetic potential at every point in space you have a "vector field". And so on... a vector is just a 1-dimensional tensor, and you can have a "tensor field" that describes the (relativistic) curvature of every point in space, and a "versor" is just a combination of tensors of different rank, for instance the sum of a scalar and a vector, or a vector and a tensor, or a scalar and a vector and a tensor.

See so, kids learn about dot products in linear algebra. Dot products take a vector to a scalar. How come they don't learn about the outer product that takes a vector to a tensor? Kids learn how to multiply matrices, they should learn about tensor products at the same time. Otherwise matrix multiplication seems "special" somehow, and kids have to memorize the fact that order matters.

Any kid who can do matrix multiplication can also do outer products. They're SO important, why aren't we giving kids the full picture?

We really need to change the way we teach math to kids. SHOW them what co-vectors and outer products are, IN SIXTH GRADE, before they graduate from elementary school. Kids are smart, they can handle it. Show them a map just like the one above, and let them play with the contour lines. It's a fun math game, and kids like FUN. And the only math they have to do, is count the number of contours that a co-vector crosses. That's it, that's all - and if they understand THAT much they can understand Einstein's tensor notation and they'll immediately and intuitively understand what it's good for.

Then if they want to do AP map-making they can do metric tensors and curvature, and while they're doing that they can start learning the basics of differential geometry on smooth surfaces. BEFORE THEY GRADUATE FROM SIXTH GRADE.

Felix Klein was a genius. He ran others who were much better mathematicians, but he had the vision to guide them and put them all together.
 
Because I am interested. Although MY field is Statistics , Credit determinations , and Actuaries.
You asked about quantum physics.

I'll show you something interesting and useful.

In quantum physics, we can use as a basis the Pauli matrices, which are usually called "sigma matrices" so I'll represent them by S. S stands for spin, in the x y and z directions, so we have Sx, Sy, and Sz. Here's how the Pauli matrices are defined:


When we look at a Bloch sphere, this is what we're looking at. So if we write a vector in the usual way as a linear combination of basis elements, we get

V = a . Sx + b . Sy + c . Sz

where a, b, and c are the "coordinates".

On the Bloch sphere, all the vectors usually have magnitude 1, unless they're entangled.

So we can begin with any old (unentangled, unit length) vector on the Bloch sphere, which represents a quantum state. Like this:

1736905422891.png


The quantum state is some combination of spins, and although the axes in the pic are labeled x y and z, they're really Sx, Sy, and Sz. (I chose this picture for a reason, which you'll see in a minute).

So now, imagine that we want to "project" our vector onto any of the coordinate axes. Normally, if you have a vector (x, y, x) the projection onto the X axis is just the x coordinate, and y and z become 0.

But, we don't have a scalar basis anymore, we have a basis made up of Pauli matrices, which are 2x2 matrices. So how do we "project" our vector onto the Sx axis?

To answer, we need to use ring algebra. We need the concept of a "projector", and we also need the concept of an "ideal". First I'll show you projectors and ideals, then I'll give you the bigger picture.

First, note that when we're multiplying matrices, order matters. AB is not always equal to BA. We can begin with a "projection operator", so let's look at the matrix

| 1 0 |
| 0 0 |

If we have any other matrix M defined as

| a b |
| c d |

We can multiply by the projector on the LEFT, and the result is the first column. So, calling the projector P, we have

P M =

| a 0 |
| c 0 |

But when we multiply by the projector on the RIGHT, we pull out rows instead of columns. So we have M P =

| a b |
| 0 0 |

The Pauli matrices are the Clifford algebra C(3,0). Each basis element squares to +1, and the products are anticommutative. Note that the projection operator is idempotent, which means projecting twice (or N times) is the same as projecting once. (So P^2 = P). You can check that our projector matrix squares to itself.

Now, we can project our vector to any of the coordinate axes, so on the Bloch sphere our vector V is 3 dimensional and we have Px, Py, and Pz. Py for example is

| 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 |
| 0 0 0 |

Let's be very clear on this: the Bloch sphere is 3 dimensional, and our vector V has 3 coordinates x y and z. But the BASIS for this coordinate system consists of the 2x2 Pauli matrices. So the X axis projection is the x coordinate multiplied by Sx.

Two projectors are defined to be orthogonal if applying one and then the other gives us 0. So Px . Py = 0. Our first piece of ring algebra is this: if P is a projector, then (1-P) is also a projector. In matrix land, 1 is the identity matrix. In 3 dimensions, if P is Px, then (1-P) is a projector onto the YZ plane. And you can verify that (1-P)^2 equals (1-P), and you also verify that P(1-P) = 0.

Next, if P and Q are orthogonal projectors, then P+Q is also a projector.

So now, another piece of ring algebra. Let's define an "ideal". A simple example of an ideal on the ring of integers is the multiples of 3. If you add any two multiples of 3 you get another multiple of 3, so you stay within the ideal. Similarly, if you multiply a multiple of 3 by any scalar, you get another multiple of 3 - so once again you stay within the ideal.

An ideal is a subset of a ring (or a ring algebra). Turns out, the matrices we projected earlier are ideals of the ring of matrices.

| a 0 |
| c 0 |

is a left ideal, and

| a b |
| 0 0 |

is a right ideal.

Now, the bigger picture. Sigma matrices are a basis for the Clifford algebra C(3,0). A projector for any unit length vector U on the Bloch sphere is therefore

P = 1/2 (1 + U)

but we have to call it P+ because it's orthogonal partner P- is

1/2(1 - U)

And since we're in a Clifford algebra

UU = 1

So now we can replace our projectors with the Pauli matrices

Px+ = 1/2(1 + Sx)

and so on for each of x y and z. And now you can verify that multiplying matrix M from the left pulls out the columns and multiplying on the right pulls out the rows. Px+ pulls out the first column, and Px- pulls out the second column. If we add the results we get our original matrix back. And Px+ and Px- sum to 1.

And in this Clifford algebra, if we have a projector that acts on a ring, the result will be an ideal. Every projector in a ring creates an ideal.

So far, we have MPx+ creates a matrix where only the first column is non-zero, and MPx- created a matrix where only the second column is non-zero. Similarly, Px+ M creates a matrix where only the first row is non-zero, and Px- M creates a matrix where only the second row is non-zero. All four of these result matrices are ideals, the first two are left ideals and the last two are right ideals.

For orthogonal projectors, the resulting ideals share no members except 0. So we could create coordinate axes on these ideals and they would intersect only at the origin.

So then, the spinors (Pauli vectors) are members of minimal left ideals in Clifford algebras. Minimal means can't be broken up into smaller ideals (using smaller projectors). A spinor (a Pauli vector) is just the column that results from the action of a projector on a Pauli matrix.

Pauli vectors are rotated by quaternions, and we already discussed how the quaternions are described by Clifford algebras. This tells us the SU2 rotation matrices are described by the Spin group, with half angle rotations as previously discussed.

So now we've come full circle (no pun intended) from the Bloch sphere to the Spin group and back again. The Clifford algebra is what makes it all work, because the basis vectors square to 1 and are anticommutative with each other. And note it's considerably easier this way because we have single sided transformations, whereas if we use SU2 on vectors we require double sided transformations.

That's enough for now, yes? Now you know how to project a quantum state into a ring ideal using a Clifford algebra. The state vector V is the coordinates of a Bloch sphere with the Pauli matrices as a basis.

Wolfgang Pauli received the Nobel prize in 1945 for coming up with this stuff. He was nominated by Albert Einstein.

1736914071625.jpeg



He built on the mathematics of William Kingdon Clifford, who preceded Pauli by 50 years.

1736914360260.jpeg


 
Last edited:
You asked about quantum physics.

I'll show you something interesting and useful.

In quantum physics, we can use as a basis the Pauli matrices, which are usually called "sigma matrices" so I'll represent them by S. S stands for spin, in the x y and z directions, so we have Sx, Sy, and Sz. Here's how the Pauli matrices are defined:


When we look at a Bloch sphere, this is what we're looking at. So if we write a vector in the usual way as a linear combination of basis elements, we get

V = a . Sx + b . Sy + c . Sz

where a, b, and c are the "coordinates".

On the Bloch sphere, all the vectors usually have magnitude 1, unless they're entangled.

So we can begin with any old (unentangled, unit length) vector on the Bloch sphere, which represents a quantum state. Like this:

View attachment 1065725

The quantum state is some combination of spins, and although the axes in the pic are labeled x y and z, they're really Sx, Sy, and Sz. (I chose this picture for a reason, which you'll see in a minute).

So now, imagine that we want to "project" our vector onto any of the coordinate axes. Normally, if you have a vector (x, y, x) the projection onto the X axis is just the x coordinate, and y and z become 0.

But, we don't have a scalar basis anymore, we have a basis made up of Pauli matrices, which are 2x2 matrices. So how do we "project" our vector onto the Sx axis?

To answer, we need to use ring algebra. We need the concept of a "projector", and we also need the concept of an "ideal". First I'll show you projectors and ideals, then I'll give you the bigger picture.

First, note that when we're multiplying matrices, order matters. AB is not always equal to BA. We can begin with a "projection operator", so let's look at the matrix

| 1 0 |
| 0 0 |

If we have any other matrix M defined as

| a b |
| c d |

We can multiply by the projector on the LEFT, and the result is the first column. So, calling the projector P, we have

P M =

| a 0 |
| c 0 |

But when we multiply by the projector on the RIGHT, we pull out rows instead of columns. So we have M P =

| a b |
| 0 0 |

The Pauli matrices are the Clifford algebra C(3,0). Each basis element squares to +1, and the products are anticommutative. Note that the projection operator is idempotent, which means projecting twice (or N times) is the same as projecting once. (So P^2 = P). You can check that our projector matrix squares to itself.

Now, we can project our vector to any of the coordinate axes, so on the Bloch sphere our vector V is 3 dimensional and we have Px, Py, and Pz. Py for example is

| 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 |
| 0 0 0 |

Let's be very clear on this: the Bloch sphere is 3 dimensional, and our vector V has 3 coordinates x y and z. But the BASIS for this coordinate system consists of the 2x2 Pauli matrices. So the X axis projection is the x coordinate multiplied by Sx.

Two projectors are defined to be orthogonal if applying one and then the other gives us 0. So Px . Py = 0. Our first piece of ring algebra is this: if P is a projector, then (1-P) is also a projector. In matrix land, 1 is the identity matrix. In 3 dimensions, if P is Px, then (1-P) is a projector onto the YZ plane. And you can verify that (1-P)^2 equals (1-P), and you also verify that P(1-P) = 0.

Next, if P and Q are orthogonal projectors, then P+Q is also a projector.

So now, another piece of ring algebra. Let's define an "ideal". A simple example of an ideal on the ring of integers is the multiples of 3. If you add any two multiples of 3 you get another multiple of 3, so you stay within the ideal. Similarly, if you multiply a multiple of 3 by any scalar, you get another multiple of 3 - so once again you stay within the ideal.

An ideal is a subset of a ring (or a ring algebra). Turns out, the matrices we projected earlier are ideals of the ring of matrices.

| a 0 |
| c 0 |

is a left ideal, and

| a b |
| 0 0 |

is a right ideal.

Now, the bigger picture. Sigma matrices are a basis for the Clifford algebra C(3,0). A projector for any unit length vector U on the Bloch sphere is therefore

P = 1/2 (1 + U)

but we have to call it P+ because it's orthogonal partner P- is

1/2(1 - U)

And since we're in a Clifford algebra

UU = 1

So now we can replace our projectors with the Pauli matrices

Px+ = 1/2(1 + Sx)

and so on for each of x y and z. And now you can verify that multiplying matrix M from the left pulls out the columns and multiplying on the right pulls out the rows. Px+ pulls out the first column, and Px- pulls out the second column. If we add the results we get our original matrix back. And Px+ and Px- sum to 1.

And in this Clifford algebra, if we have a projector that acts on a ring, the result will be an ideal. Every projector in a ring creates an ideal.

So far, we have MPx+ creates a matrix where only the first column is non-zero, and MPx- created a matrix where only the second column is non-zero. Similarly, Px+ M creates a matrix where only the first row is non-zero, and Px- M creates a matrix where only the second row is non-zero. All four of these result matrices are ideals, the first two are left ideals and the last two are right ideals.

For orthogonal projectors, the resulting ideals share no members except 0. So we could create coordinate axes on these ideals and they would intersect only at the origin.

So then, the spinors (Pauli vectors) are members of minimal left ideals in Clifford algebras. Minimal means can't be broken up into smaller ideals (using smaller projectors). A spinor (a Pauli vector) is just the column that results from the action of a projector on a Pauli matrix.

Pauli vectors are rotated by quaternions, and we already discussed how the quaternions are described by Clifford algebras. This tells us the SU2 rotation matrices are described by the Spin group, with half angle rotations as previously discussed.

So now we've come full circle (no pun intended) from the Bloch sphere to the Spin group and back again. The Clifford algebra is what makes it all work, because the basis vectors square to 1 and are anticommutative with each other. And note it's considerably easier this way because we have single sided transformations, whereas if we use SU2 on vectors we require double sided transformations.

That's enough for now, yes? Now you know how to project a quantum state into a ring ideal using a Clifford algebra. The state vector V is the coordinates of a Bloch sphere with the Pauli matrices as a basis.

Wolfgang Pauli received the Nobel prize in 1945 for coming up with this stuff. He was nominated by Albert Einstein.

View attachment 1065748


He built on the mathematics of William Kingdon Clifford, who preceded Pauli by 50 years.

View attachment 1065750

Interesting. But I was more into Arithmetic. In other words ,Statistics , Actuaries ,and things that apply to Banking. However , I would like an answer to a certain question. Many folks believe Pi is a trancendental number. As far as the Decimal system ,that is true. But by any system of measuring , the EXACT number of Diameters to determine a circumference has to have an absolute value. I believe if the problem is worked out with fractions ,that could be determined.
 
Let me give you a more advanced take on this.

The Clifford algebra C(0,3) is actually 8 dimensional.

It has one scalar, three vectors, three bivectors, and a trivector.

The scalar is 1, it's just the identity matrix.

The trivector is I, it's capital i, it's just the identity matrix multiplied by imaginary i. (It's actually SxSySz, you can do the math and verify that it squares to -1). I commutes with everything in the Clifford algebra.

The three vectors are the Pauli matrices.

And you can calculate the bivectors using matrix multiplication, they are SySz, SzSx, and SxSy, which equate with ISx, ISy, and ISz respectively.

By adding these 8 matrices together, we can get any 2x2 matrix with complex entries.

A spinor is usually represented as a column vector, like this

| e1 |
| e2 |

where spin up is (1,0) and spin down is (0,1), and to get the Clifford representation we just add 0's on the right, like this

| e1 0 |
| e2 0 |

So a superposition is Ae1 + Be2.

It turns out, that these spin up and down states look exactly like projectors.

For example the +z spin up spinor is

| 1 0 |
| 0 0 |

and the -z spin down spinor is

| 0 0 |
| 1 0 |

which means we get the right answer with

1/2 (1 + Sz) and
1/2 (Sx - ISy)

and all this is fine for 3 dimensions, and to extend to N dimensions we just use the minimal left ring ideals generated by the appropriate algebra. In other words, instead of C(3,0) we can use C(N,0) just by pulling out the minimal left ideal.

You asked about string theory. There it is. Spin in 25 dimensions is just C(25,0). For a specific example, you can look up the Clifford algebra associated with the tangent bundle of the Calabi-Yau manifold.

Um... "however"... this gets a little complicated with 384 Clifford dimensions. There are easier ways of doing that, and now we really DO have to get into abstraction - for instance there are the Koszul algebras which have to do with polynomial rings ("smooth complex projective varieties"), and to understand that you have to understand Kahler and hyper-Kahler and Chern classes. Here are some links if you'd like to check it out:




This is why string theory is so painfully slow:


"we don't really have the math yet"

We are presently where Einstein was before he found out about rings, and where Pauli was before he found out about Clifford.
 
Interesting. But I was more into Arithmetic. In other words ,Statistics , Actuaries ,and things that apply to Banking. However , I would like an answer to a certain question. Many folks believe Pi is a trancendental number. As far as the Decimal system ,that is true. But by any system of measuring , the EXACT number of Diameters to determine a circumference has to have an absolute value. I believe if the problem is worked out with fractions ,that could be determined.
Pi has a series expansion. Here it is:

 
So ,using Fractions , what is the absolute value ? In other words , EXACTLY how many diameters make a circumference in a perfect circle with a diameter of exactly 12 inches?
Your use of the word "exactly" is a problem here, can you define it, what are you using it to denote?
 
My career existed because humans like to kill each other, whether it was with clubs, rocks, bow and arrows, or spears. Even if this world no longer had any modern warfare, we'd still resort to those other items. It's all part of human nature.
Then you understand why we need mathematicians and engineers. That's why we don't live that way.

And they all start as kids in schools.
 
Your use of the word "exactly" is a problem here, can you define it, what are you using it to denote?
Using the "Pi" formula ,one can't get an exact answer. But ,by the very nature of things , there HAS to be an EXACT answer.
 
Using the "Pi" formula ,one can't get an exact answer. But ,by the very nature of things , there HAS to be an EXACT answer.
Not sure what you're getting at.

Everything having to do with circles is an infinite approximation.

It's just the nature of things.

Exponents are that way too. So are logarithms.
 
Not sure what you're getting at.

Everything having to do with circles is an infinite approximation.

It's just the nature of things.

Exponents are that way too. So are logarithms.
But there has to be an absolute value. Using fractions ,this could be found.
 
See? Some moron thinks he can educate a PhD by looking up some dumbass AI on Google.

Not even realizing that Google AI just regurgitates the ignorant bullshit it finds on the internet.

This is what today's math education gets us. Kids who are really, really stupid. They'll believe any moronic piece of flotsam they find on the internet.

Pythagoras is a SPECIAL CASE. It applies ONLY in orthonormal coordinate systems, and ONLY in flat Euclidean space. Any first year STEM student ought to know that.

There is no "generalized Pythagoras". There is no such thing. Anyone who tells you different is a liar, and anyone who keeps telling you is an ignorant self absorbed fool.

There's plenty of things you can't make orthonormal AT ALL. Try using "generalized Pythagoras" on that. LMAO.

This is the same moron who told us he could predict the outcome of a chaotic system. Doubtlessly the product of a public school education.

This is exactly why kids need Scruffy's math program. Imagine that. A self professed computer programmer who doesn't know how to calculate angles on a curved surface. Kids like that won't make it in quantum computing. Where everything is curved and nothing is Euclidean. Watch - these dumb fuckers will come back with "then how come they call em X Y and Z".

Generalized Pythagoras my foot. Kids need to learn how to change coordinates on a metric tensor. It's really easy, it's just matrix multiplication. Any high school student should be able to do it. This is exactly why we need to teach curved surfaces EARLY, so we don't get dumbassery about "generalizing" Pythagoras.

Christ - no wonder the Chinese and Indians are getting all the American jobs.

The basics of trigonometry dictate that Pythagoras only applies in two dimensional space. Even if you were to use it in a full three-dimensional application you would still have to preclude at least one dimension to be sure of the measurement. Being a lazy person I would probably try to find a way to narrow it down to two dimensions if it was possible. 😁
 
The basics of trigonometry dictate that Pythagoras only applies in two dimensional space. Even if you were to use it in a full three-dimensional application you would still have to preclude at least one dimension to be sure of the measurement. Being a lazy person I would probably try to find a way to narrow it down to two dimensions if it was possible. 😁
Your (this) post could be a spring board into a whole 'nother discussion. About the relationship between 3d vectors, and 2x2 matrices.

If we go there, we have to talk about exponentiating matrices (so if you have matrix M, how do you calculate e^M).

Which then leads naturally to Lie groups, and Lie algebras, and Lie generator matrices.

We've already seen one example of the relationship between 3d vectors and 2x2 matrices, namely the Pauli.matrices which are a group of 3d rotations.

But we can take it one step further and show how SU2 is a double cover of SO3, which are the ordinary 3d rotation matrices we're used to (whose elements are sines and cosines).

Lie groups are "continuous" rotations, so instead of just two discrete states spin up and spin down, we get an infinite spectrum of spins (you can think of Lie groups as the analog version of the digital Pauli case).

Regarding Pythagoras, I should mention what is known as the "freshman's dream" (Google), which is

s^2 = x^2 + y^2

It's not in general true, only in special cases (one of which we've already seen, which is the tropical geometry).

Generally, norms are (v,v), they're dot products of vectors with themselves, so usually there is an extra term, for instance s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + 2xy.

In some cases related to matrix math, the extra term works out as a commutator, which means xy - yx. The commutator is sometimes called a "bracket", and is written with square brackets []. For example there is a "Lie bracket", which is a commutator - and in a Lie "algebra", the commutator becomes the multiplication element itself.

The Pythagoras formula really is a very, very special case. As you say. In geometry it becomes a metric tensor, and in algebra it's a "freshman's dream". :p

See, this is kind of Scruffy's point in this thread. All these things we're talking about, are generally considered "advanced math". But they're not, really. They're very simple stuff. Matrix multiplication, which kids learn in first year algebra. Why is it that we withhold a few elements from the kids and call it "advanced"? That's dumb and counterproductive, it's just sophistry.

Any kid can understand rotations, and ultimately, rotations are far more important than proofs related to angles in geometry. Instead of spending time on useless proofs that'll go in one ear and out the other as soon as the class is over, let's spend the time on meaningful examples the kids will see over and over again as they advance through physics, chemistry, and engineering. Lie groups are fundamental to geometry, and therefore we should talk about groups in Algebra 1 which generally precedes first year geometry. We should talk about groups at the exact same time we learn how to multiply matrices, it's a natural discussion and a natural relationship. This way, a kid learns what a commutator is, and then when he gets to college and learns about Poisson "brackets" he doesn't have to ask WTF that term means, because he already knows, because he's seen it and used it before.

We shouldn't be thinking in terms of keeping up with the Chinese. We should be thinking in terms of leapfrogging the Chinese. :)
 
Oh - another example of a Lie group is the relationship between translation and momentum in physics. Which is super important in the understanding of elementary particles.

Spin is important to understand, for sure. There are 0-spin particles like the Higgs boson and pi mesons, 1/2 spin particles which the "matter" particles (electron, quarks), 1-spin particles which are the force-carrying particles like photons and W and Z, and even the mythical 2-spin graviton.

But the relationship between momentum and translation transcends all of this, it's one of Noether's "fundamental symmetries of the universe" leading to a conservation law. (Another example being energy and time). And translation is a Lie group, and so is spin.

So the concept of exponentiating a matrix becomes extremely important. So why don't kids learn about it at the same time they learn matrix multiplication? After all, exponentiating a matrix is just a Taylor series expansion, it IS in fact matrix multiplication. And then you learn about the side effects, like what traces are good for and why we require certain matrices to be Hermitian.

You could cover all this material in ONE WEEK in the classroom, while the kids are getting their matrix multiplication homework. It gives them a motivation for why their homework is important.
 
Oh - another example of a Lie group is the relationship between translation and momentum in physics. Which is super important in the understanding of elementary particles.

Spin is important to understand, for sure. There are 0-spin particles like the Higgs boson and pi mesons, 1/2 spin particles which the "matter" particles (electron, quarks), 1-spin particles which are the force-carrying particles like photons and W and Z, and even the mythical 2-spin graviton.

But the relationship between momentum and translation transcends all of this, it's one of Noether's "fundamental symmetries of the universe" leading to a conservation law. (Another example being energy and time). And translation is a Lie group, and so is spin.

So the concept of exponentiating a matrix becomes extremely important. So why don't kids learn about it at the same time they learn matrix multiplication? After all, exponentiating a matrix is just a Taylor series expansion, it IS in fact matrix multiplication. And then you learn about the side effects, like what traces are good for and why we require certain matrices to be Hermitian.

You could cover all this material in ONE WEEK in the classroom, while the kids are getting their matrix multiplication homework. It gives them a motivation for why their homework is important.
Know anything about String Theory?
 
Back
Top Bottom