6:45 PM
I began reading "The Computational Beauty of
Nature" by Gary Flake yesterday. I am sufficiently excited to stay with
this book for awhile and see what notes I can make. Much like Spivak's
book on calculus, this book also says that the topic is largely about
numbers, and how little we understand them.
I would like to begin by noting a few quotes and my reaction
to them.
Preface [p. xiii - xviii]
- "The scientist does not study nature because it is useful;
he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in
it because it is beautiful." [p. xiii]
- substitute experimentalist, theorist, and simulationist for
engineer, mathematician and computer scientist [p. xiii]
- "A simulationist is a relatively new breed of scientist who
attempts to understand how the world works by studying computer
simulations of phenomena." [p. xiii]
- "... simple recurrent rules can produce extremely rich and
complicated behaviors." [p. xiv]
A superb example would be our
number system. The natural numbers are generated by
the rule that each number has a successor. We then
add a couple of rules defining what we mean by addition
and multiplication and we have almost all of mathematics. |
- "If a particular equation confuses you, the first thing you
should do is see if the surrounding text gives you a little
more insight into what the symbols mean. If that doesn't work,
then look to see if there is a picture that corresponds to
the equation. Finally, if all else fails, you should do what
I do when I don't understand an equation: mentally substitute
the sounds 'blah blah blah' for the equation and keep going.
You would be surprised how often this works." [p. xvi]
Lovely! This same strategy works
for not just for equations but for any material that
one does not understand. |
Chapter 1 Introduction
- "traditional scientists study two types of phenomena: agents
(molecules, cells, ducks, and species) and interactions of
agents (chemical reactions, immune system responses, duck mating,
and evolution). [p. 2]
- "... agents that exist on one level of understanding are
very different from agents on another level: cells are not
organs, organs are not animals, and animals are not species.
Yet surprisingly the interactions on one level of understanding
are often very similar to the interactions on other levels."
[p. 3]
- "Complex systems with emergent properties are often highly
parallel collections of similar units." [p. 4]
e.g. humans, or almost any living
organism. |
- "Parallel systems that are redundant have fault tolerance."
e.g. humans, or almost any living
organism. |
- "While animals must react according to their surroundings,
they can also change this environment, which means that future
actions by an animal will have to take these environmental
changes into account."
e.g. sheep and over-grazing; invasion
of Afghanistan and Iraq |
Section I
- "Systems that compute can represent powerful mappings from
one set of numbers to another. Moreover, any program
on any computer is equivalent to a number mapping." [p. 9]
I have never seen the statement
in red before. That is a very powerful insight. That
is saying that ALL programs may be thought of as a form
of mathematics. This may also mean that any statement
about programs may have an equivalent statement in mathematics,
and vice-versa. |
- The actual process of computing can be defined in terms of
a very small number of primitive operations, with recursion
and/or iteration comprising the most fundamental pieces of
a computing device." [p. 9]
Chapter 2 Number Systems and Infinity
- Flake begins this chapter with a discussion of Zeno's famous
paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. He then shows that this
story is mathematically equivalent to summing a series of terms,
each of which is half the size of the preceding term (e.g.
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... ). If one continues this series
forever what is the total? Flake then uses a diagram where
he successively divides a unit square into halves and then
sums all of the little squares. Clearly the result is the complete
square (i. e. 1) [p. 12 - 14]
Beautiful! Using a rough sketch
one can see at a glance what the sum must be. This may
not be a tight algebraic proof, but it makes sense. This
is also a neat demonstration that an infinite sum may
have a finite answer. For many people this is counter-intuitive:
adding up an infinite number of little things should
result in an infinite amount. Not so, if the little things
are sufficiently small and getter smaller with each term. |
- The example, as Flake points out, involved looking at the
properties of an infinite number of fractions (i.e. rational
numbers).
- Flake then quickly demonstrates another counter-intuitive
idea: the number of even numbers is the same as the number
of counting numbers. Intuitively one might think that there
are half as many. But using the idea that two sets have the
same number of elements if one can find a mapping from each
element of one set to each element of the other and vice-versa.
From this one can easily imagine many more such examples. All
such sets of numbers are called "countably infinite".
In a single page Flake begins with
the counting numbers (positive integers) and quickly
comes up with an advanced idea in mathematics having
to do with the size of infinite collections. What kind
of an idea is infinity? |
7:50 PM
|