The ArXiV versus ResearchGate

Lately it seems that ResearchGate is getting more and more popular. This is a website where academics can post their research—both published and unpublished work (subject to copyright restrictions)—keep up with their area of interest, and access other researcher’s work easily. It also provides a bit of a biographical aspect: it feels like a mini Facebook for research academics.

The general public will find it difficult to post things on ResearchGate. This ensures a certain level of trustworthiness and confidence in the materials that are posted. However even if you are not a research academic, you can find and download materials easily.

In mathematics, the ArXiV has for some time now been the default repository for posting preprints. This is a very valuable site that has allowed a lot more visibility to papers which has not been published. It is a way for researchers to stake a claim on work they have done before it is officially published—this can be valuable considering that the waiting time to get published in journals is often more than a year and realistically more like 2 years and up.

The ArXiV has a policy of accepting LaTeX submissions only. This means that a fair amount of expertise with LaTeX is required, and for articles that have a lot of diagrams, the process of uploading them can, or at least used to be, rather onerous. About 3 or 4 years back I was struggling trying to upload some dozens of images that accompanied a paper on Hyperbolic Geometry that I was trying to post to the ArXiV. After several long and painful attempts at the uploading proved unsuccessful, I contacted the ArXiV admin and asked if I could just upload the pdf file. They rather shortly refused, and I found that I consequently lost interest in the ArXiV as a place for my papers. Indeed I always struggled understanding how the ArXiV could justify demanding mathematicians hand over their LaTeX documents, which can easily be copied, cut and pasted rather than the pdfs, which are more high level and secure (at least to an ordinary user such as myself). I suppose I read their explanations, but wasn’t convinced.

So I am rather grateful that ResearchGate allows me to easily upload the pdfs of my papers,  catalogues them conveniently for me, and allows the general public to find these papers, read them online, and download them. This means I no longer have to worry about organizing a list of publications on my own UNSW website–believe me, this is a great convenience.

Goodbye journals! Hello ResearchGate!

Actually I am kidding a bit here: I do still plan on submitting papers regularly to KoG, the Croatian Society for Geometry and Graphics Journal which has to be the physically most attractive journal in pure mathematics, and a few others. But it really makes one think, doesn’t it? I am now in the position of writing papers, publishing them myself on ResearchGate, and letting the world decide whether the papers are worth reading. Brave new times.

Here is the link to my ResearchGate list of publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norman_Wildberger/publications

and here is the link to my ArXiV publications:

http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Wildberger_N/0/1/0/all/0/1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mathematics journals publish papers by mathematicians on their research discoveries, or sometimes expository works that overview an area. They have traditionally been the main repositories of innovation and development in mathematics—the advance guard of mathematical knowledge—with books being the support troops that bring up the rear and consolidate the progress made.

Mathematics journals used to be published by Academies or Societies, often with a strong regional affiliation. Crelle’s journal was an important journal initiated by a single individual. These days most journals are associated with a Mathematical Society and run as a service to the community, or are commercial enterprises run for a profit.

Modern technology, in particular the internet, is putting the entire enterprise under investigation. Will the mathematics journal in its present form survive? Recently the ArXiV and other online repositories mean that people can upload research papers before they are officially published, and indeed can circumvent the entire publishing process if they so choose. What happens when everything is online and no-one really reads the bound journals? What will be the role of other means of relaying information, in particular video?

Can commercial publishers maintain the (seemingly) exorbitant prices that they have historically been able to charge the main institutional (library) buyers of their wares? How are the roles of editor, referee, typesetter, distributor going to change?

Before the onslaught of the internet, we had already seen a major shift in the world of journals with Donald Knuth’s celebrated creation of TeX, and then LaTeX, which allows authors to typeset their mathematical papers themselves. I use Scientific Workplace to access LaTeX, and it is easily the most useful toolbox that I use as a professional mathematician (I will have to sing its praises in a separate blog sometime). So us mathematicians no longer need typists or typesetters, and in fact we don’t really need the printing and distribution capabilities of traditional journals, since papers only really get published in one place these days, namely the internet, and if someone wants a printed copy, they print it out themselves.

What about editors and referees? Don’t they still perform a valuable function? Yes certainly they do, but their roles are also looking increasingly unclear. Is the refereeing system really working? There are ranges of opinion. As gatekeepers to prestige and success, editors and to a lesser extent referees have been able to shape and direct the course of mathematics. Now increasingly there is a sense that mathematics will go where it will, without supervision, and with powerful people having less of a handle on promoting one area at the expense of others.

But I believe that the real game changer will be coming from video. Already if people want to know something in depth, they are as likely to look it up on YouTube as find a printed explanation. The reality is that we can learn most efficiently when someone who knows what they are talking about explains it to us in a visual way at a level that is appropriate to us. Increasingly mathematicians are going to start to realize that if they really want to engage with a wide audience, and promote their ideas in the broadest possible way, they will have to augment their paper productions with video explanations.

In fact if done well, a video presentation can easily become the primary resource, with an associated pdf as a secondary resource for those who want to pore over the details. Most of us don’t want to pore over the details. So we are going to see an increasing number of academics thinking not so much about their paper CV, but rather about their video CV.

I have already made this transition some years ago. It is just so much more satisfying to explain a good idea by making a video about it, without the onerous obligation of getting every word just right and jumping through all the publishing hoops. Every word doesn’t really have to be right. The ideas have to be right, and they have to be visually interesting and engaging.

And what about the importance of having someone else to `approve’ my ideas for publication? Bah. For me, this is completely unnecessary. I am perfectly capable of deciding myself whether my work is worthy of publishing. If I make a mistake and someone points it out, I can change the video. If someone discovers a better way of working through some point, they can make a comment or publish their own video. And ultimately it will be the public, the viewers, that decide whether videos are worth watching, not some anonymous referee.

Want an example? I am working on revolutionizing hyperbolic geometry. I am slowly doing that with a series of traditional papers in excellent journals. But I am also doing that on YouTube, right here:

Link | Posted on by | 2 Comments

Some fundamental formulas from metrical algebraic geometry (seminar)

This coming Tuesday in the Pure Maths Seminar at UNSW I will be giving a talk: Here are the details, in case you are in Sydney and are interested. The talk is at the School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW, Kensington campus, building the Red Centre, which is up the main walkway from Anzac Parade.

________________________________________________________________
Speaker:   Norman Wildberger (UNSW)
Title:         Some fundamental formulas from metrical algebraic geometry
When:       12:00 Tuesday, 9 June 2015
Where:      RC-4082, Red Centre, UNSW

Abstract:  At the heart of metrical algebraic geometry there are hierarchies of beautiful algebraic formulas, starting in one dimension and then working their way up both in dimension and complexity. These  can be viewed as generalizations of formulas of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Brahmagupta, Bretschneider, von Staudt and others, as well as classical results from Euclidean geometry.

One of the interesting aspects of our approach to these formulas, based on Rational Trigonometry, is the pursuit of generality: using general fields and arbitrary quadratic forms. Interesting connections emerge with the theory of special functions, differential geometry and operator analysis.

Most of these formulas would be challenging to find without the use of a computer: this is one reason why they have laid hidden for so long. We’ll see that there are many unanswered questions that invite exploration.

The talk will be accessible to undergraduates.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Online tutorials for first year mathematics

The first teaching semester of 2015 has just finished here at UNSW. It has been very busy for me, which is a convenient excuse for not having blogged much lately. What’s been happening?

Teaching-wise I got a Learning and Teaching Grant from the University to put together new Online Tutorials for our Higher First Year Maths course MATH1141, which combines Algebra and Calculus. With the fantastic help of Daniel Mansfield, and also Jonathan Kress, we have been busily designing interesting questions that our best first year students can attempt on-line using Maple TA. That is a system devised by the clever people at Maple, based in Waterloo, Canada, which allows mathematical computation in the context of online delivery of course questions.

This means we can coerce, I mean motivate, students to actually do homework! How good is that? Up till now we, along with fellow educators around the world, plead and cajole our students to work on their own going over suggested exercises to practise the skills we are teaching them. But not altogether surprisingly, self-interest intrudes, and students often find themselves with something better to do, in other words something for which marks are assigned.

Our Online tutorials are based on videos to problem solutions that we made that show students how to solve questions from our Problem Notes.

Hopefully they watch the videos, and then answer a suite of five questions, ranging in difficulty from easy to more challenging, on that general topic. With the possibility of adding images, diagrams, lots of good looking and well-laid out mathematics, we can make our questions rather nifty. Here is an example of a typical question, which prompts students to discover the rational parametrization of the hyperbola x^2-y^2=1.

Hyperbola

One of the exciting aspects of this is that we have realized we can get our students reading through proofs, and filling in blanks to complete them. This way they get the benefit of walking through a well presented argument and following that logical development—surely a key preliminary to getting them to create coherent proofs themselves.

And of course, there is the flexibility of the online platform that works in their favour, so they can choose the optimal time to do the assignments, which curiously seems to be an hour before Sunday midnight, just before the tutorials close.:)

Next session we are motoring on with more of the same in MATH1241, and next year we hope to roll this out for our big first year course (over 2000 students). Exciting, brave new times for teaching.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

My future glorious life!

I am so excited! Here drinking my morning green tea, i have just been visited by an image of St. Peter, who proclaimed to me that all my personal dreams are about to come true, provided i can write them down on this blog in the next half an hour!! Wow. So please excuse any spelling mistakes: I am about to restructure my life, and I need to do it fast, since i can’t type that quickly, but I need be careful, because I am not allowed to revise anything I write!

First of all, I am going to live a healthy life till I’m 100. Unfortunately he said I could only dictate what happens to me, not anyone else, so I can only hope the rest of my family is okay. And why not beyond a hundred? He said I couldn’t actually change my physical characteristics, so I reckon that beyond 100, frailty is too much of an issue. But I’m wasting time explaining these things to you!

Clearly I want a nice house for us, one that we own. Real estate prices are totally ridiculous here in Sydney, what with…oh I don’t need to explain why, it’s too long a story, suffice to say that for only $2 million I can get a beautiful three bedroom house in a good neighbourhood not far from the Uni of NSW. So that’s on the list. A new car, of course, perhaps a luxury vehicle, a Lexus say, since I am very happy with our old Camry. Another $2 million in the bank for a comfortable retirement ahead (not too soon, since I don’t want to get bored) would also be sweet. I can picture it now, a lovely new house, luxury car, money stashed away for retirement travelling and golfing.

Speaking of golf, how about a life membership at one of the nice golf courses close to where I live here. And please St. Peter, throw in a good set of clubs and some nice golf attire. Speaking of clothes, I haven’t redone my wardrobe in a serious fashion for many years: how about a gift voucher for a few thousand bucks at a local department store. I`ll want my theory of Rational Trigonometry to suddenly be understood by the academy, ensuring a promotion at work to full Professor; heh why not one of those Scientia Professorships that pay twice as much with only half the work? That should about wrap it up. But I still have another ten minutes to go. Am I being too modest here? What will my wife think when she finds out I had a blank cheque and came back with only a modest haul. And in a few years that Lexus will be a used car… Shouldn’t I be more ambitious?

And what if some friends come to visit? Let’s upgrade to a 5 bedroom house in Double Bay for $5 million. Let’s add a top of the range BMW, and–you only live once—a spanking new red Ferrari. Actually I don’t care much about cars, but surely I can get interested once these are parked in my triple garage. The rich and famous who live there are probably a bit stand-offish, so I`ll ask that I become an internationally famous mathematician: Rational Trigonometry will be such an educational breakthrough that I will be in hot demand on the lecture circuit, girls will ask for my autograph in the street, and pollies will invite me to their lavish dinner parties. Russell Crowe and James Packer will become my good buddies, and drag me to those tedious football games, where I can sit in the high class enclosures sipping champers. Speaking of, I need a wine cellar, and say 2000 bottles of the good stuff. Probably I want a library too, and a tennis court—let’s make that house a $25 million mansion at Piper’s Point instead.

But then all my new buddies will have holiday weekenders and villas in Tuscany. I want a holiday weekender too, say in Leura (I think I only have about 5 minutes left!!), and a villa in Tuscany. And a helicopter, and a horse riding ranch, say out near wherever James has his. And a private jet. Wait! I will need a lot more dough to pay for all the staff, maintenance and taxes that all this stuff requires. I want $100 million in cash. No, I want $10 billion in stock. Why limit myself? Why should Bill Gates outdo me in my future philanthropy? I want $100 billion in cash, bonds and stock. And–

What? It appears that St. Peter has been timing me, and I just ran over my thirty minutes. [Insert sad face here]. The deal is void. Whoops. Better not tell my wife about this.

But to tell the truth, it was all starting to sound like a major headache, if you know what I mean. Now I am back to the essential mystery of my life, and I better get off to work; I have a 9 am meeting.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The infinitely real delusion, and my recent debate with James Franklin

In the last fifteen years or so, I have become increasingly disenchanted with the way modern mathematics deals with, or rather doesn’t deal with, the serious logical problems which beset the subject. These difficulties arise from a misunderstanding of the nature of `infinite sets’ and `the continuum’, and then extend further in many directions.

`Infinite sets’ are propped up, according to the standard dogma, by certain axiomatics, which lift the burden of having to actually define properly what we are talking about, and prove the various theorems that we would like to have true. What a joke these ZFC axiomatics are. The entire situation is ironic to the extreme: in fact Cantor’s Set Theory was vigorously opposed by most prominent mathematicians during his day, and then collapsed in a catastrophic heap at the beginning of the 20th century due to the discovery of irrefutable paradoxes. And now, fast forward a hundred years later: not only has Set Theory been resurrected, essentially with no new ideas—most of the key concepts go back to Cantor or Turing, and are just endlessly recycled—but now most of us believe that this befuddled and imprecisely laid out subject is actually the correct foundation for the rest of mathematics! This is little short of incredible. I feel I have woken from a dream, while most of my colleagues are still blissfully dozing.

And our notion of the continuum is currently modelled by the so-called ‘real numbers’, which in fact are far removed from most sensible people’s notions of reality. These phoney real numbers that most of my colleagues pretend to deal with on a daily basis are in fact hazy and undefined creations that frolic and shimmer in a fantasy underworld deep beneath the computational precisions of our computers, ready to alleviate us from the dull chore of striving for precise computations, and incorporating correct error bounds when we can obtain only approximations.

We are talking about irrational numbers here; numbers whose names even lay people are familiar with, such as sqrt(2), and pi, and Euler’s number e.

Supposedly there are myriads of other ones, given by various arcane procedures, formulas and properties. The actual theory and arithmetic of such real numbers is never laid out completely correctly; rather we find brief ‘summaries’ of the wished-for properties that these creatures have, properties that ensure that theoretically many standard computational problems have solutions, even if our computers can in fact not find them.

Ask a modern pure mathematician to make the computation pi+e for you, and see what kind of bemused look you get. Is not the answer the same as the question? Is this not how we all do `real number arithmetic’??

The belief in `real numbers’ supports a false mathematical dream-world where almost everything has a solution; a Polyanna fantasy land which can be conjured up by words but not written down on paper. (Of course the computer scientist or applied mathematician or scientist knows that in reality all meaningful computations occur with rational numbers or floating point decimals).

What a boon it is to live in the `infinitely real’ dreamscape of the modern pure mathematician! To conjure up `constructions’ and ` computations’ these days we need only scribble words, phrases and descriptions together. This is why so many of the ‘best’ journals are filled with page after page of what might be generously called `mathematical prose’. See my submission `Let H be a load of hogwash’ to get a feeling for this language of modern mathematics that the journals encourage.

Most pure mathematicians feel little obligation to address the claims of logical weakness. Objections such as mine may be safely ignored. Unlike scientists, we don’t feel the obligation to step up to the plate and respond rationally to criticism, as it clearly cannot be correct: since the majority rules! As long as we all play along, and ignore the increasingly obvious gaps between what our computers can do and what we are claiming, everyone can pretend that things are merry.

But could the tide be turning? A little while ago, James Franklin and I had a public debate (quite civilized and friendly I would add) in the Pure Maths Seminar in the School of Mathematics and Statistics UNSW, and lo and behold– the room was filled to capacity, people were huddled at the doors from outside trying to hear what was said, and my heresies were not met with a barrage of hoots, tomatoes and derision. Check out the debate either at the YouTube channel MathsStatsUNSW, or at my channel Insights into Mathematics (user njwildberger):

Judging from the many comments, it is no longer such a one-sided debate as it was a few decades ago. I reckon that young people’s comfort and trust in computers has a lot to do with it. What is it really, if you can’t get your computer to model it?? Only a fantasy.

You can join the revolution, too. Don’t be so accepting of everything you are told. Ask for explicit examples and concrete computations. Be suspicious of appeals to authority, or the well worn method of swamping with jargon. And of course, watch as many of my videos as you can, for a slow but steady introduction to: a more sensible world of pure mathematics.

Perhaps the forces of confusion and orthodoxy will soon be on the back foot.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Austria, geometry and mountains

I have just attended the 16th International Conference on Geometry and Graphics, hosted this year in Innsbruck by Manfred Husty, Hans-Peter Schroeker and their team. It was a resounding success, and I had a great time, meeting new friends, from Mexico, Columbia, Russia, Serbia, Germany and elsewhere, and also old friends from here in Austria, Canada, Germany and Croatia.

Photo 2-08-2014 11 35 57 am

I gave a talk on work with my former student Ali Alkhaldi on the parabola in hyperbolic geometry, and canonical points associated to it, including our discovery of the fascinating Y-conic. Also on my mind is a paper on Incenter circles with my student Nguyen Le that I need to finish correcting for the illustrious journal KoG. I might tell you about that paper next time: in the meantime here are a few more pics of Innsbruck, whose German name means Bridge over the Inn (river). The Inn valley hugs the city from both sides, with outdoor activities, winter and summer, in the mountains directly accessible. Austrians who live here definitely stay fit!

Photo 2-08-2014 11 26 23 am

The old town has charm and character, and of course lots of tourists!

Photo 2-08-2014 11 16 54 am

Coming from Canada, and from Australia, it is interesting to imagine the pyschology of living in a city with such an august and established heritage; with the works of the ancestors constantly in view, and tradition playing much more of a role than where I come from. While the majority no doubt are strengthened and supported by the solidity and presence of that history, perhaps others feel confined by it?

Since my father is from Austria, I feel very comfortable in this country, and always enjoy my time here. The mountains are great, and on a nice summer day walking in the alpine countryside and forests, with grand vistas around, can’t be beat.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments