Re: Dangerous knowledge

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Mike Stay]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Dana Scott <dana.scott@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I think the premise of the work is silly.

I agree; it seems to be an urban legend that to be a great
artist--whether a musician, painter, mathematician, or what have
you--one has to be mentally unstable.  Perhaps it's a way for people
to excuse themselves for never creating a work of great beauty.
-- 
Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com
http://math.ucr.edu/~mike
http://reperiendi.wordpress.com


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous_knowledge

[Joyal, André]

Dear John,

you wrote:

> We oldsters can tut-tut about the
>inaccuracies and lack of serious content, but as a kid I would have enjoyed
>it - and if it makes one youngster pursue a career in mathematics instead of
>crime, that may justify its existence.

Perhaps, a better and more exciting model for the youngster 
is Richard Feynman, a "genious" with common sense:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Best,
André


-------- Message d'origine--------
De: categories@mta.ca de la part de John Baez
Date: mar. 01/12/2009 21:16
À: categories@mta.ca
Objet : categories: Re: Dangerous knowledge
 
The BBC wrote:

 In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
>> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
>> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove
>> them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>>
>
Jim Stasheff wrote:

At least the Turing implication is very misleading - see below.
>

It's also not true that George Cantor committed suicide!

And I would not call Ludwig Boltzmann a mathematician.  I'd call him a
physicist.

But the documentary seems a bit more accurate than this summary.
And it could be good to have documentaries that sensationalize mathematics
and make it seem "edgy" and "dangerous".  We oldsters can tut-tut about the
inaccuracies and lack of serious content, but as a kid I would have enjoyed
it - and if it makes one youngster pursue a career in mathematics instead of
crime, that may justify its existence.

Best,
jb


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Vaughan Pratt]

[Note from moderator: while interesting, this thread has strayed well
off-topic; to be posted further submissions must be relevant to
categories.]

Jim Stasheff wrote:
> I seem to recall some such work on Asperger's
> see book by Ioan James and a benefides neuroscientist

Ioan James held the Savilian Chair of Geometry at Oxford during 1970-95,
and seems to be the only author.  Where does the neuroscientist come
into it?

Autism is a pretty disabling condition.  The 20 individuals James writes
about seem at worst to be only mildly autistic and surely would be
better described as having Asperger syndrome if even that.  In 1944 Hans
Asperger described a behavioral pattern that, according to the Wikipedia
article on him, included "a lack of empathy, little ability to form
friendships, one-sided conversation, intense absorption in a special
interest, and clumsy movements."

Anyone who's gone overtime in a conference talk at the expense of the
next speaker could be judged as having at least three of the first four
of these, and the audience would then be riveted on the speaker's
movements to assess their clumsiness.  And how does one judge "ability
to form friendships?"  By the number of the speaker's coauthors?  Some
people are by nature private, others compartmentalize their time into
private and social periods so that they can get some work done in their
private time.  How is someone to be judged when their social time is
only say 10% or 20% of their private time?

Wikipedia has the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_speculated_to_have_been_autistic

whose introduction reads

---
Famous historical people have been speculated to have been autistic by
journalists, academics and autism professionals. Such speculation is
controversial and little of it is undisputed. For example, several
autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had autism and
other diagnoses, while other researchers say there is not sufficient
evidence to draw conclusions that he had any diagnoses
---

The body of the article includes "Speculation about their diagnoses is
based on reported behaviors rather than any clinical observation of the
individual. Fred Volkmar, a psychiatrist and autism expert and director
of the Yale Child Study Center says, 'There is unfortunately a sort of
cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's.' "

Here's the Amazon product description of James' book, and two customer
reviews.

---
This fascinating collection identifies famous figures from the past,
whose behaviour suggests they may have had autism, a disorder that was
not defined until the mid - 20th century. James looks at the lives of 20
individuals - scientists, artists, politicians and philosophers -
examining in detail their interests, successes, indifferences and
shortcomings. Among the profiles are those of mathematician and
philosopher Bertrand Russell, who wondered in his autobiography how he
managed to hurt the people around him quite without meaning to;
biologist Alfred Kinsey, who excelled in academia but was ill at ease in
social situations; and the writer Patricia Highsmith, who had very
definite likes (fountain pens and absence of noise) and dislikes
(television and four-course meals). From Albert Einstein to Philip of
Spain, these intriguing individuals all showed clear evidence of
autistic traits. This book will be of interest to general readers and
anyone with a personal or professional interest in autism.
---

---
FIRST REVIEW: "Offers opportunity for personal insight"

This book is not what I expected, yet I appreciate its contribution to
the literature on this topic.

Twenty biographical accounts are arranged chronologically. Each offers
basic facts about the life and accomplishments of the individual, and
includes accounts of their behaviors, their own views of their
challenges and accomplishments as well as the perceptions of their
contemporaries.

Taken together, these twenty biographies offer me insights into human
diversity and the importance of accepting ourselves and others for our
strengths as well as our idiosyncrasies. As a teacher it helps me both
understand and appreciate unique children.
---

---
SECOND REVIEW: "Not another book about famous people who might have had
Asperger Syndrome!"

I have to say, this genre is getting rather tired, and there is a lot of
overlap between all the books on this subject, of which there are many.
If you already own one of the other books on this subject, you don't
need to buy this one, and if you don't already own a book on this
subject, this one is as good as any. What else can I say? It's 20 mini
biographies of people the author has researched and considers to show
signs of having had Asperger Syndrome. Interesting enough, and probably
succeeds in the stated aim of raising the self esteem of people with AS.
---

Vaughan


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Steve Vickers]

Dear Vaughan,

I haven't looked at the programmes, but I mentioned the general drift of
the categories discussion to my wife Dr Camilla Haw. She is a practising
psychiatrist and has also done a lot of research with the Oxford Centre
for Suicide Research. Her comments were (i) academics in general have a
low suicide rate (high rates are for health professionals and
agricultural workers), and (ii) 4 cases over a century or more don't in
themselves add up to risk factor.

Best wishes,

Steve.

Vaughan Pratt wrote:
> Aren't artistic types alleged to be more prone to mental illness than
> say sales clerks, real estate agents, auto mechanics, farmers,
> lumberjacks, etc?   More generally, creative people?  On that basis
> would one expect a higher prevalence of mental disorders among
> theoretical physicists (Boltzmann) than experimental ones (Rutherford),
> or among mathematicians than engineers, or among top chefs than short
> order cooks?
>
> Everyone seems to be a mental health expert today, just as everyone is
> an expert on evolution and global warming (but not quantum mechanics or
> ecology or anesthesiology, funny how that works).  I'd be uncomfortable
> with any innuendos of this kind about theoreticians vs. practitioners,
> or creatives vs servants, or prima donnas vs. choristers, without some
> solid independent evaluation of this question by professionals with a
> substantial track record in mental health.  Has any such evaluation been
> made?
>
> Vaughan Pratt
>


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[jim stasheff]

Vaughan Pratt wrote:
> Aren't artistic types alleged to be more prone to mental illness than
> say sales clerks, real estate agents, auto mechanics, farmers,
> lumberjacks, etc?   More generally, creative people?  On that basis
> would one expect a higher prevalence of mental disorders among
> theoretical physicists (Boltzmann) than experimental ones (Rutherford),
> or among mathematicians than engineers, or among top chefs than short
> order cooks?
>
> Everyone seems to be a mental health expert today, just as everyone is
> an expert on evolution and global warming (but not quantum mechanics or
> ecology or anesthesiology, funny how that works).  I'd be uncomfortable
> with any innuendos of this kind about theoreticians vs. practitioners,
> or creatives vs servants, or prima donnas vs. choristers, without some
> solid independent evaluation of this question by professionals with a
> substantial track record in mental health.  Has any such evaluation been
> made?
>
> Vaughan Pratt
>

I seem to recall some such work on Asperger's
see book by Ioan James and a benefides neuroscientist

jim



[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Joyal, André]

Perhaps, Paul Dirac is another example of a strange character.
See his biography: 

Strange Genius: The Life and Times of Paul Dirac 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/home

AJ

-------- Message d'origine--------
De: categories@mta.ca de la part de Vaughan Pratt
Date: dim. 06/12/2009 13:46
À: categories list
Objet : categories: Re: Dangerous knowledge
 
Aren't artistic types alleged to be more prone to mental illness than
say sales clerks, real estate agents, auto mechanics, farmers,
lumberjacks, etc?   More generally, creative people?  On that basis
would one expect a higher prevalence of mental disorders among
theoretical physicists (Boltzmann) than experimental ones (Rutherford),
or among mathematicians than engineers, or among top chefs than short
order cooks?

Everyone seems to be a mental health expert today, just as everyone is
an expert on evolution and global warming (but not quantum mechanics or
ecology or anesthesiology, funny how that works).  I'd be uncomfortable
with any innuendos of this kind about theoreticians vs. practitioners,
or creatives vs servants, or prima donnas vs. choristers, without some
solid independent evaluation of this question by professionals with a
substantial track record in mental health.  Has any such evaluation been
made?

Vaughan Pratt


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Vaughan Pratt]

Aren't artistic types alleged to be more prone to mental illness than
say sales clerks, real estate agents, auto mechanics, farmers,
lumberjacks, etc?   More generally, creative people?  On that basis
would one expect a higher prevalence of mental disorders among
theoretical physicists (Boltzmann) than experimental ones (Rutherford),
or among mathematicians than engineers, or among top chefs than short
order cooks?

Everyone seems to be a mental health expert today, just as everyone is
an expert on evolution and global warming (but not quantum mechanics or
ecology or anesthesiology, funny how that works).  I'd be uncomfortable
with any innuendos of this kind about theoreticians vs. practitioners,
or creatives vs servants, or prima donnas vs. choristers, without some
solid independent evaluation of this question by professionals with a
substantial track record in mental health.  Has any such evaluation been
made?

Vaughan Pratt


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Eduardo J. Dubuc]

yes, but be careful, the option is not mathematics or crime, it is
mathematics or somenthig else

pursue a career in mathematics by (or because) wrong reasons can only
lead to a bad mathematician and/or a frustrated man

a waste, not a criminal but ... ?




jim stasheff wrote:
>> and if it makes one youngster pursue a career in mathematics instead of
>> crime, that may justify its existence.
>>
>> Best,
>> jb
>>
> at least one or more episodes of Numb3ers
> made that point
>
> jim
>


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[jim stasheff]

> and if it makes one youngster pursue a career in mathematics instead of
> crime, that may justify its existence.
>
> Best,
> jb
>
at least one or more episodes of Numb3ers
made that point

jim




[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Ronnie Brown]

It is easy to criticise others but I think there is a general problem 
with mathematics teaching (in my limited experience in the UK)
of mathematicians not explaining what the subject is about, or even 
thinking that this is necessary, or useful. I would like to direct 
attention to our
`Knot exhibition'
http://www.popmath.org.uk/exhib/knotexhib.html
and the discussion of what we were trying to achieve in
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/icmi89.html  :
in broad terms, this was to show through the medium of knots some of the 
methodology of mathematics. The advantages of knots for this aim are many.

In some ways the spirit of this exhibit is expressed by the slogan
`advanced mathematics from an elementary viewpoint'.
So how much of the baggage can you throw away and still get to, say, a 
real calculation?
I once did a sample Todd-Coxeter enumeration of a presentation of a 
finite group of order 8  to a class of unprepared 14 year olds, 
(fortunately
I was prepared to do this!) and had them helping me  fill in the table 
(just as well , too) and draw the Cayley graph.

I feel there is a real hunger in the public and in other sciences to 
find out what is going on in mathematics which has some kind of excitement,
preferably in terms of new ideas, rather than solving say the Goldbach 
Conjecture. Higher dimensional algebra is quite useful in this respect.
One can discuss what is or should be a higher dimensional formula, and 
why the idea  might, or might not, be relevant to brain function! (I've 
done this too for an audience of neuroscientists.)

Also discussed  in
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/promotingmaths.html
is the heretical idea of `promoting mathematics' to students of 
mathematics!

The point I am getting at is that there may be  something we can do about
`But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones
even more so.' as suggested by Robert, and the start may be conveying 
certain attitudes to the many
students studying mathematics seriously. Is this done enough?

Perhaps those interested in category theory are in a better position to 
deal with these problems than those with no such interest!!???


Ronnie Brown



Robert Seely wrote:
> Actually, I think Dana understates the problem with this program.  It
> suffers from what I call the "PBS documentary syndrome" (equally
> afflicting the BBC, however, so the name is not universal enough!):
> it repeatedly tells you what's cool about its topic, without ever
> actually telling you what the topic really is.  Afraid to scare
> viewers away with the actual details of the topic, it just talks about
> it in terms so general (and often over-inflated or sensationalized,
> which was Dana's point) they are really quite meaningless.
>
> Though not perfect by any means, I think a recent 4-part series "The
> Story of Maths" narrated by Marcus du Sautoy does better - he even
> tries to sketch some proofs.  (The episode closest to "Dangerous
> Knowledge" would be the fourth.)  Even better is an old series (but
> still to be found on Youtube!) called Mathematical Mystery Tour.
>
> But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones
> even more so.  It's a pity, because you actually can get an audience
> of non-specialists to understand (at least a little) what mathematical
> results etc are about.  I teach an honours Liberal Arts maths & logic
> class, and a surprisingly large percentage can actually appreciate the
> beauty of (eg) natural deduction proofs in predicate logic, basic
> theory of natural numbers (infinitude of primes, irrationality of
> primes, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, ... ), simple
> axiomatics (we do Boolean algebras as an example), and even Godel's
> theorems, and the "Lambek calculus" for linguistics (even a bit of
> category theory there!).  This isn't a mickey mouse course (sample
> class tests available on request!), and it's a challenge to many of
> the students.  The point is: they are willing to make the effort if
> they know you're not being condescending, and that you are giving them
> "the real thing", not some pablum that only looks good in the box.
>
> I wish more TV documentary producers took that attitude - they might
> get a slightly smaller audience, but their audience will appreciate
> their efforts more.
>
> -= rags =-
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[John Baez]

The BBC wrote:

 In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
>> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
>> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove
>> them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>>
>
Jim Stasheff wrote:

At least the Turing implication is very misleading - see below.
>

It's also not true that George Cantor committed suicide!

And I would not call Ludwig Boltzmann a mathematician.  I'd call him a
physicist.

But the documentary seems a bit more accurate than this summary.
And it could be good to have documentaries that sensationalize mathematics
and make it seem "edgy" and "dangerous".  We oldsters can tut-tut about the
inaccuracies and lack of serious content, but as a kid I would have enjoyed
it - and if it makes one youngster pursue a career in mathematics instead of
crime, that may justify its existence.

Best,
jb


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Robert Seely]

Actually, I think Dana understates the problem with this program.  It
suffers from what I call the "PBS documentary syndrome" (equally
afflicting the BBC, however, so the name is not universal enough!):
it repeatedly tells you what's cool about its topic, without ever
actually telling you what the topic really is.  Afraid to scare
viewers away with the actual details of the topic, it just talks about
it in terms so general (and often over-inflated or sensationalized,
which was Dana's point) they are really quite meaningless.

Though not perfect by any means, I think a recent 4-part series "The
Story of Maths" narrated by Marcus du Sautoy does better - he even
tries to sketch some proofs.  (The episode closest to "Dangerous
Knowledge" would be the fourth.)  Even better is an old series (but
still to be found on Youtube!) called Mathematical Mystery Tour.

But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones
even more so.  It's a pity, because you actually can get an audience
of non-specialists to understand (at least a little) what mathematical
results etc are about.  I teach an honours Liberal Arts maths & logic
class, and a surprisingly large percentage can actually appreciate the
beauty of (eg) natural deduction proofs in predicate logic, basic
theory of natural numbers (infinitude of primes, irrationality of
primes, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, ... ), simple
axiomatics (we do Boolean algebras as an example), and even Godel's
theorems, and the "Lambek calculus" for linguistics (even a bit of
category theory there!).  This isn't a mickey mouse course (sample
class tests available on request!), and it's a challenge to many of
the students.  The point is: they are willing to make the effort if
they know you're not being condescending, and that you are giving them
"the real thing", not some pablum that only looks good in the box.

I wish more TV documentary producers took that attitude - they might
get a slightly smaller audience, but their audience will appreciate
their efforts more.

-= rags =-


On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Dana Scott wrote:

> I think the premise of the work is silly.  I knew Gödel personally
> and many people who knew him.  My long-time friend Robin Gandy was
> a close friend and associate of Turing.  I think it is true that
> Godel was very frustrated by not being able to settle the status of
> the Continuum Hypothesis, but to say that his mathematics drove him
> mad is terrible pop psychology.  In the case of Turing, the matter
> is even less clear.  For him, persecution may have been a big factor
> in his suicide -- which also could have been an accident.  Gödel
> did suffer from paranoia, and Cantor was oppressed by religious
> questions, which he did relate to his theories of the infinite.
> But to conclude cause and effect seems pretty hard to prove.
> And what is the point?
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Alex Hoffnung]

To Jim -

I have not read the source material on this quote, but the footnote  which
accompanies the quote says his physician (a psychiatrist) diagnosed Cantor
with "cyclic manic-depression".  I do not know of any further evidence of
manic behavior, but also have not looked.

Best,
Alex

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:26 AM, jim stasheff <jds@math.upenn.edu> wrote:

> recurring bouts of
> depression is not indicative of  a bipolar disorder
> were there also manic episodes?
>
> jim
>
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Ronnie Brown]

Hi,

A while ago, I started to watch a BBC programme on a mathematical 
Olympiad camp, but gave up when it was clear that they were concentrating
on a participant  with peculiar behaviour and hardly noticed the several 
pretty girls around! That also sounds like peculiar behaviour.

Perhaps we need a TV programme about producers of TV programmes?

Ronnie Brown


Alex Hoffnung wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I think I watched this documentary a while ago.  I watched only a few
> minutes of it today and then realized that I should probably be doing
> something else.  However, I was interested and want to comment briefly.
>
>
>   
>> In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
>> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
>> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically
>> drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>>
>>     
>
> I am not sure what it means for one's genius to drive him or her insane.
> >From what I can gather in this summary and my recollection of the film, the
> director seems to exploit the illnesses of some of these men to provide some
> theatrical drama to the story.  If this is so, then it seems rather
> irresponsible.  If I am mistaken and have not watched enough of the video,
> then my apologies to the director.
>
>
>   
>> The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work
>> proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics.
>> He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane
>> trying to prove his theories of infinity.
>>
>>     
>
> This statement does not directly blame the illness on his struggle with
> mathematics, but it seems dangerously suggestive of this conclusion.  Here
> is a quote from Wikipedia:
>
> Cantor's recurring bouts of
> depression<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression>from 1884
> to the end of his life were once blamed on the hostile attitude of
> many of his contemporaries,[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#cite_note-daub280-8>but
> these episodes can now be seen as probable manifestations of a bipolar
> disorder <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder>.[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#cite_note-bipolar-9>
>
> This seems like the more reasonable, albeit possibly less glamorous
> description of the causes of Cantor's illnesses.  Since I did not watch
> further I cannot comment on the others, except that I did not know of any
> mental disorders associated to Turing.
>
> Best,
> Alex Hoffnung
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[jim stasheff]

recurring bouts of
depression is not indicative of  a bipolar disorder

were there also manic episodes?

jim




[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Charles Wells]

The graphic novel Logicomix by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos H.
Papadimitriou has the relation between being logicians and madness as
one of its themes.  The novel is actually quite good, and I recommend
it, but they make too much of the insanity stuff.  One saving grace is
that the novel has interludes featuring the authors and the artists
arguing about that theme and other aspects of the novel.

Charles Wells

2009/11/30 Mike Stay <metaweta@gmail.com>:
> Here's the summary from BBC's site:
>
> In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically
> drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>
> The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work
> proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics.
> He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane
> trying to prove his theories of infinity.
>
> Ludwig Boltzmann's struggle to prove the existence of atoms and
> probability eventually drove him to suicide. Kurt Gödel, the
> introverted confidant of Einstein, proved that there would always be
> problems which were outside human logic. His life ended in a
> sanatorium where he starved himself to death.
>
> Finally, Alan Turing, the great Bletchley Park code breaker, father of
> computer science and homosexual, died trying to prove that some things
> are fundamentally unprovable.
>
> The film also talks to the latest in the line of thinkers who have
> continued to pursue the question of whether there are things that
> mathematics and the human mind cannot know. They include Greg Chaitin,
> mathematician at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center, New York, and
> Roger Penrose.
>
> Dangerous Knowledge tackles some of the profound questions about the
> true nature of reality that mathematical thinkers are still trying to
> answer today.
> --
> Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com
> http://math.ucr.edu/~mike
> http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
>



-- 
professional website: http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/math/wells/home.html
blog: http://sixwingedseraph.wordpress.com/
abstract math website: http://www.abstractmath.org/MM//MMIntro.htm
astounding math stories: http://www.abstractmath.org/MM//MMAstoundingMath.htm
personal website:  http://www.abstractmath.org/Personal/index.html
sixwingedseraph.facebook.com


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[jim stasheff]

Mike Stay wrote:
> Here's the summary from BBC's site:
>   

At least the Turing implication is very misleading - see below.

> In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically
> drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>
> The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work
> proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics.
> He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane
> trying to prove his theories of infinity.
>
> Ludwig Boltzmann's struggle to prove the existence of atoms and
> probability eventually drove him to suicide. Kurt Gödel, the
> introverted confidant of Einstein, proved that there would always be
> problems which were outside human logic. His life ended in a
> sanatorium where he starved himself to death.
>
> Finally, Alan Turing, the great Bletchley Park code breaker, father of
> computer science and homosexual, died trying to prove that some things
> are fundamentally unprovable.
>   

Certainly his suicide was because of his treatment as a homosexual and 
not that irrational - not `crazy'.

> The film also talks to the latest in the line of thinkers who have
> continued to pursue the question of whether there are things that
> mathematics and the human mind cannot know. They include Greg Chaitin,
> mathematician at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center, New York, and
> Roger Penrose.
>
> Dangerous Knowledge tackles some of the profound questions about the
> true nature of reality that mathematical thinkers are still trying to
> answer today.
>   



[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Alex Hoffnung]

Hi -

I think I watched this documentary a while ago.  I watched only a few
minutes of it today and then realized that I should probably be doing
something else.  However, I was interested and want to comment briefly.


> In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
> mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
> Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically
> drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
>

I am not sure what it means for one's genius to drive him or her insane.
>From what I can gather in this summary and my recollection of the film, the
director seems to exploit the illnesses of some of these men to provide some
theatrical drama to the story.  If this is so, then it seems rather
irresponsible.  If I am mistaken and have not watched enough of the video,
then my apologies to the director.


> The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work
> proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics.
> He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane
> trying to prove his theories of infinity.
>

This statement does not directly blame the illness on his struggle with
mathematics, but it seems dangerously suggestive of this conclusion.  Here
is a quote from Wikipedia:

Cantor's recurring bouts of
depression<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression>from 1884
to the end of his life were once blamed on the hostile attitude of
many of his contemporaries,[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#cite_note-daub280-8>but
these episodes can now be seen as probable manifestations of a bipolar
disorder <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder>.[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#cite_note-bipolar-9>

This seems like the more reasonable, albeit possibly less glamorous
description of the causes of Cantor's illnesses.  Since I did not watch
further I cannot comment on the others, except that I did not know of any
mental disorders associated to Turing.

Best,
Alex Hoffnung

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Dana Scott]

I think the premise of the work is silly.  I knew Gödel personally
and many people who knew him.  My long-time friend Robin Gandy was
a close friend and associate of Turing.  I think it is true that
Godel was very frustrated by not being able to settle the status of
the Continuum Hypothesis, but to say that his mathematics drove him
mad is terrible pop psychology.  In the case of Turing, the matter
is even less clear.  For him, persecution may have been a big factor
in his suicide -- which also could have been an accident.  Gödel
did suffer from paranoia, and Cantor was oppressed by religious
questions, which he did relate to his theories of the infinite.
But to conclude cause and effect seems pretty hard to prove.
And what is the point?

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Mike Stay]

Here's the summary from BBC's site:

In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant
mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan
Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically
drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.

The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work
proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics.
He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane
trying to prove his theories of infinity.

Ludwig Boltzmann's struggle to prove the existence of atoms and
probability eventually drove him to suicide. Kurt Gödel, the
introverted confidant of Einstein, proved that there would always be
problems which were outside human logic. His life ended in a
sanatorium where he starved himself to death.

Finally, Alan Turing, the great Bletchley Park code breaker, father of
computer science and homosexual, died trying to prove that some things
are fundamentally unprovable.

The film also talks to the latest in the line of thinkers who have
continued to pursue the question of whether there are things that
mathematics and the human mind cannot know. They include Greg Chaitin,
mathematician at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center, New York, and
Roger Penrose.

Dangerous Knowledge tackles some of the profound questions about the
true nature of reality that mathematical thinkers are still trying to
answer today.
-- 
Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com
http://math.ucr.edu/~mike
http://reperiendi.wordpress.com


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Dangerous knowledge

[Joyal, André]

Dear all,

I wonder if you have seen the BBC "documentary" called "Dangerous knowledge"? 
It is divided in ten parts:

1) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90&feature=related

2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpWXT9yMBnw&feature=related

3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AAvWb5wYNk&feature=related

4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUL-x8Gm1h4&feature=related

5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So9RAbBy1ps&feature=related

6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqKQ0-T3swY&feature=related

7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0&feature=related

8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZcErXdR_eQ&feature=related

9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkezCyb7Lkw&feature=related

10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8dczB1rY-Q&feature=related

What do you think?

André



[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]