Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
wrote about why I like algebra over analysis
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
bollu committed Oct 16, 2018
1 parent e5fbb70 commit f8b58b5
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 6 changed files with 22,240 additions and 24 deletions.
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion config.toml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
theme = "cocoa"
theme = "cocoa-eh"
baseurl = "https://pixel-druid.com/"
builddrafts = false
canonifyurls = true
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -48,13 +48,17 @@ email = "siddu.druid@gmail.com"
extracssfiles = [] # In your `static` directory, add/remove files as necessary.
# faviconfile = "img/leaf.ico"
github = "//github.com/bollu"
include_rss = true
highlightjs = true
lang = "en"
linkedin = "//linkedin.com/in/siddharth-bhat-388b60104/"
noshowreadtime = false # if true, don't show "<x> minutes read" in posts
selfintro = "A weblog of sorts" # appears in the site header when set to a non-empty string
# twitter = "//twitter.com/you"
highlightjslanguages = ["haskell"] # additional languages not included in the "common" set
logofile = ""
progressively = true


# avatar = "img/profile.png" # path to image in static dir e.g img/avatar.png (do not use in the same time as gravatar)
# gravatar = "" # do not use in the same time as avatar
Expand Down
14 changes: 14 additions & 0 deletions content/blog/rank-select/post.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+++
title = 'Rank-Select'
date = 2018-10-16T17:01:00+05:30
draft = true
tags = ["tags"]
description = "Desc"

# For twitter cards, see https://github.com/mtn/cocoa-eh-hugo-theme/wiki/Twitter-cards
meta_img = "/images/image.jpg"

# For hacker news and lobsters builtin links, see github.com/mtn/cocoa-eh-hugo-theme/wiki/Social-Links
hacker_news_id = ""
lobsters_id = ""
+++
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion content/blog/reading-kmett-structs.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
+++
title = "Reading Kmett's `structs` library"
date = "2018-10-04T19:53:32+05:30"
draft = true
draft = false

+++

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion content/blog/this-month-in-simplexhc-dec-2017.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
+++
title = "This Month in Simplexhc"
date = "2017-12-27T17:44:09+05:30"
draft = true
draft = false

+++

Expand Down
68 changes: 47 additions & 21 deletions content/blog/why-i-like-algebra.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,34 +1,60 @@
+++
title = "Why-I-Like-Algebra"
title = "Why I like algebra over analysis"
date = "2018-09-20T02:41:47+05:30"
draft = true
draft = false

+++

Midnight discussions with Arjun P.
Midnight discussions with my room-mate
[Arjun P](https://researchweb.iiit.ac.in/~arjun.p/).

Algorithm vs data structure
A proof technique is like an algorith, while an algebraic object is like
a data structure. The existence of an algebraic object allows us to
"meditate" on the proof technique as a separate object that does not
move through time. Meditating on a proof technique is much harder, as is
seeing if a proof techique can be applied in different places.
"Music is art in time. Art is music in space".
This tries to explore what it is about algebra that I find appealing.

On the other hand, this is probably pointless in combinatorics, because
each proof is a technique unto itself. Or, perhaps instantiating the
technique for each proof is difficult enough that abstracting it out
is not useful enough in the first place. A good example of a proof
technique that got studied on its own right is the probabilistic method. A
more reasonable example is that of the Pigeonhole principle, which still
requires insight to instantiate in practise.
I think the fundamental difference to me comes down to flavour ---
analysis and combinatorial objects feel very "algorithm", while Algebra feels
"data structure".

To expand on the analogy, a proof technique is like an algorithm, while an
algebraic object is like a data structure. The existence of an algebraic object
allows us to "meditate" on the proof technique as a separate object that does
not move through time. This allows us to "get to know" the algebraic object,
independent of how it's used. So, at least for me, I have a richness of
feeling when it comes to algebra that just doesn't shine through with analysis.
The one exception maybe reading something like "by compactness", which has
been hammered into me by exercises from Munkres :)

Meditating on a proof technique is much harder, since the proof technique
is necessarily intertwined with the problem, unlike a data structure which
to some degree has an independent existence.


This reminds me of the quote: "“Art is how we decorate space;
Music is how we decorate time.”. I'm not sure how to draw out the
tenuous connection I feel, but it's there.

Arjun comes from a background of combinatorics, and my understanding of his
perspective is that each proof is a technique unto itself. Or, perhaps
instantiating the technique for each proof is difficult enough that abstracting
it out is not useful enough in the first place.

A good example of a proof technique that got studied on its own right in
combinatorics is the probabilistic method. A more reasonable example is that of
the Pigeonhole principle, which still requires insight to instantiate in
practise.

Not that this does not occur in algebra either, but there is something in
algebra about how just meditating on the definitions. For example,
Whitney trick that got pulled out of the proof of the Whitney embedding
theorem.

It's the same joy of being able to write down the type of a haskell function
and know exactly what it does, enough that a program can automatically
derive the function (djinn). The fact that we know the object well enough
that just writing the type down allows us to infer the _program_!.
To draw an analogy for the haskellers, it's the same joy of being able to write
down the type of a haskell function and know exactly what it does, enough that
a program can automatically derive the function (djinn). The fact that we know
the object well enough that just writing the type down allows us to infer the
_program_, makes it beautiful. There's something very elegant about the
_minimality_ that algebra demands. Indeed, this calls back to another quote:
"perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there
is nothing left to take away".

I'm really glad that this 2 AM discussion allowed me to finally pin down
why I like algebra.
22,172 changes: 22,172 additions & 0 deletions tags

Large diffs are not rendered by default.

0 comments on commit f8b58b5

Please sign in to comment.