The algebrista
If you like geeky TV shows, I particularly recommend Bones s06ep08 entitled “The Twisted Bones in the Melted Truck”. The title alone should convince the best of you who know that it is impossible to twist bones because bones don’t melt ! But these guys are the specialists, so they will really find twisted bones and even provide a scientific explanation to that [1]. What’s even stronger is that they untwist them just for your pleasure. Check this out !
ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE CLIPS BELONG TO THE CHANNEL FOX. This video is used for comment purpose of Bones season 6 episode 8 where it is stated that Gerolamo Cardano wrote a set of mathematical equations to describe the skeleton system. Believing that comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression, we claim it is a fair use under copyright law.
I should confess that I wasn’t familiar with Gerolamo Cardano prior to this. Cardano is a famous algebraist known for his publication of the solutions to the cubic and quartic equations. And as there is no general algebraic solution to polynomial equations of degree five or higher [2], Cardano couldn’t do more. Besides he was the first to publish the use of complex numbers in calculations even if he did not understand their properties. Among his many other contributions, he invented the Cardan shaft with universal joints and published the horoscope of Jesus… Concerning the set of mathematical equations written by Cardano to describe the skeleton system mentioned in this episode of Bones, I found no reference of their existence.
If Cardano didn’t publish such equations, why did the scriptwriters made reference to him there ? They have obviously done some research, but maybe it’s a confusion due to the fact that in Biomechanics, angles named “cardan angles” can be used to describe the kinematic of the limbs [3]. Another plausible explanation can be found looking for the etymology of the word “algebra”. It comes from Arabic al-jebr and refers to the setting or the straightening out of broken bones, to the “reduction” of a fracture. In Spanish “algebrista” still designs a bonesetter. In Mathematics, the word has been introduced in 820 by al-Khwārizmī to describe the operations of ”reduction” and balancing, i.e. the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation [4]. Nowadays one still talks of “reducing” fractions to lowest terms. Knowing this, Cardano’s 1545 book title Artis Magnæ, Sive de Regulis Algebraicis could be translated by About The Great Art, or The Rules of Bone Setting… (Mmmmh…) A bit too subtle maybe?
Notes
- See K. Killgrove comments about that.
- Abel’s impossibility theorem
- S. J. Tupling and M. R. Pierrynowski, “Use of cardan angles to locate rigid bodies in three-dimensional space”, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, Vol. 25, Nb. 5, pp. 527-532, 1987.
- C. B. Boyer and U. C. Merzbach, “A History of Mathematics”, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1991, ISBN0471543977.
Open réflexions sur fond de Polymaths
En janvier 2009, Timothy Gowers fait appel à la collaboration massive des internautes pour tenter de trouver une nouvelle preuve à l´un des cas particulier du théorème de densité de Hales-Jewett [1,2]. Les résultats de cette expérience mathématique, baptisée Polymath Project, sont plutôt surprenants puisque Gower a déclaré 6 semaines seulement après le lançement du projet que le problème avait été substantiellement résolu ! [3]
Un tel succès est naturellement encourageant. Aujourd´hui, 4 autres problèmes sont ouverts, dont la conjecture polynomiale de Hirsch ou encore le problème de divergeance de Erdős.
Ce qui m´intéresse ici, ce sont les réactions que la proposition initiale a suscitées. En premier lieu, celles portants sur le support adapté à une telle discussion. Pour le moment celle-ci se fait par l´intermédiaire des blogs des principaux acteurs et se révèle dès lors incroyablement dure à suivre et plutôt désorganisée. Malgrès les résumés réguliers updatés sur le wiki du Polymath Project, il est difficile (voire impossible) de rejoindre la conversation en cours et d´identifier les problèmes auxquels s´attaquer. Une solution pourrait être d´adopter une structure similaire à celle utilisée pour le développement des logiciels open source à savoir un système de rapport d´erreurs et de propositions [3]. Chaque nouvel entrant pourrait alors trouver un sous-problème à resoudre correspondant à ses talents.
Un autre problème largement abordé fut celui de la paternité :
What credit should be given to contributors with just a single insightful contribution, or to a contributor who is prolific but not insightful ? [3]
Mais tout d´abord, comment déterminer la valeur d´une contribution ? Le système de ranking actuel et de publication semble clairement bien mal adapté à une telle organisation. La meilleure solution est peut-être tout simplement de renoncer à ce système :
I’ve resigned to using Steve Ballmer’s software analogy: You shouldn’t have a computer (PC) and a typewriter both in simultaneous use. Either you are using the digital writer, or the oldschool typewriter, but not both. There needs to be a commitment to go entirely one way or the other; in this case, to e-print. Coming from industry, when I read you academics’ assessments, I’m seeing that you people are having a difficult time pulling away from the old ‘publish-or-perish’ mindset; the same one that says that your name must be published in some hardcopy manual/journal somewhere, or else you don’t matter. I had thought that the arXiv had removed that sense of self-depreciation (G. Perelman still hasn’t bothered to print out his Poincare solution or submit it to one of the acclaimed journals you hold in such high esteem), but I guess not. – Link Starbureiy [2]
En attendant, une solution privilégiant la transparance a été adoptée : chaque publication est signée “DHJ Polymath” et inclue un lien vers la discussion menant à la solution. Il est ainsi possible en parcourant la conversation de savoir qui a contribué à quoi (bien qu´il soit peu probable que quelqu´un le fasse)…
Au delà, on a vu émerger des discussions portants sur la fiabilité des disques durs et le problème liens corrompus… Ma réponse préférée à ces interogations est sans aucun doute celle-ci :
Just let the experiments go and don’t worry about “who gets there name on the paper”, “looking stupid”, “viable ideas falling through the cracks”, crackpots, broken links, HDD crashes, etc… The actual participants of polymath1 are at no risk it seems and the Internet is a well known mess yet it works [...] – Kevembuangga [2]
Notes
- A gentle introduction to the Polymath project – Jason Dyer
- Is massively collaborative mathematics possible ? – Timothy Gowers
- Massively collaborative mathematics – Timothy Gowers, Michael Nielson
- A propos de la collaboration réelle : The Polymath Project : scope of the participation – Michael Nielson





leave a comment