The Abel Prize recognizes contributions to the field of mathematics that are of extraordinary depth and influence. The Abel Prize was established by the Norwegian government in 2002 on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Niels Henrik Abel's birth.
Read more about the history of the Abel Prize here: abelprize.no/page/about-abel-prize
For science communicators: Open for collaborations
@32:00 ogg and webm use Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT). Is that not similar to the non-free MP3? In any case, support the free software formats.
@6:00 It's wonderful that even though he had politically suss views, Joseph Fourier had such a beautiful view of the human mind and saw mathematics as transcendent. Red Bull might give you wings, but mathematics can give you a heart.
Bonaparte, the Old Testament, Oil prospecting. Meyer seems hell bent on being politically incorrect. But he is a die hard leftiepol. I love that. He's a wonderful mind. (For any lefties reading: we must have oil, or we die in the millions [because not just the the Top Ten Percenters, but the normie middle class will never yield their current standard of living], at least until substitutions are found for the chemical feedstock industry which supplies the chemical base for all our polymers, medicines and industrial chemical feedstocks. You can stop burning oil, but we still need oil in the millions of barrels daily at present. GHG emissions can be cut by capturing as well as finding new processes that intrinsically emit less, but we do not always know such processes exist.)
@27:00 Gromov describing PCR it seems like the mathematics he alludes to is something like filtering functions for functionality. Chuck a whole bunch of functions into a functional filter. PCR the way he describes is to math like DNA ⟷ function. Selecting particular functional units blindly, using a filter, throwing a whole broth of function mess into it. The "machine" to filter is the PCR method. For mathematics what is the analogue? I do not think it exists, does it? Something like having to think of a function as one function in an ecosystem that has a unique role that can be amplified. You could sort of generalize Morse theory. Stick all your functions on a manifold and see which ones hit certain critical points, there is your fingerprint. Rinse and repeat with different manifolds and eventually you might amplify the function you seek but did not know.
Well, I don't know, but he is a genius in his own way. The fourth order field theory or Bogoliubov fields are zero dimension scalar fields that have no propagating modes. Turok & Boyle are right now using these (hypothetical existence) to account for "dark energy" and in doing so eliminate the trace anomaly and the vacuum energy. What's more, to cancel to tree order both anomalies there is a perfect constraint, which is the Higgs boson cannot be elementary (must be composite) *_and_* there must be exactly three generations of fermions. 🤯 Also these fields have scale free fluctuations, just as seen in the CMBR. Seem a perfect candidate for the "true" vacuum. Whether the Bogoliubov fields are the same as the fourth order field theory Nash has found is not something I can say for certain, but I would be surprised if they are not related somehow. Like I said, he is some kind of genius. Turok is here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DP6F5QWA6CE.html
"never wanted to be a mathematician, unlike all of you" but became a more successful mathematician than most of you HAHA GET REKT GG EZ CLAP losers lmao skibidi toilet (this must feel like a firm slap in the face of so many math people who wanted to be a mathematician from early age and worked hard, success in research comes down to luck and environment as well you know)
That's precisely why so many people struggle with mathematics at the beginning of their journey: the constant switch between a simplified abstraction in your head and formal, logical definition. You can't solve a problem without reverting to formalism, which requires a great mental effort. The sooner you get used to it, the faster your progress will go. Well said, Michel Talagrand!
Pierre Deligne: @7:00 Geometry is the art of correct reasoning on false figures Nigel Hitchin: Geometry is the study of structures that are invariant under group action. According to Descartes , and Klein respectively
Work hard and be open-minded when you find your "knack": you may be really interested in one field of mathematics, but discover that you have a greater aptitude in another.
@9:10 physicists are in fact looking at mathematical symmetries, in the Lie groups. The "unification" is not truly well-defined because no one knows what the final structure of elementary particles must be, but since we have all the low energy broken symmetries we know what possibilities there are for larger groups. The groups are nothing but the instructions for how one particle "rotates" into another (in a topological space sense, not a literal spacetime sense). The proper unification in physics is to unite gravity with the SM of QM. That's also about groups too, since we'd need to know if gravity is purely global and has no need for a graviton, if it's all just gravitons then it requires a special difficult sort of theory (it is non-renormalizable, so cannot be "computational," and no one knows of a way around that, except by postulating maybe gravity is more global/classical and there are no gravitons). Note, if there are no gravitons then it'd be a good thing, since then the SM and gravity are already as united as they can get. Then spin-2 fields get left out of the Lorentzian path integral. Elementary particles can be in superposition, but not spacetime itself. There is a super cool unification then, the parameters in the group for GR vacuum have 36 gauge fields, they are particle-less (have no propagating modes) so are pure pure vacuum. BUt if the Hiiggs particle is actually composite, so not elementary, then these 36 zero-dimension fields would explain precisely why there are three generations of fermions. _Precisely._ I take this as a decent hint gravity should not be re-quantized (it is already a quantum theory, just not for gravitons). However, having a few gravitons is no problem, provided they are particles, not fields and so few of them there is no effective field theory for them. In this case graviton do not mess up the prediction of three generations, since the graviton is not a fermion. This is all just to say, if any mathematician reading this want a far simpler puzzle than Langlands, talk to me! The physics prizes are deeply mathematical. All about Lie groups. Contrary to popular myth, quantum mechanics is _more_ continuous than classical mechanics, not more "discrete". The discrete arises in QM because of topology/homology, but it is still smooth spacetime.
nobody asked any questions?!!!! I would have taken the opportunity ask even more about his churn and simmons theory a much more, even if it bothers him.
Vous pouvez également réciter Avec NOUS ....OH AUGUSTE CORBEAU..A TU BULBES LES AUTRES,SONT AVEC TOI ...? CHER MAÎTRE AUGUSTE ,RÉSONNE ET IMITE LA PERSONNE ABSENT IL,A DIT SI UN OISEAU SUR ARBRE ,IL PARLE COMMENT ..? DONC,CHANTA.... PASSÉ ACTIF,DIT QUOI SI I(J...POLICIER) xxk..UN champs EST LA limite des chances ,.... DONC ,UNE chance EST quoi ... Fin de VIE..... NE JAMAIS REMODELER UNE THÈSE,UNE PENSÉE.... ET UNE CRITIQUE ....PRESQUE UNE PRIÈRE SANS MERCI..!? UN HOMME DIVIN N'EXISTE PAS LA DIVINITÉ DE L'HOMME.... A FAIRE COMPRENDRE AUX AUTRES ,UN DEVOIR À COMPLIR ACCOMPLISSEMENT ,DE L'AMITIÉ TALAGRAND@ MÉLANINE PAS DE PROBLÈME .. ON S'EXERCE: COLLER x DECOLLER y...,!«»? MICHEL,....... TALAGRAND ......
Theoretical Physicists - mathematical philosophers- have long held back physics. The Atomic Expansion Equation is well worth knowing. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything. Mathematical ‘objects ‘, starting with Euclid’s “point” has been an abysmal descent into abstract noise.
CLEVER FORAMT: Very nice open questions that are neither stupid nor too general yet understandable by the layman. The answers being on a par makes this a great video.
There is no easy solution to what you are asking. Let's take a mathematical point of view If you are a mathematician you can of course imagine that there exist some people that should a priori stop trying because nothing proove that they don't exist. If you are asking if you should, you're probably in a interval of people including some that should and some that souldn't: but should you ? Obviously we can't answer you from the very element we have (or can we?) But it should be noted that if you ask this question is that maybe you can as I just said. The real question: do you want to do something else if you are not sure of the mathematical result ? AN obvious answer would be never stop trying but I get what you are saying. It is often say to not stop trying. I think you can ask yourself is why should I stop trying / why should I keep trying ? btw if you are an undergrad don't stop trying because I give maths classes so contact me haha !
I won’t say you should never stop trying, but generally I find that those moments of self-doubt eventually subside if what you’re trying is at all possible. If you find yourself continually failing and discouraged, seek a new perspective or try a different project. But if it truly interests you and you feel like sometimes you can pull an inch out of the problem you’re working on, keep going!
Definitely isn't for everybody, I can say that much. Some are more attuned to mathematics than others, just as others are more attuned to carpentry. We have different roles in life and one of the most important things is understanding your own and how that relates to others.
If a person wants to become a mathematician, he will do it, as long as he don't listen to people like you. Limiting beliefs are here to stop all of us all the time, and your comment is just one more proof about. As long your comment are about the people who not are playing with math because is what their soul are tell them, ok your comment can be accepted, but please try to change your way to vomit the perception about the reality to others and give a try to you to free your soul from this encapsulation you are putting yourself.
To make friends with people from academia usually comes from collabing with them in math research And if I understand right what you're talking about when you're saying "have no academic freedom" I think it really depends on where you live but since most mathematicians are usually not really implicated activists, I can't tell you for sure. Do you have examples about a mathematician being denied a prize in recent years due to political activism?
