Viewing entries tagged
Math

A Million Dollar Question

Comment

A Million Dollar Question

Math seems like such a well-defined subject that it is difficult to believe that there are still any big questions left unanswered. After all, for a subject that’s been studied extensively for at least 3000 years and one that builds on itself so easily, how can there be anything left unknown? However the reality is there are so many unproven conjectures and areas of research that it would be impossible for me to list them all. 


At the turn of the millennium, the Clay Mathematics Institute chose 7 hugely important unanswered problems still plaguing mathematics today. Whoever solves one of the “Millenium Problems” is entitled to receive a whopping $1,000,000 for their work. 


So what kinds of solutions are worth a million dollars?  The following is the statement of the Poincaré Conjecture, the only Millenium Prize Problem to have been solved so far:


“Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere” [1].


So, let’s break down exactly what this statement is saying. First, what is a 3-manifold? In mathematics, a manifold is essentially a surface with the property that at any given point, the surface resembles our regular intuition of a space with some number of dimensions [2]. We actually see a manifold in action every day by living on the Earth. Although the Earth is a sphere, when we walk on it, it’s easy to believe we lie on a flat 2-dimensional surface. Thus, the earth, and any 3-dimensional sphere, is a 2-manifold since when we walk on it, we effectively walk in a 2-dimensional space. 


More generally, a n-manifold is a higher dimensional (for simplicity's sake we can just assume the dimension is n+1) surface, but when an observer zooms in on a particular point on the manifold, the observer will see that an n-manifold will behave like n-dimensional Euclidean space. Thus, the 3-manifold is a 4-dimensional surface that behaves in 3-dimensions when we zero in on it.


A 3-sphere is a specific example of a 3-manifold, but what exactly is it? To understand what a 3-sphere is, it is useful to examine a 2-sphere. To begin, a 2-sphere is what we normally think of when we see the word “sphere”: a 3-dimensional surface with each point equidistant from a given center. Likewise, a 3-sphere is just the 4-dimensional analog; it is a 4-dimensional surface with each point equidistant from a given center. 


The conjecture proposes that any 3-manifold that is continuous (without any holes or other weird features) can be molded in a way that transforms the 3-manifold into the 3-sphere. For a slightly more rigorous definition, each point on a 3-manifold can be mapped to a unique point on the 3-sphere and vice-versa. 


Though we had to go through some complex definitions to understand the conjecture, the statement itself is simple enough and seems rather intuitive. However, it was actually proposed by Henry Poincaré in 1904, before being solved over one hundred years later by Grigori Perelman [3]. That’s not to say no one else had attempted to solve the question. By some metrics, the Poincaré Conjecture has had more false proofs than any other statement in recent history [3]. Rather, the fact that it took over a century to solve it shows how difficult proving this seemingly-simple statement is and there are six more just like it! 


There are still a lot of unanswered questions in mathematics, but with each solution, we get closer to a better understanding of the universe we live in.


References

  1. [Image] Veisdal, J. The Poincaré conjecture - cantor’s paradise - medium https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the-poincar%C3%A9-conjecture-cb4ca7014cc5 (accessed Mar 1, 2021).

  2. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~fjones/chap1.pdf (accessed Mar 1, 2021).

  3. Prize, P. The Hundred-Year Quest to Solve One of Math’s Greatest Puzzles by George G. Szpiro.

  4. Poincaré Conjecture https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/poincar%C3%A9-conjecture (accessed Mar 1, 2021).


Comment


Numbers Beyond Belief

Comment

Numbers Beyond Belief

What is the biggest number you can think of? Or better yet, what is the biggest number you can’t think of? Graham’s number is a quantity so mind-bogglingly large that if you tried to think of it, your head would quite literally turn into a black hole. The maximum amount of entropy you can store in your brain is related to a black hole with the same radius as your brain, and the entropy of this black hole carries less information than it would take to store Graham’s number in your head. The number is so large that the entire observable universe would not be able to store it, even if each digit was the size of a planck volume, the smallest measurable space. Graham’s number is a truly godly value, but where does it come from and why do we need to know about it? Come with me as we journey to the fringes of infinity as we explore one of the biggest number ever used constructively, Graham’s number.

Before we can consider Graham’s number, let us take a look at this math problem:

Let N be the smallest dimension n of a hypercube such that if the lines joining all pairs of corners are two-colored for any n≥N, a complete graph K4 of one color with coplanar vertices will be forced.

Yurtbay 3_19_1.png

 

If you are like most people who are not well versed in combinatorics, this question probably makes very little sense. Luckily, Hoffman proposed an equivalent analogy problem that is likely more accessible to the common person. The analogy problem is stated like this:

 

Consider every possible committee from some number of people n and enumerating every pair of committees. Now assign each pair of committees to one of two groups, and find N*, the smallest n that will guarantee that there are four committees in which all pairs fall in the same group and all the people belong to an even number of committees.

 

 

In a rather complex proof, Ronald Graham, an American mathematician, proved that the answer to this question is somewhere between 6 and Graham’s number.

To get an appreciation for how large Graham’s number is, we need to turn to “arrow notation”, proposed by the legendary computer scientist Don Knuth. First, let us begin with just one arrow:

 

 

3↑3=33= 27

So far, we are dealing with numbers we know and love. However, the numbers start to get really big, really fast. Let us explore two arrows now:

 

3↑↑3=3↑(3↑3)=327=7.6 trillion

As you can see, adding just one arrow escalates things dramatically. However, 7.6 trillion is a number we can still fathom. It’s about equal to the number of bacteria on eight human bodies. When you add just one more arrow, the numbers become quite literally out of this world.

 

3↑↑↑3=3↑↑(3↑↑3)=33333333....333 where there are 7.6 trillion 3’s in the stack of 3’s

We aren’t even close to Graham’s number yet. However, we now have the tools to start making sense of Graham's number. Let us first define the first pivotal quantity, g1:

 

g1=3↑↑↑3

As you know by now, g 1 is absolutely gargantuan. We can now define g 2 :

 

g2 =3↑↑↑↑........↑↑↑↑3, where there are g 1 number of arrows

Naturally, g3 has g2 number of arrows, and so on and so forth. Onwards we go until we hit g64, which has g63 number of arrows. Finally, you’re done! Graham’s number is g64.

For a long time, Graham’s number was the largest number ever used in a mathematical proof. Nowadays, tree algorithms have produced bigger numbers, including the titanic TREE(3), but Graham’s number will always have a place in mathematical lore. For most of us, numbers this big will have no impact on our lives, but in our most philosophical moments, as we ponder the universe and what is beyond, we can remember that everything in existence cannot hold such a big value, and this colossal number is infinitely smaller than an infinite amount of numbers. Eternity is quite a lot bigger than you might think.

 

References

  • Gardner, Martin (November 1977). "Mathematical Games"

  • Padilla, Tony; Parker, Matt. "Graham's Number". Numberphile. Brady Haran.

  • Ron Graham. "What is Graham's Number? (feat Ron Graham)" Numberphile. Brady Haran

Comment