News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by nickpinkston on Thursday August 19, 2010 @10:55PM (#1619382)
Did anyone read what these people did? It's amazing this is still English! Check out one:

Elon Lindenstrauss is being awarded the 2010 Fields Medal for his results on measure rigidity in ergodic theory, and their applications to number theory.

Fields Medal - Elon Lindenstrauss, Princeton University Lindenstrauss has made far-reaching advances in ergodic theory, the study of measure preserving transformations. His work on a conjecture of Furstenberg and Margulis concerning the measure rigidity of higher rank diagonal actions in homogeneous spaces has led to striking applications. Specifically, jointly with Einsiedler and Katok, he established the conjecture under a further hypothesis of positive entropy. It has impressive applications to the classical Littlewood Conjecture in the theory of diophantine approximation. Developing these as well other powerful ergodic theoretic and arithmetical ideas, Lindenstrauss resolved the arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity conjecture of Rudnick and Sarnak in the theory of modular forms. He and his collaborators have found many other unexpected applications of these ergodic theoretic techniques in problems in classical number theory. His work is exceptionally deep and its impact goes far beyond ergodic theory.

Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by jballanc on Friday August 20, 2010 @12:06AM (#1619489)
Ergodic theory is a theory that comes from Statistical Mechanics. Imagine you have a handful of atoms and a box, now let's say that you line the atoms up along one side of the box and give them all a push perfectly perpendicular to the side (oh, and the sides are perfectly flat). What happens? The atoms keep just bouncing back and forth between those two sides, and large regions of the box never have any atoms in them. If this situation could happen in real life, then Statistical Mechanics would have serious problems! So Ergodic Theory is basically the study of making sure that the atoms in a box bounce all over equally...
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by cma on Friday August 20, 2010 @01:31AM (#1619607)
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by TheEzEzz on Friday August 20, 2010 @12:26AM (#1619506)
I'm about to graduate with my PhD in math and I don't have any idea what that research summary means.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by nopinsight on Friday August 20, 2010 @02:04AM (#1619657)
Does that mean the landscape of human math knowledge is so large that one specialist does not usually have a chance to visit other areas apart from one's own?
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by TheEzEzz on Friday August 20, 2010 @02:26AM (#1619684)
Yes.

When I was a kid I wanted to get a PhD in math and physics and comp sci and etc etc etc. I was really disappointed when I got older and realized I would only have time for one. So I chose math because I wanted to study mathematical logic, differential equations, numerics and etc etc etc. Then I got to grad school and realized I would only have time for one. So I chose numerics because I wanted to study molecular dynamics, computational neuroscience, fluid dynamics, etc etc. Then I had to choose an advisor, and I realized I'd only get in an education in one sub discipline. So I chose fluid mechanics, because I wanted to study polymeric fluids, multiscale dynamics, fluid-structure interactions, etc etc. Then I finally started doing real research and realized I'd be lucky just to make a noticeable contribution to one of those.

There are exceptions, of course.

(I don't mean to sound pessimistic, just realistic. Research has been good to me, and I love doing it)

Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by edanm on Friday August 20, 2010 @04:31AM (#1619853)
How often are you exposed, even minimally, to other disciplines inside mathematics?

For example, I'm no researcher, but I tend to try and read a few good books about maths, and sometimes even actual mathematical books, just for the fun. Do you tend to do the same?

Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by robryan on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:40AM (#1620338)
It's really a big gap though between having an understanding of the basics in an area and really knowing enough to follow the current research. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this guy actually had looked at things in basically the same direction as some of this research and still isn't able to really follow what they have done.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by TheEzEzz on Friday August 20, 2010 @11:24AM (#1620633)
Absolutely. I read up on a lot of science, and even chug through text books. As robryan says above though, reading a book on chemistry or functional analysis is long way from being ready to do research in the field.

One of the reasons I chose applied math was because I thought it was the best centralized position in all of science. It would take me years to switch to another branch of math, but in applied math I can at least switch the focus of application, possibly in under a year or two.

Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by jdale27 on Friday August 20, 2010 @02:21AM (#1619676)
Oh, hell yes.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by archgoon on Friday August 20, 2010 @01:15AM (#1619582)
The work summaries are actually quite good. I've only an undergraduate degree in math and physics, and I can at least get some idea of what the accomplishments are. Julie Rehmeyer is to be commended.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by CamperBob on Thursday August 19, 2010 @11:20PM (#1619428)
It sounds like the editors of Social Text are still butthurt over the Sokal paper and are back for revenge.
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by CamperBob on Friday August 20, 2010 @01:53AM (#1619643)
Serves me right for expecting a sense of humor in a math-geek thread...
Re:2010 Fields Medal Awarded by jballanc on Friday August 20, 2010 @03:23AM (#1619770)
No, the math-geeks I know have some of the best senses of humor I've encountered...but humor has a time and place, and this probably wasn't it.