Skip to main content

Prime Numbers II

Yitang Zhang, lecturer in mathematics at the University of New Hampshire

In yesterday's entry, I discussed a recent proof devised by a professor at the University of New Hampshire that there are "bounded gaps" between prime numbers. Specifically, Yitang Zhang has established that there are infinitely many pairs of primes that differ by 70 million or less.

There are two fascinating things about this tidbit about which I wish to comment today. First, who the heck is Yitang Zhang? Second, infinity and size.

Who the heck?

One might naively expect the burning questions of a recondite field to be settled by the elites of the relevant expertise.  Andrew Wiles, the fellow who proved Fermat's Last Theorem correct (though in a way that can't "fit into a margin") was a Royal Society Research Professor at Oxford University, specializing in number theory. Before that, he had been a professor at Princeton University in the early 1980s and a Guggenheim Fellow at the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques in France in the late 1980s.

Does that not sound like exactly the sort of person to whom one might look to solve such a problem?

Yitang Zhang's proof, though, seems to have come from out of nowhere.   We can hope that this means that even at these levels of mathematical discourse, traditional distinctions between elite and non-elite are crumbling. The center (consisting of Oxbridge, and US Ivy League schools) cannot hold. Great.

Infinity and Size

The ultimate goal of theorists working in this area seems to be a proof that there are infinitely many pairs of primes that differ by just two. SAs I said yesterday: it is intriguing that from the perspective of infinity, the difference between 2 and 70 million is a matter of detail.

This also reminds me of the contrary point: there is a difference of literally infinite importance between any positive number, however small, and zero.

This comes up in discussions of the economics of energy. There still exists a certain naïve sort of enthusiast who believes that one or another technological breakthrough will make energy so widely available there will be no way to sell it, the "too cheap to meter" goal.

Now: whatever the rumored breakthrough in question, either the enthusiast means that energy will be free, or he means that energy will have a tiny cost, although one still expressible in positive numbers. Such a person should be informed repeatedly (until it sinks in) that the difference is of infinite importance, and that the plausibility of such claims from one generation to the next depends upon obscuring that point.

Okay, it sounds like that last paragraph is a stretch from Zhang's work but ... not really.


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…