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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

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…