Mathematics

The Cali Garmo does Math

Archive

Archive for January, 2014

Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Elliott Mendelson

Jan 27

Introduction to Mathematical Logic

This week we’re doing another book on Logic! Mendelson does an ok job with his book in introductory logic. He sets up a nice introduction to logic concepts, but then fails to deliver much needed exposition. Although the book is very descriptive and helps to get your hands very dirty in logic, it can sometimes be a little to follow what Mendelson is trying to prove and whether a certain problem is an exercise or a proof. Although at times it’s a little hard to follow this text does give an amazing introduction to the topic of logic. It doesn’t assume any presupposed knowledge and actually goes over almost every topic that a new student would be expected to know in the topic. Not only that, but he also breaks down Number Theory to prove Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and also does a fairly good job of showing the different axiomatizations of set theory. Not only that, but his introduction to second-order logic and modal theory are also fairly nicely laid out. I chose not to look at his computability section as it seemed that it would be lacking since it only seemed to barely touch on the subject and there are tons of books out there that go more in depth on the topic and do a phenomenal job. I’d definitely recommend this book with a secondary companion text to help guide you along if you have trouble understanding what Mendelson is trying to state.

Groups and Symmetry By M.A. Armstrong

Jan 20

Groups and Symmetry

Armstrong does an amazing job with his introduction to group theory. Unlike most texts he uses a geometric approach for a lot of his work in groups. With that he uses dihedral groups a lot in his exposition and is always going back to it (and symmetric groups) for examples. I thought it to be refreshing to see group theory presented from an alternative angle. Although he doesn’t provide answers for his exercises, all of the exercises are answerable using the text provided. Some of them were difficult enough to pose some fun challenges while reading the book. Although the book is not the best introductory text I’ve found out there, I thought Armstrong’s introduction of finitely generated abelian groups was very well done. It definitely was better than most of the ones I had seen out there and definitely worth reading more into. The final theorem he put in his book was the Nielsen-Schreier Theorem which states:

Every subgroup of a free group is free

Which is a super fun concept and is not fully introduced in a lot of the texts that I’ve read in the group theory world. If you want a text that does group theory from the slight angle of geometry I definitely recommend this book.

Beginning Logic by E.J. Lemmon

Jan 13

Beginning Logic

Edward John Lemmon was a logician whose main area of expertise was modal logic. His book ‘Beginning Logic‘ is likely one of the better ones out there for those just getting into logic in order to understand the different rules in modal logic. Lemmon begins with an introduction on logic and why it is necessary to talk about the subject. After giving a very well laid out overview of why logic is required he begins by talking about the rules of logic and why each one is necessary. Although the book on it’s own is likely difficult to understand, it is a good reference book to see why certain rules are the way they are. (By rules I refer to the rules of derivation from one set of formulae to another). Not only does he give a detailed explanation of each rule he also goes into the concepts of completion and why each set of rules are complete in their respective areas.

He covers 2 separate areas of logic: propositional and predicate. Propositional logic is logic that only uses ‘operators’ such as . (Here he uses  instead of the now traditional ). Propositional logic is also sometimes referred to as sentential logic or propositional calculus. In predicate logic Lemmon adds the symbol  for ‘there exists an x’, and  for ‘for all x’. This format is not necessarily traditional, but Lemmon is working before standards were fully developed. His syntax can be slightly difficult to follow, but after working on it, it is not the worst syntax out there.

Who this book is for: This book should be used in conjunction with some other books and is good for someone who is looking for an english language description of logic and the different rules associated with proving results.

Book Review

Jan 6

Every Monday I’m going to publish a book review on a book that I’ve been reading. Most likely they’ll match up with classes or topics I’m currently learning about, so most likely books will come in bunches on topics, but I’ll try and vary them as much as I can. So look out starting next week for my first book review!

Primes – How high can we go?

Jan 5

When we last left off I had finished talking partially about prime numbers and how to find them. But some of you may have been wondering, how many primes there are in total? Is there some way to maybe find a formula to find a prime number?

If you look at the primes, they seem to go on forever! And thanks to amazing mathematicians from the past we know that they do! But HOW do we know that they actually do? How can you be sure there is a number after 97 that is prime? Some will just point to their computer and say, “Computers can prove that!” and they would be partially right. Computers have helped us find extraordinarily HUGE prime numbers. For example, remember those special prime numbers called Mersenne primes which are primes of the form  where p is also prime? Well, a worldwide collaboration was started in order to find the largest prime known to man and they called themselves GIMPS.

The organization is called GIMPS or Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. You can find their website here: [GIMPS] Quite recently they found the largest prime ever known to man. What is the prime number you may be wondering? It is: . You might be thinking that this looks like a small number, but it really isn’t. This prime is 17,425,170 digits long. That is HUGE! It is so big that if you were to print out the number on paper (without commas) it would be 4,283 pages long!

It took years for the computers to calculate that prime number, so as we questioned earlier, how do we know if there is a prime number greater than this or not? It is so large we can barely use computers to go any higher, and we can forget about writing the number down (you try writing out 4,283 pages of numbers!). So then how can we KNOW if there are infinite number of primes or not? Well this is exactly what a guy named Euclid was pondering over 2,000 years ago.  Euclid was able to prove that there are an infinite number of primes! So no matter how big of a prime number we find, there will always be a bigger one. So cool! But how did Euclid come up with this?

Below is a rough transcript of how Euclid created his proof, but before we go over the proof here a lemma that Euclid uses in order to prove it that you should know:
Lemma 1: Every number greater than 1 can be broken down into multiples of prime numbers. e.g: . Notice that prime numbers just equal themselves, and composite numbers are multiples of primes!

Euclid’s Proof: Suppose that there are only a finite number of primes. This means that there is a number x such that any number greater than x is not prime. All these numbers greater than x thus must be composite and by the lemma we just discussed must be a combination of prime numbers. So if we take every prime number less than x and multiply them together we get a number n. Now if we add 1 to n we get a prime number! (Notice that since 2 is a prime, thus multiplying all the primes together would get us an even number, which would automatically not be prime. So we add 1 to make it an odd number.) Why/how is n+1 prime?! Because no matter which prime number we select and we divide n + 1 by it we will get a remainder of 1. And since we have used every prime number less than x, and every number between x and n are composite, there are no other prime numbers that (n+1) can divide into. So (n+1) must be prime! But, we had stated earlier that x is the greatest prime and since (n+1)>x we see that our earlier thought was wrong (that there are a finite number of primes) and so there must be an infinite number of primes!

[Note: This type of proof is called proof by contradiction. I’ll eventually lay the groundwork for how this works, but for now you can look it up in google if you’d like.]

Wow, that was complex, but so rewarding! We can now for sure state that there are an infinite number of primes! Fun part is, that this was only 1 of many proofs that there are infinite primes! Any questions? Leave a comment!

Questionably yours,
The Cali Garmo

Back

Jan 4

After more than 3 years hiatus, I’m back to deliver more maths goodness! I hope you’re ready, cause I have some fun things in store for you.