Tychonoff’s theorem

Tychonoff’s theorem (an arbitrary product of compact sets is compact) is one of the high points of any general topology course.  When I’ve taught this in recent years, I’ve usually given the proof using universal nets, which I think is due to Kelley.

Recently though I read a very nice paper by Wright  which reproduces, and then modifies, Tychonoff’s original proof (otherwise inaccessible to me because of my lack of German).  I thought the original proof was really elegant and though I would try to give an exposition.

Continue reading

Topology, Moore or Less

I get to teach Math 429 this semester.

This is the introductory topology course for undergraduates at Penn State – “point set topology” as the old-fashioned name would be.  I used to teach some of this material at Oxford but I have not had a chance to teach it at PSU before now.  I have about 25 students.

I decided to try a variation of a Moore method approach in this class.

So I started by showing the students the two-minute video above, which shows Steph Davis free-soloing and then BASE jumping from a Utah desert tower. Then I asked them, “Now you have watched the video, could you do that?”

Continue reading

Jost Bürgi’s Method for Calculating Sines

Jost Bürgi (28.2.1552 -31.1.1632) Astronom, Mathematiker, Instrumentenbauer, Entdecker der Logarithmen. aus:7523 (Rar);Frontispiz

Jost Bürgi (28.2.1552 -31.1.1632)
Astronom, Mathematiker, Instrumentenbauer, Entdecker der Logarithmen.
aus:7523 (Rar);Frontispiz

I just learned (via Facebook, no less) of a fascinating paper with the above title by Andreas Thom and coauthors.

Jost Burgi (1552-1632) was a Swiss mathematician, astronomer and clockmaker.  He worked with Johannes Kepler from 1604 and is thought to have arrived at the notion of logarithms independent of Napier.  He was also reputed to have constructed a table of sines by a brand new method, but until now the details of his Kunstweg (“artful method”) for computing sines were thought to have been lost.  The beautiful book of van Brummelen, The Mathematics of the Heavens and the Earth: The Early History of Trigonometry,  (Princeton University Press, 2009) documents how computing trigonometric ratios was  a central theoretical and practical preoccupation of ancient mathematics. We know of Burgi’s Kunstweg via a statement of his colleague and friend Nicolaus Ursus: “the calculation (of a table of sines)… can be done by a special way, by dividing a right angle into as many parts as one wants; and this is arithmetically. This has been found by Justus Burgi from Switzerland, the skilful technician of His Serene Highness, the Prince of Hesse.”  But the details are not clear and apparently nobody, starting with Kepler himself, was ever able to reconstruct Burgi’s method.

Continue reading

Matt Wiersma on exotic group C*-algebras

Recently Matt Wiersma from Waterloo spoke in our seminar about some of his work related to “exotic group C*-algebras”.  A more detailed account is on the arXiv.  I thought I would try to write up some of what I learned (probably, as usual, this is the most elementary points, but it was new to me).

What is an exotic group C*-algebra?  It is a completion of the group algebra which is different from the two standard examples (maximal and reduced) that we describe in C*-algebra courses.  Oversimplifying, we might make an analogy with compactifications of a locally compact Hausdorff space.   There is always a minimal one (one-point compactification) and a maximal (Stone-Cech), but there are also plenty of other things in between.  Analogously, in the case where a group \(\Gamma\) is non amenable, one might imagine that there should be many other C*-completions of \({\mathbb C}\Gamma\) lying between the maximal and the reduced C*-algebras.   (Whether, in fact, there exists any group for which \({\mathbb C}\Gamma\) has exactly two distinct completions appears to be an open question.)

Continue reading

The Witness Relocation Program

I gave a talk last week in the Geometry, Analysis and Physics seminar with the title “The limit operator symbol”.  This was an attempt to distill some of the ideas from my series of posts on the Lindner-Seidel and Spakula-Willett papers, especially post IV of the series.  In particular, I wanted to explain the crucial move from having a series of inequalities witnessed to having a similar series of inequalities centrally witnessed.  As Nigel put it during the seminar, we are attempting to describe a “witness (re)location program”: our witnesses are scattered all over \(\Gamma\), and we are attempting to move them all to the “courthouse”, that is, to a neighborhood of the identity, at the same time. Continue reading