Explainer: the point of pure mathematics

What is pure mathematics? What do pure mathematicians do? Why is pure mathematics important?

These are questions I’m often confronted with when people discover I do pure mathematics.

I always manage to provide an answer, but it never seems to fully satisfy.

So, I’ll attempt to give a more formulated and mature response to these three questions. I apologise ahead of time for the oversimplifications I’ve had to make in order to be concise.

Broadly speaking, there are two different types of mathematics (and I can already hear protests) – pure and applied. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell attempted to give rigorous definitions of this classification.

I capture the distinction in the following somewhat cryptic statement: pure mathematicians prove theorems, and applied mathematicians construct theories.

What this means is that the paradigm in which the two groups of people do mathematics are different.

Pure mathematicians are often driven by abstract problems. To make the abstract concrete, here are a couple of examples: “are there infinitely many twin primes” or “does every true mathematical statement have a proof?”

To be more precise, mathematics built out of axioms, and the nature of mathematical truth is governed by predicate logic.

A mathematical theorem is a true statement that is accompanied by a proof that illustrates its truth beyond all doubt by deduction using logic.

Unlike an empirical theory, it is not enough to simply construct an explanation that may change as exceptions arise.

Something a mathematician suspects of being true due to evidence, but not proof, is simply conjecture.

Applied

Applied mathematicians are typically motivated by problems arising from the physical world. They use mathematics to model and solve these problems.

These models are really theories and, as with any science, they are subject to testifiability and falsifiability. As the amount of information regarding the problem increases, these models will possibly change.

Pure and applied are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are many great mathematicians who tread both grounds.

Pure

There are many problems pursued by pure mathematicians that have their roots in concrete physical problems – particularly those that arise from relativity or quantum mechanics.

Typically, in a deeper understanding of such phenomena, various “technicalities” arise (believe me when I tell you these technicalities are very difficult to explain). These become abstracted away into purely mathematical statements that pure mathematicians can attack.

Solving these mathematical problems then can have important applications.

Ok computer

Let me give a concrete example of how abstract thought lead to the development of a device that underpins the functions of modern society: the computer.

The earliest computers were fixed program – i.e. they were purpose-built to perform only one task. Changing the program was a very costly and tedious affair.

The modern remnants of such a dinosaur would be a pocket calculator, which is built to only perform basic arithmetic. In contrast, a modern computer allows one to load a calculator program, or word-processing program, and you don’t have to switch machines to do it.

This paradigm shift occurred in the mid 1940s and is called the stored-program or the von Neumann architecture.

The widely accessible, but lesser-known, story is that this concept has its roots in the investigation of an abstract mathematical problem called the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem).

The Entscheidungsproblem was formulated in in 1928 by the famous mathematician David Hilbert.

It approximately translates to this: “does there exist a procedure that can decide the truth or falsehood of mathematical statement in a finite number of steps?”

This was answered in the negative by Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently in 1936 and 1937. In his paper, Turing formulates an abstract machine, which we now call the Turing machine.

The machine possesses an infinitely long tape (memory), a head that can move a step at a time, read from and write to the tape, a finite instruction table which gives instructions to the head, and a finite set of states (such as “accept”, or “deny”). One initiates the machine with input on the tape.

Such a machine cannot exist outside of the realm of mathematics since it has an infinitely long tape.

But it is the tool used to define the notion of computability. That is, we say a problem is computable if we can encode it using a Turing machine.

One can then see the parallels of a Turing machine with a fixed-program machine.

Now, suppose that there is a Turing machine U that can take the instruction table and states of an arbitrary Turing machine T (appropriately encoded), and on the same tape input I to T, and run the Turing machine T on the input I.

Such a machine is called a Universal Turing Machine.

In his 1937 paper, Turing proves an important existence theorem: there exists a universal Turing machine. This is now the parallel of the store-program concept, the basis of the modern programmable computer.

It is remarkable that an abstract problem concerning the foundations of mathematics laid the foundations to the advent of the modern computer.

It is perhaps a feature of pure mathematics that the mathematician is not constrained by the limitations of the physical world and can appeal to the imagination to create and construct abstract objects.

That is not to say the pure mathematician does not formalise physical concepts such as energy, entropy etcetera, to do abstract mathematics.

In any case, this example should illustrate that the pursuit of purely mathematical problems is a worthwhile cause that can be of tremendous value to society.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Lashi Bandara, Australian National University


Mathematics: Why We Need More Qualified Teachers

There is a crisis in the education system, and it’s affecting the life chances of many young Australians. The number of secondary teaching graduates with adequate qualifications to teach mathematics is well below what it should be, and children’s education is suffering.

A report completed for the Australian Council of Deans of Science in 2006 documented the problem, but the situation has deteriorated since. The percentage of Year 12 students completing the more advanced mathematics courses continues to decline. This affects mathematics enrolments in the universities and a number no longer offer a major in mathematics, worsening an already inadequate supply of qualified teachers.

Changing qualifications

To exacerbate an already serious problem, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) currently proposes that graduate entry secondary programs must comprise at least two years of full-time equivalent professional studies in education.

There will be no DipEd pathway, which allows graduates to enter the profession within a year. Forcing them to spend more time in education will lead to increased debt. You couldn’t blame people for changing their mind about becoming a teacher.

I believe the changes in qualifications will lead to a disaster, denying even more young people access to a quality mathematics education that gives them real opportunities in the modern world.

An unequal opportunity

This is a social justice issue because access to a decent mathematics education in Australia is now largely determined by where you live and parental income.

In the past there have been concerns regarding the participation of girls in mathematics and the effect on their careers and life chances.

Australia now seems incapable of responding to a situation where only the privileged have access to well-qualified teachers of mathematics.

The Northern Territory is a prime example. The contraction of mathematics at Charles Darwin University means the NT is now totally dependent on the rest of Australia for its secondary mathematics teachers. And how can talented mathematics students in the NT be encouraged to pursue mathematical careers when it means moving away?

Elsewhere most of regional Australia is largely dependent on mathematics teachers who complete their mathematics in the capital or large regional cities.

Examine the policy

In what is supposed to be a research-driven policy environment, has anyone considered the consequences of the AITSL proposal? And whether this will actually give teachers the skills they need for the positions they subsequently occupy?

In my own case I came to Melbourne with a BSc (Hons) from the University of Adelaide. In the early 1970s I completed a DipEd at La Trobe. The only real cost was some childcare. If I remember correctly the government was so keen to get professional women into the workforce they even helped with the cost of books. Would I have committed to a two-year course? I’m not sure but I had no HECS debt and ongoing employment was just about guaranteed.

My first school had a very high percentage of students from a non-English speaking background. Many of the Year 7s had very poor achievement in mathematics and I turned my attention to finding out what could be done to help them reach a more appropriate standard.

In the course of this I met Associate Professor John Munro who stressed the importance of language in the learning of mathematics. To be a better mathematics teacher, I completed another degree in teaching English as a second language.

Later I coordinated a DipEd program. Many of our better students were of a mature age and struggling with money, family, jobs and a host of other things. They managed for a year. Requiring them to complete two would have seen many of them not enrol in the first place or drop out when it became too much.

Learn on the job

A two-year teaching qualification does not necessarily equip you for the teaching situation you find yourself in. If AITSL wants all teachers to have a second year, let that be achieved in work-related learning over, for example, 5-7 years.

Australia can’t afford to lose a single prospective teacher who is an articulate, well-qualified graduate in mathematics. If the one-year DipEd goes, many will be lost. They have too many options. The new graduates will think about other courses, the career change, mature-age graduates will decide it is all too hard.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Jan Thomas*


Explainer: The Point of Pure Mathematics

What is pure mathematics? What do pure mathematicians do? Why is pure mathematics important?

These are questions I’m often confronted with when people discover I do pure mathematics.

I always manage to provide an answer but it never seems to fully satisfy.

So I’ll attempt to give a more formulated and mature response to these three questions. I apologise ahead of time for the oversimplifications I’ve had to make in order to be concise.

Broadly speaking, there are two different types of mathematics (and I can already hear protests) – pure and applied. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell attempted to give rigorous definitions of this classification.

I capture the distinction in the following, somewhat cryptic, statement: pure mathematicians prove theorems and applied mathematicians construct theories.

What this means is that the paradigm in which mathematics is done by the two groups of people are different.

Pure mathematicians are often driven by abstract problems. To make the abstract concrete, here are a couple of examples: “are there infinitely many twin primes” or “does every true mathematical statement have a proof?”

To be more precise, mathematics built out of axioms, and the nature of mathematical truth is governed by predicate logic.

A mathematical theorem is a true statement that is accompanied by a proof that illustrates its truth beyond all doubt by deduction using logic.

Unlike an empirical theory, it is not enough to simply construct an explanation that may change as exceptions arise.

Something a mathematician suspects of being true due to evidence, but not proof, is simply conjecture.

Applied

Applied mathematicians are typically motivated by problems arising from the physical world. They use mathematics to model and solve these problems.

These models are really theories and, as with any science, they are subject to testifiability and falsifiability. As the amount of information regarding the problem increases, these models will possibly change.

Pure and applied are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are many great mathematicians who tread both grounds.

Pure

There are many problems pursued by pure mathematicians that have their roots in concrete physical problems – particularly those that arise from relativity or quantum mechanics.

Typically, in a deeper understanding of such phenomena, various “technicalities” arise (believe me when I tell you these technicalities are very difficult to explain). These become abstracted away into purely mathematical statements that pure mathematicians can attack.

Solving these mathematical problems then can have important applications.

Ok computer

Let me give a concrete example of how abstract thought lead to the development of a device that underpins the functions of modern society: the computer.

The earliest computers were fixed program – i.e. they were purpose-built to perform only one task. Changing the program was a very costly and tedious affair.

The modern remnants of such a dinosaur would be a pocket calculator, which is built to only perform basic arithmetic. In contrast, a modern computer allows one to load a calculator program, or word-processing program, and you don’t have to switch machines to do it.

This paradigm shift occurred in the mid 1940s and is called the stored-program or the von Neumann architecture.

The widely accessible, but lesser-known, story is that this concept has its roots in the investigation of an abstract mathematical problem called the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem).

The Entscheidungsproblem was formulated in in 1928 by the famous mathematician David Hilbert.

It approximately translates to this: “does there exist a procedure that can decide the truth or falsehood of mathematical statement in a finite number of steps?

This was answered in the negative by Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently in 1936 and 1937. In his paper, Turing formulates an abstract machine, which we now call the Turing machine.

The machine possesses an infinitely long tape (memory), a head that can move a step at a time, read from and write to the tape, a finite instruction table which gives instructions to the head, and a finite set of states (such as “accept”, or “deny”). One initiates the machine with input on the tape.

Such a machine cannot exist outside of the realm of mathematics since it has an infinitely long tape.

But it is the tool used to define the notion of computability. That is, we say a problem is computable if we can encode it using a Turing machine.

One can then see the parallels of a Turing machine with a fixed-program machine.

Now, suppose that there is a Turing machine U that can take the instruction table and states of an arbitrary Turing machine T (appropriately encoded), and on the same tape input I to T, and run the Turing machine T on the input I.

Such a machine is called a Universal Turing Machine.

In his 1937 paper, Turing proves an important existence theorem: there exists a universal Turing machine. This is now the parallel of the store-program concept, the basis of the modern programmable computer.

It is remarkable that an abstract problem concerning the foundations of mathematics laid the foundations to the advent of the modern computer.

It is perhaps a feature of pure mathematics that the mathematician is not constrained by the limitations of the physical world and can appeal to the imagination to create and construct abstract objects.

That is not to say the pure mathematician does not formalise physical concepts such as energy, entropy etcetera, to do abstract mathematics.

In any case, this example should illustrate that the pursuit of purely mathematical problems is a worthwhile cause that can be of tremendous value to society.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Lashi Bandara*


Mathematics: Why we need more qualified teachers

There is a crisis in the education system, and it’s affecting the life chances of many young Australians. The number of secondary teaching graduates with adequate qualifications to teach mathematics is well below what it should be, and children’s education is suffering.

A report completed for the Australian Council of Deans of Science in 2006 documented the problem, but the situation has deteriorated since. The percentage of Year 12 students completing the more advanced mathematics courses continues to decline. This affects mathematics enrolments in the universities and a number no longer offer a major in mathematics, worsening an already inadequate supply of qualified teachers.

Changing qualifications

To exacerbate an already serious problem, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) currently proposes that graduate entry secondary programs must comprise at least two years of full-time equivalent professional studies in education.

There will be no DipEd pathway, which allows graduates to enter the profession within a year. Forcing them to spend more time in education will lead to increased debt. You couldn’t blame people for changing their mind about becoming a teacher.

I believe the changes in qualifications will lead to a disaster, denying even more young people access to a quality mathematics education that gives them real opportunities in the modern world.

An unequal opportunity

This is a social justice issue because access to a decent mathematics education in Australia is now largely determined by where you live and parental income.

In the past there have been concerns regarding the participation of girls in mathematics and the effect on their careers and life chances.

Australia now seems incapable of responding to a situation where only the privileged have access to well-qualified teachers of mathematics.

The Northern Territory is a prime example. The contraction of mathematics at Charles Darwin University means the NT is now totally dependent on the rest of Australia for its secondary mathematics teachers. And how can talented mathematics students in the NT be encouraged to pursue mathematical careers when it means moving away?

Elsewhere most of regional Australia is largely dependent on mathematics teachers who complete their mathematics in the capital or large regional cities.

Examine the policy

In what is supposed to be a research-driven policy environment, has anyone considered the consequences of the AITSL proposal? And whether this will actually give teachers the skills they need for the positions they subsequently occupy?

In my own case I came to Melbourne with a BSc (Hons) from the University of Adelaide. In the early 1970s I completed a DipEd at La Trobe. The only real cost was some childcare. If I remember correctly the government was so keen to get professional women into the workforce, they even helped with the cost of books. Would I have committed to a two-year course? I’m not sure but I had no HECS debt and ongoing employment was just about guaranteed.

My first school had a very high percentage of students from a non-English speaking background. Many of the Year 7s had very poor achievement in mathematics and I turned my attention to finding out what could be done to help them reach a more appropriate standard.

In the course of this I met Associate Professor John Munro who stressed the importance of language in the learning of mathematics. To be a better mathematics teacher, I completed another degree in teaching English as a second language.

Later I coordinated a DipEd program. Many of our better students were of a mature age and struggling with money, family, jobs and a host of other things. They managed for a year.

Requiring them to complete two would have seen many of them not enrol in the first place or drop out when it became too much.

Learn on the job

A two-year teaching qualification does not necessarily equip you for the teaching situation you find yourself in. If AITSL wants all teachers to have a second year, let that be achieved in work-related learning over, for example, 5-7 years.

Australia can’t afford to lose a single prospective teacher who is an articulate, well-qualified graduate in mathematics. If the one-year DipEd goes, many will be lost. They have too many options. The new graduates will think about other courses, the career change, mature-age graduates will decide it is all too hard.

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Jan Thomas, Senior Fellow, Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute