« December 2006 | Main | April 2008 »

January 05, 2007

Innumeracy. Why the blog is it tolerated?!

If you don't have a little mathematics or coding up your sleeve or more conveniently placed in your head, then you won't like the overhead necessary to understand this blog. Sorry --- for some reason liberal arts ignorance (illiteracy being the ultimate form) is socially and culturally unacceptable, but scientific ignorance (of which the inability to read and understand simple mathematics or code is the ultimate form) is considered the norm. The latter is called innumeracy by the very literate, and given that the root of this word gives a completely misleading impression that it's all about numbers, I am convinced that it was coined by an innumerate. So I say sorry to apologize for your ignorance for you, if you're one of those people, since for cultural reasons you're unlikely to endeavor to fix the problem for yourself, or perhaps even to realize there is a problem. Don't take this personally --- the educational apparatus around the world strongly supports this strange situation, especially primary and secondary education.

Mathematics is an international language evolved to talk of the world with far greater intellectual economy than the best so-called natural languages. The syntax and semantics of mathematics have been much more consciously honed than those of natural languages. A person who does not speak at least a basic core of mathematics is ignorant indeed, unable to grasp simple attributes of artifacts or nature, or communicate without immense difficulty about such. It's like going through life with a paper bag over your head. And just like any other language it's best learned when you're young. Eradicating illiteracy in adults is difficult. Eradicating innumeracy in adults is likewise difficult. So a better path would be to eliminate it at source during primary and secondary education. And given that innumeracy is the default, we have a catch-22 roadblock to doing that: innumerate parents, teachers and peers.

If you do have some active calculus and some mathematical maturity, then you speak a second language and I hope you proclaim "I speak mathematics", and use it wherever possible with others. Like any minority language only use and a cultural perception that speaking it is important will have an effect on its spread. Add your vote to the widespread occurrence of mathematical speech by speaking mathematics. It occupies a unique position among natural languages, making it the most important second language.
math.jpg

Add so as to multiply (part 2)

Add so as to multiply looked at differentiable solutions to the functional equation
multiplicative1.jpg
and showed that they were all of the form
multiplicative2.jpg
i.e. they are all logarithms in some base. But now what if we drop differentiability and just look for a function of the positive real numbers, and proceed from first principles? (We stick to positive numbers for now because g has a problem at 0. If we set y to 0 in the functional equation, we get
multiplicative3.jpg
so if g ever takes on a non-zero value we have a contradiction, unless g is undefined at 0.) We pursue an exploratory argument that could be made a lot more compact, but I won't do that for exploration's sake. Perhaps I will write a very compact version as a later blog article.

First consider the functional equation when we set x and y to 1.
multiplicative4.jpg
So
multiplicative5.jpg
Now what if we set y to be x to the power n-1 where n is a positive integer. Then
multiplicative6.jpg
so we may decrement the exponent of x by adding g(x). Decrementing it by n gives
multiplicative7.jpg
Note that this also works when n is 0 because g(1) is 0. Call this the natural exponent rule. So if x is a positive natural number and we factor it into a product of distinct prime powers
multiplicative8.jpg
then we may use the original functional equation and the natural exponent rule to find that
multiplicative9.jpg
So the value of g at each positive natural number x depends upon its values at all of the prime numbers. In fact as we will see, we may define g(2), g(3), g(5), g(7), g(11) and so forth quite arbitrarily. So unless we impose some constraint upon g, it can be quite nasty. However, we will now show that if we insist that g is a continuous function, then fixing one value of g fixes all others ... ok, back to the details. Suppose we set y to be the reciprocal of x in the original functional equation. This gives
multiplicative10.jpg
and since g(1) is zero we have
multiplicative11.jpg
Call the last rule the quotient rule. So now we have the rule
multiplicative12.jpg
for any integer a. Now what about rational exponents? Let's start with an exponent of 1/n, where n is a natural number.
multiplicative13.jpg
So now we know that the rule
multiplicative14.jpg
works when a is the reciprocal of a positive natural number. What about any positive rational exponent, m/n ? Applying the rules we know so far, we get
multiplicative15.jpg
So now we know that the rule
multiplicative16.jpg
works for any positive rational exponent. What about any negative rational exponent -m/n ?
multiplicative17.jpg
Putting all these together we know that the rule
multiplicative18.jpg
applies whenever a is rational. Call this the rational exponent rule, and note that there's nothing here forcing x to be rational, just positive by our current convention.

What about g(2), g(3), g(5), g(7), g(11) and so forth? Roughly speaking these are independent in general, because the primes 2,3,5,7,11 etcetera are not mutually related by rational exponents, only by real ones. And unless g is required to be continuous, we do not know that the rule
multiplicative19.jpg
applies for all real exponents. If we knew this, then we could conclude for example that
multiplicative20.jpg
where (lg denotes the base 2 logarithm as usual) and so only one g value would be arbitrary, say g(2) and then the rules would determine g on any rational argument (you might like to check this). So suppose we fix g(2) and assert that g must be continuous. Let p be an even prime (i.e. not 2). We know that
multiplicative21.jpg
but we need to approximate this arbitrarily closely with rational exponents, so we can use the rational exponent rule. Here's how we may play that game! Let n be an arbitrarily large natural number, then
multiplicative22.jpg
Notice that the two exponents have numerators that differ by 1, as we can definitely use < because the log of p is irrational. But the denominators of the exponents are both n, so the error in each exponent is at most 1/n. So by choosing sufficiently large n we may approximate the genuine but irrational exponent as closely as we please. That is to say
multiplicative23.jpg
If g is continuous (which informally means approximable i.e. g of an approximation to p is approximately g of p, and this can be made as accurate as you like by choosing better and better approximations of p), then applying g to both sides gives
multiplicative24.jpg
where continuity allows us to move the limit. (Notice how this is just a limit of approximations as in the parenthesised statement above.) Now using rational exponent rule for g gives
multiplicative25.jpg
and as we take the limit the floor makes a vanishing difference, so
multiplicative26.jpg
So we may conclude that
multiplicative27.jpg
if g is continuous, for any odd prime p. So now if x is any natural number, g(x) is determined from its factorization as before
multiplicative28.jpg
but now we know that for each i
multiplicative29.jpg
and so
multiplicative30.jpg
Now the quotient rule gives g for x any positive rational number m/n because
multiplicative31.jpg
and because g is continuous, this defines g on all positive real numbers as well (by rational approximation in the spirit of continuity as exemplified above). So we conclude that the functional equation has continuous solutions on the positive reals only of the form
multiplicative32.jpg
i.e. all solutions are differentiable, and there are no more than before.

What happens for negative x ? Well if we set both x and y to -1 in the original functional equation we get
multiplicative33.jpg
So if we just set y to -1 in the original functional equation we get
multiplicative34.jpg
So the final conclusion is
multiplicative35.jpg

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.