Archive for Fermat

linear Diophantine equations

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on May 10, 2018 by xi'an

When re-expressed in maths terms, the current Riddler is about finding a sequence x⁰,x¹,…,x⁷ of integers such that



which turns into a linear equation with integer valued solutions, or a system of linear Diophantine equation. Which can be easily solved by brute-force R coding:

for (i in 1:7) A[i,i]=6
for (i in 1:6) A[i,i+1]=-7
for (x in 1:1e6){
  if (max(abs(zol-round(zol)))<1e-3) print(x)}
x=39990 #x8=
7*solve(a=A,b=c(rep(1,6),7*x))[1]+1 #x0

which produces x⁰=823537. But it would be nicer to directly solve the linear system under the constraint. For instance, the inverse of the matrix A above is an upper triangular matrix with (upper-)diagonals

1/6, 7/6², 7²/6³,…,7⁶/6⁷

but this does not help considerably, except for x⁸ to be solutions to 7 equations involving powers of 6 and 7… This system of equations can be solved by successive substitutions but this still feels very pedestrian!


editor’s nightmare

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, University life with tags , , , , , on June 24, 2014 by xi'an

paradoxes in scientific inference

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 23, 2012 by xi'an

This CRC Press book was sent to me for review in CHANCE: Paradoxes in Scientific Inference is written by Mark Chang, vice-president of AMAG Pharmaceuticals. The topic of scientific paradoxes is one of my primary interests and I have learned a lot by looking at Lindley-Jeffreys and Savage-Dickey paradoxes. However, I did not find a renewed sense of excitement when reading the book. The very first (and maybe the best!) paradox with Paradoxes in Scientific Inference is that it is a book from the future! Indeed, its copyright year is 2013 (!), although I got it a few months ago. (Not mentioning here the cover mimicking Escher’s “paradoxical” pictures with dices. A sculpture due to Shigeo Fukuda and apparently not quoted in the book. As I do not want to get into another dice cover polemic, I will abstain from further comments!)

Now, getting into a deeper level of criticism (!), I find the book very uneven and overall quite disappointing. (Even missing in its statistical foundations.) Esp. given my initial level of excitement about the topic!

First, there is a tendency to turn everything into a paradox: obviously, when writing a book about paradoxes, everything looks like a paradox! This means bringing into the picture every paradox known to man and then some, i.e., things that are either un-paradoxical (e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness result) or uninteresting in a scientific book (e.g., the birthday paradox, which may be surprising but is far from a paradox!). Fermat’s theorem is also quoted as a paradox, even though there is nothing in the text indicating in which sense it is a paradox. (Or is it because it is simple to express, hard to prove?!) Similarly, Brownian motion is considered a paradox, as “reconcil[ing] the paradox between two of the greatest theories of physics (…): thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases” (p.51) For instance, the author considers the MLE being biased to be a paradox (p.117), while omitting the much more substantial “paradox” of the non-existence of unbiased estimators of most parameters—which simply means unbiasedness is irrelevant. Or the other even more puzzling “paradox” that the secondary MLE derived from the likelihood associated with the distribution of a primary MLE may differ from the primary. (My favourite!)

When the null hypothesis is rejected, the p-value is the probability of the type I error.Paradoxes in Scientific Inference (p.105)

The p-value is the conditional probability given H0.” Paradoxes in Scientific Inference (p.106)

Second, the depth of the statistical analysis in the book is often found missing. For instance, Simpson’s paradox is not analysed from a statistical perspective, only reported as a fact. Sticking to statistics, take for instance the discussion of Lindley’s paradox. The author seems to think that the problem is with the different conclusions produced by the frequentist, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses (p.122). This is completely wrong: Lindley’s (or Lindley-Jeffreys‘s) paradox is about the lack of significance of Bayes factors based on improper priors. Similarly, when the likelihood ratio test is introduced, the reference threshold is given as equal to 1 and no mention is later made of compensating for different degrees of freedom/against over-fitting. The discussion about p-values is equally garbled, witness the above quote which (a) conditions upon the rejection and (b) ignores the dependence of the p-value on a realized random variable. Continue reading

the universe in zero words

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 30, 2012 by xi'an

The universe in zero words: The story of mathematics as told through equations is a book with a very nice cover: in case you cannot see the details on the picture, what looks like stars on a bright night sky are actually equations discussed in the book (plus actual stars!)…

The universe in zero words is written by Dana Mackenzie (check his website!) and published by Princeton University Press. (I received it in the mail from John Wiley for review, prior to its publication on May 16, nice!) It reads well and quick: I took it with me in the métro one morning and was half-way through it the same evening, as the universe in zero words remains on the light side, esp. for readers with a high-school training in math. The book strongly reminded me (at times) of my high school years and of my fascination for Cardano’s formula and the non-Euclidean geometries. I was also reminded of studying quaternions for a short while as an undergraduate by the (arguably superfluous) chapter on Hamilton. So a pleasant if unsurprising read, with a writing style that is not always at its best, esp. after reading Bill Bryson’s “Seeing Further: The Story of Science, Discovery, and the Genius of the Royal Society“, and a book unlikely to bring major epiphanies to the mathematically inclined. If well-documented, free of typos, and engaging into some mathematical details (accepting to go against the folk rule that “For every equation you put in, you will lose half of your audience.” already mentioned in Diaconis and Graham’s book). With alas a fundamental omission: no trace is found therein of Bayes’ formula! (The very opposite of Bryson’s introduction, who could have arguably stayed away from it.) The closest connection with statistics is the final chapter on the Black-Scholes equation, which does not say much about probability…. It is of course the major difficulty with the exercise of picking 24 equations out of the history of maths and physics that some major and influential equations had to be set aside… Maybe the error was in covering (or trying to cover) formulas from physics as well as from maths. Now, rather paradoxically (?) I learned more from the physics chapters: for instance, the chapters on Maxwell’s, Einstein’s, and Dirac’s formulae are very well done. The chapter on the fundamental theorem of calculus is also appreciable.

Continue reading

le théorème de l’engambi

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , on May 20, 2011 by xi'an

When I climbed in Luminy last year, one of the ways was called le théorème de l’engambi. Looking on the internet, I found this was the title of a book written by a local, Maurice Gouiran. The other evening, at the airport, the book was on sale in the bookstore, so I bought it and read it in the plane back to Paris. It is a local crime novel with highly local characters (to the point I do not understand all they say), local places like l’Estaque, the OM football club, La Gineste, Luminy, and what is apparently the most appealing theorem in novels, Fermat’s last theorem! (Engambi means messy affair in local dialect.) Overall the book is more pleasant to read for the local flavour than for the crime enquiry per se, especially because it involves scenes that take place in CIRM itself (including the restaurant and the terrace outside under the old oaks!). There is of course no indication on the nature of the three page proof produced by the first corpse of the book, but the description of the mathematical community is rather accurate, overall. The author mentions in a postnote that he is aware of Wiles’ proof, but believes (as a poet) in an alternative proof that Fermat had really found. (This book is not to be confused with Guedj’s parrot theorem, which is a novelesque story of mathematics, even though it ends up on the same premise that a parrot could recite Fermat’s proof…)