Mathematical Equations That Changed the World
twitter.com
twitter.com
Black-Scholes opened up a whole world of asset pricing that much of the financial system today is based on. It can be argued that it did indeed have a deep effect on the state of the world through developments in modern finance.
The financial meltdowns of the mid 1990s and 2000s certainly had significant global impact, to the point of getting a lot of people to question what they thought they knew of economics. Fairly famously Alan Greenspan, who admitted that he was waylaid by the whole thing. I just happened across his recent book whose title is intruiging, though by reviews and what little of it I skimmed, the content is less than overwhelming: The Map and the Territory.
I'd need to find the backstory on the title, but it is strongly reminiscent of Robert Pirsig's Lila, the opening chapter of which starts with the author navigating a river by what turns out to be the wrong chart. Confusion over our mental models and reality being a major risk factor to current affairs.
This might be of interest:
You used Leibnitz notation, Leibnitz kicked Newton's arse, and Newton was a complete arsehole.
I have a copy of the book at home, Ian Stewart is a very good populariser of maths.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seventeen-Equations-that-Changed-Wor...
You should take the title of the book literally, equations that changed the world (but not necessarily for the better).
Saying Black-Scholes is imperfect is like saying Newtonian mechanics doesn't account for Relativity. Black-Scholes was the formal starting point for pricing derivatives, or the offloading of risk. Everyone has advanced well beyond it. Blowups not withstanding, without Black-Scholes our lives would be very different.
Comparing it to Newtonian mechanics is unfair. Newtonian mechanics actually work, just not for everything. To have a risk model that doesn't work for risk is something completely different.
I only have a bachelor of science degree with a major in computer science. Mostly through my interest in physics and mathematics, and hence the electives I took, I have a somewhat intimate familiarity with all of 1-5, 9, 13, and 14. I have at least basic knowledge about 7, 11, and 12. I have no idea, really, about 6 and 15-17. I'm a bit embarrassed about #15, given what I do. I have heard good things about Shannon's original paper, so I should give it a read. The ones I never listed fall into a half-half area, where I am aware of their meaning, but not very familiar with them.
At the university I obtained my degree from, just as I was graduating they were removing the requirement for computer science majors to take 6 credits in third or fourth year mathematics courses. All that is required now is first year calculus courses, with linear algebra and statistic in second year. The credits are moved to electives, so interested students can still take mathematics courses, but I feel like few of them will.
It was posted elsewhere in these comments that a proper treatment of these equations is found in Ian Stewart's book "In Pursuit of the Unknown: 17 Equations That Changed the World". I had heard of this previously, and now look forward to giving it a read.
Edit: To be clear about something, plenty of my knowledge of these equations came from my choice of electives in second and third year physics courses. So, my moaning about the removal of required mathematics credits isn't precisely relevant.
It was one of the few major disappointments of my time at university that I didn't get to take the proper course in electrodynamics (equations in 11). I have always meant to obtain Griffiths' text on the subject and give it a fair shake, and still plan to do so. Entertainingly, I looked it up quickly on Amazon and see they released a fourth edition in 2012, which has mixed reviews and seems to suffer from the usual publisher hijinx.
For example, a cube: 6 faces, 8 vertices, 12 edges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_characteristic
15 is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy#Definition
16 is kind of a cop out to call it "Chaos", it's one specific case, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map
17 is in Finance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_scholes_formula#Black.E2....
Actually, one thing your post made me realize is that I did touch upon equation 6 in a fourth year algorithms class. I didn't know it as related to polyhedra, as we used it in relation to vertices, edges, and faces in complexity analysis of geometric algorithms.
http://www.amazon.com/In-Pursuit-Unknown-Equations-Changed/d...
It's extremely easy to find a free PDF download of the book. I'm assuming the free PDF has been authorized, how does one even tell these days short of contacting the author?
How did chaos theory change the world?
There are a few different resources you can find that list practical applications of chaos theory. Here are a few that I found that I think you will find interesting:
* http://www.slideshare.net/anthaceorote/chaos-theory-an-intro...
* https://www.csuohio.edu/sciences/dept/physics/physicsweb/kau...
* [PDF] http://math.arizona.edu/~shankar/efa/efa4.pdf
And there's plenty more!
Sometimes you have to talk the talk to get your message across.. And it's delta-m (the 'mass default', pardon my English).
Other than that, I agree with most of the list. I haven't heard good things about Black and Scholes, though.
EDIT: Oh, and I thought of another. No doubt: [X,P] = i h/2pi Definitely more important than Schrodinger.
Submitted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7291571 - although no discussion.
No surprise about that. I imagine a large portion of us completely ignore posts directly to youtube with no context outside of the title. Personally, I also wouldn't have shared around a video consisting only of floating images and text with technoish music playing. Seems like that is the youtube channels niche, though.
Interestingly, the formula for the Fourier transformation is wrong in both of these posts. In the image, the integration is from infinity to infinity, and in the video the limits of integration are negative infinity to negative infinity.
A very strange, almost arbitrary list. Thumbs down.
The equations for Nash Equilibrium and Fermat's Little Theorem are two I would have liked to see.
I haven't read that one either. Looking at the index quickly, it doesn't look like Simplex is in there.
This list of important algorithms includes Simplex - http://www.koutschan.de/misc/algorithms.php . Others do as well. And some do not.
These "single character variables" are known for whom they matter. You can't have brevity and delimiter-separated names. Equations taking a whole line (or more), good luck with that.
"Maths notation is great for brevity but fails utterly tests for readability and ease of comprehension".. Okay, clearly trolling.
Next thing you know, IEEE will hire Will.i.am or Apple fanboys as consultants to make things "beautiful".