Frank Morgan

Announcing the debut of a new AMS Graduate Student Blog by the American Mathematical Society, with a graduate student editorial board, entries ranging from “Finding an Advisor” to “Advice for the TA,” and comments invited. We are still inviting nominations and self-nominations to the graduate student editorial board, which we would like to be large and diverse.

Frank Morgan, Vice-President, AMS

For Christmas my brother got a Flip Camcorder and made this video (click here) starring my mom, her doggie, and me, to Gary Schyman’s “Praan” with apologies to “Where in the World is Matt?”

Revised to “Five or Six” from “Eight” November 7, 2010.

In response to frequent questions, I now recommend shuffling the bridge deck just five or better six times and then preferably dealing the cards back and forth instead of cyclically. The recent article by Conger and Howald** supersedes the revolutionary 1992 paper of Bayer and Diaconis* in showing how the randomness of a shuffled deck is enhanced by dealing out the cards, even more so if the cards are dealt back and forth (West North East South South East North West) instead of the usual repeated cycle (West North East South West North East South). Their following table shows the remaining order after n shuffles for the undealt deck, for the bridge hands dealt cyclically as usual, and for the bridge hands dealt back and forth

n                 5      6      7       8       9      10

undealt       92%  61%  33%  17%   8.5%  4.3%

cyclic deal   23%   7%   3%     2%     1%

back&forth  31%   3%   1%

Dealing back and forth has the added advantage of being a bit faster than dealing cyclically as usual. Some questions about the accuracy of the mathematical model remain. Continue reading ‘Five or Six (not Eight) Shuffles’ »

Actor Alan Alda appears with mathematician Bob Osserman in a video of a Berkeley Repertory Theatre conversation sponsored by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute. It is a wonderful conversation between two very intelligent and curious individuals. Here I want to comment on Alda’s implicit, unanswered question:

          What is meant by curvature in space-time? Continue reading ‘Alan Alda and Curvature in Space-Time’ »

At Williams every senior math major chooses a faculty advisor and gives a 35/40-minute colloquium talk. Since we currently have over fifty senior majors, this keeps us pretty busy, but we think it well worth the effort.

Here is how I like my advisees to prepare, starting a month before the talk and consulting with me every day or two:

1. Outline of talk, with details of proofs.

2. Board drafts. Each page consists of exactly what is to be written on one section of blackboard. Each such board should convey one main idea, with a heading, a concise, abbreviated statement, and some kind of figure.

3. Draft rehearsal. Student sits down alone at keyboard and rehearses the talk by typing everything and then emailing it to me for comments and revisions.

4. Rehearsals at the blackboard, at least one with an audience recruited by the student.

5. Final rehearsal with me, ideally two days before the talk.

See also Lou Ludwig’s “Technically Speaking” video clips.

Here’s a sketch of a movie idea about an excellent scientist and citizen, which I had had for some time, but which took further form during a cathedral mass in Granada in 1999. (There is also my “A Mathematician at Heaven’s Gate.”)

On the very day our scientist, Prof. Blake, retires he dies, and to his pleasant surprise finds himself at the Pearly Gates.

“It’s incredible, religion was right about this.”

“Are you concerned at all?”

“No, I’ve led a good life, and I’m sure this God must be good and appreciative.”

“What good have you done?”

“I’ve led the advancements in my field and been an upstanding member of the community.”

“What is good about such work?”

“Well, the purpose of humanity is to understand the universe, and I’ve contributed to that.”

“Do you think you did it because it was important, or because it appealed to you?”

“No, it is important.”

“Yes, though some folks find it easy to rationalize whatever they want to do. Why do you think you’ve been so successful.”

“Well, I’ve worked hard I guess, made myself organized and persistent and energetic.”

“And what do you think we should do with others who have been less successful, less organized and energetic?”

“Well, I guess you can’t just pretend it doesn’t matter. Maybe you could let them try again, with a fresh start.”

“Actually, we were wondering whether you might go back and finish up their work for them.” Continue reading ‘Scientist in Heaven’ »