I was watching one of the episodes of BBC Horizon series. The first one I intended to watch was "Did Darwin Get it Wrong?'. Unfortunately the codec didn't work and the video crashed. I went back to Swaroop's hard disk, from which I had sourced the series. The video is crashed in there as well. I panicked a bit. What if all videos are malfunctioning ones? It took me more than an hour yesterday night to transfer the series to my laptop. It costed me the entire seasons of Psych, Breaking Bad, Two and a Half Men and How I Met your Mother. The latter two are at least saved in Swaroop's hard disk. Even his one terabyte capable portable was running low on space. Thus sacrificing some avoidable stuff became unavoidable.
Pierre de Fermat |
Coming back to the series, I settled down to watch the episode on Fermat's Last Theorem. Pierre de Fermat, the 17th century French mathematician, had proved in his theorem that the Pythagorean Theorem wouldn't work for any other whole number exponent but the number two. The Pythagorean Theorem being a^2+b^2= c^2. Or in words, in a right angled triangle, the area of the square of the hypotenuse is equal to to the sum of the square of area of other two sides. What Fermat dared in 17th century was to prove that no other whole number exponent can give you the same results. For instance, a^3+b^3<> c^3 and so on. Now the problem was that over time Fermat's Last Theorem was lost and subsequent mathematicians couldn't reproduce or reprove the conjecture, not even Carl.F.Gauss! The problem continued to the 20th century. Even with the help of modern super computers, the conjecture couldn't be proved. Why? Because simply there are infinite number of numbers which exist. Thus even if we had computed the formula a billion times using a billion number of different whole number exponents, the theoretical possibility of that one number which can topple the formula existed. The mathematicians needed proof, a well thought-out, detailed mathematical theorem which proves the conjecture. In 1993, the British mathematician Andrew Wiles came out with the theorem which proved Fermat's last Theorem after a long and arduous research spanning over seven years. The entire mathematical community was ecstatic. One of the greatest puzzles in the world of numbers finally succumbed to human genius. Or did it? Soon Mr. Wiles's friend who had been given the task of checking the theorem for consistency, emailed Mr. Wiles of the glaring gap he found in the theorem. Andrew Wiles saw for the first time the mistake he had mistakenly overlooked. The error could well hit the death-nail upon his seven-year long work. The fault had put the entire proof at the risk of being unproven. As they say, fortune favours the brave. In 1994, Mr. Wiles found out that the very mistake he had encountered could unlock the possibility of fixing the proof. Finally on a fine day, Andrew Wiles, the man who dedicated seven years of his life to the theorem and worked so single minded on the pursuit of truth, found it. Awesome, isn't it? As he puts it, "I had this revelation...I found it." Thus was put to rest the Fermat's Last Theorem, one of the greatest intellectual challenges dawned upon humanity.
Prof. Andrew Wiles |
Here, well. starts my story. I had always been a poor student of Mathematics. There was a period in my life when I hated the subject. I loathed the discipline as my maths teachers ran out patience with this stupid, good-for-nothing fellow. Very late or not until recently have I started admiring the subject. My admiration to mathematics stems from my interest in physics or more precisely, particle physics. Along with fellow physics enthusiasts or fans, I am too waiting eagerly for that day when a Unified Field Theorem would be constructed. The day when the string theorists are able to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity. To put it poetically, the day in heaven when Albert Einstein shall shake hands with Max Planck. Owing to my personal mathematical ignorance, string theory or M-Theory principles have appealed more to the subjective and philosophical side of my personality than the objective and scientific rationale.
Prof. Max Tegmark |
One of the interesting philosophical principles deductible from string theory is, as Prof. Max Tegmark from MIT enlightened the audience, at sub-atomic quantum levels, mathematics becomes the language of nature! Think about it, the universe itself could be nothing but a mathematical super-structure. If it could be true, the nature is not simply speaking to us in mathematics, the nature itself is Mathematics. At quantum levels the particles cannot be seen. The existence of such tiny particles are deduced from experimental observation which shows mathematical consistency. From the tiniest of the proposed strings and quantum particles to super black holes and gamma ray bursts, for some or other reason must exhibit mathematical regularity. It simply shows, as Prof. Max says, Mathematics is not a subject invented by humans but the very building block of the universe. As a student of History we are told to keep an open-mind. We should be open to any idea that comes in our way, however blasphemous it sounds. At the end of the day what we strive to achieve is the greater understanding of the society we live in. Thus the search for objectivity is not a historian's cup of tea, I feel. This constitutes the greatest philosophical division among Science and Social Studies. The search for the Truth, existing and verifiable, by Science is unknown to modern Social Studies. I don't believe the realm of Social Studies have to go after such Truth or such a Truth even exists. But such a rule applies only for Social Studies not for Science. The brain child of Enlightened idea of liberty settles for nothing but the Truth. So be it. While as the Science searches for objective Truth, we Historians and allied Social students shall further our understanding of the nature of such a verifiable and objective Truth, however subjective our interpretations may turn out to be. We are two sides of same coin. The question is but what is the coin?
The mathematics, thus holds the key for the greater understanding of the state of nature, whatever it is. The implications of this idea are far-reaching, even for Social students. The beautiful subject of mathematics can do wonder in our quest for greater excellence in all fields. Maybe we will construct languages of better mathematical consistency which will allow us to communicate our thoughts better. The closed-semantics of many a language including English at times inhibit dissemination of thoughts in their entirety. Unless you are so proficient in the language, mathematics-isation of languages would offer democratization of linguistics on an unprecedented scale. Those who had read Orwell's 1984 and familiar with Newspeak would understand the need for open-semantics in languages better. The computer codes, binary digits and quantum computing are all nothing but significant steps towards such a direction. Such a mathematics-oriented efforts can also do wonders in post-human philosophy, trying to create genetically engineered, superior human beings in a phenomenon that could rightly be labelled as evolution accelerated. The beauty of the subject is that the universe converses in mathematics. But is human-mathematics enough to capture the mystery of the universe in it's full measure? The numbers and characters, which visualizes mathematics to intelligent life, are representations of the principle which has gone in to the making of the universe. If we could push the horizons of human imaginations further, we may be able to come out with a form of 'Higher Mathematics', an improved version of mathematics which is better suited to understand the principle of universe and make our computations easier. It requires help from bio-technology, synthesizing intelligence of greater appeal. Everything demands a multi-disciplinary approach. This is just but one step. The evolution of both mathematics and human imagination have to go miles in evolution before we can feel safe about unlocking nature's secret. In Is Universe a Virtual Simulation? Really?, I had discussed about the research going into unveil whether the entire universe in which we belong is nothing but a PC simulation, run by human beings from future. Sounds like sci-fi, eh? Understanding Mathematics from both a conceptual and practical level again can help us decode our genetic programming, however virtual we are. I have also started encouraging in my mind this weird idea of a possible integration of some sections of Mathematics such as topology with Historiography so as to graph and visualise our world, scanning it across multi-dimensional time. Who knows, such an approach could help us discover attributes and properties of different systems we most commonly bypass in our analysis. And, we can stumble upon that coin, which seems to hold every sides. Thus, Mathematics is that infinitely beautiful subject which offers countless possibilities of reality, stretching our imaginations along with it to unprecedented scale. And that subject whose problems I can't solve for life, in this lifetime.
On a personal note, the story of Prof. Andrew Wiles is encouraging. A reminder of more intellectual nature yet motivating in it's appeal on par with the best of 'follow-your-dreams' kind of stories. In future, I too hope to answer some of the most nagging doubts constantly pricking my understanding about History, it's philosophy and it's motive force, if any. Meantime every generation must also pose problems of unsolvable nature to their successors to keep them busy in pursuit of knowledge. I, too, shall question.