Making Graph Algorithms Fast, using Strongly Connected Components

One of the problems with many of the interesting graph algorithms is that they’re complex. As graphs get large, computations over them can become extremely slow. For example, graph coloring is NP-complete – so the time to run a true optimal graph coloring algorithm on an arbitrary graph grows exponentially in the size of the graph!

So, quite naturally, we look for ways to make it faster. We’ve already talked about using
heuristics to get fast approximations. But what if we really need the true optimum? The other approach to making it faster, when you really want the true optimum, is parallelism: finding some way to subdivide
the problem into smaller pieces which can be executed at the same time. This is obviously a limited
technique – you can’t stop the exponential growth in execution time by adding a specific finite
number of processors. But for particular problems, parallelism can make the difference between
being able to do something fast enough to be useful, and not being able to. For a non-graph
theoretic but compelling example, there’s been work in something called microforecasting, which is precise weather forecasting for extreme small areas. It’s useful for predicting things like severe lightning storms in local areas during events where there are large numbers of people. (For example, it was used at the Atlanta olympics.) Microforecasting inputs a huge amount of information about local conditions – temperature, air pressure, wind direction, wind velocity, humidity, and such, and computes a short-term forecast for that area. Microforecasting is completely useless if it takes longer to compute the forecast than it takes for the actual weather to develop. If you can find a way to split the computation among a hundred processors, and get a forecast in 5 minutes, you’ve got something really useful. If you have to run it on a single processor, and it takes 2 hours – well, by then, any storm
that the forecast predicts is already over.

For graphs, there’s a very natural way of decomposing problems for parallelization. Many complex graphs for real problems can be divided into a set of subgraphs, which can be handled in parallel. In
fact, this can happen on multiple levels: graphs can be divided into subgraphs, which can be divided
into further subgraphs. But for now, we’ll mainly focus on doing it once – one decomposition of
the graph into subgraphs for parallelization.

Continue reading

The Faith Equation: Part Two of the Review

The bulk of this part of the review is looking at the total train-wreck that is chapter 4, which contains Bittinger’s version of dreadful probabilistic arguments for
why Christianity must be true. But before I do that, I need to take care of one loose
end from part 1. I should have included chapter three in part one of the review, since it’s really just a continuation of the paradox rubbish, but I didn’t.

Continue reading

More Old Friends: The Bible Code Guys

Time for our second visit with old friends. This time, we’re going to check up on “The Lords Witnesses”, the bible code geniuses who made somewhere around a dozen attempts at using their code to nail down a date at which the UN building in NYC would be blown up.

These nutters are a spinoff of the Jehovah’s witnesses. They believe that there is a secret code
embedded in the bible. They agree that all of the other people who claim to have found secret codes in
the bible are all just a bunch of crackpots – but they have the truth.

Continue reading

Doctor Who and Spinoffs

As many of you know, I’m a big Doctor Who fan. Big enough that I’ve grabbed all of the episodes of the new series, and its spinoffs, via BitTorrent. (I also buy them on DVD as soon as they become available.) A few folks have asked me what I think of the spinoffs. And I’m sick at home, feeling like hell, not up to doing any work or any serious math writing. So I’ve been sitting around watching videos, which makes this the perfect time to tell you about what I think of them. I’ll run through my opinions of the episodes of the third season of Doctor Who, the first season of Torchwood, and the episodes of the Sarah Jane adventures that have been broadcast so far.

Continue reading

Carnival of Math: The Spam Edition

To be honest, I haven’t been following the Carnival of Math much since it’s inception; my new job keeps me busy enough that I barely have time to keep the blog going, and so I haven’t really looked much at recent editions. In fact, I completely forgot that I was hosting it again until I started receiving
submissions.

Much to my disappointment, it appears that spam has managed to invade even the carnivals. Close to half of the submissions that I received were blatant spam, including one for a penis-enlargement pill. But hey, when a theme hits me in the face, I run with it. So, welcome to the Carnival of Math: Spam Edition!


Get rich quick, by betting on the World Series! Just learn how to play the odds; we can show you how, with our entertaining and <a href="http://jd2718.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/puzzle-last-one-left-over/"educational probability puzzles! Once you’ve mastered that, just look at the batting averages, and place your bets!


Refinance your mortgage! Having trouble with rising interest rates? Is your bank balance in the red? Do you feel like no matter how much you scrimp, it never adds up to enough to pay your bills? Like
every time you save 2 dollars, you still have no money left? It’s not your fault: the real problem is the numbers you’re using! With primitive, old-fashioned numbers, if you’re not careful, 1+1=0! Just switch over to our new improved number system, Z2, where there are no negative numbers at all! Our prime polynomials and their relatives can solve your problems! But that’s not all – we’ll throw in a Catalan ring for free!


Are you lonely? Do women find you dull, the neutral element in any group?
Do you yearn to finding the perfect woman to share your life with? We can help! Our
patented methods can teach you how to attract women, and our ideal ring is
guaranteed to seal the deal with the woman of your dreams!


The world is changing. Globalization is creating a new job market, where
old-fashioned skills aren’t enough to succeed. Even if your children are
the best and the brightest, standard education won’t give your
children the edge they need. Don’t let your children go into their PSATs unprepared! Our methods are guaranteed to help your children excel. Not all test prep
programs are
equivalent: enroll your children in the best!


For those of you who just want to be able to see the articles, here’s the list, in table form.

Author Title
Anne Glamore Beyonce and I Fail Long Division
Charles Daney Rings and Ideals
Dave Marain Educating our best and brightest: Alec Klein Interview
Dave Marain Last minute PSAT prep
David Eppstein Batting Averages
Eric Macaulay Equivalence
jd2718 Puzzle: last one left over
Mark Dominus The square of the Catalan Sequence
Mark Dominus Relatively prime polynomials over Z2
Martin Cooke Two “proofs” that 1 + 1 = 0
Slawomir Kolodynski Groups and neutral elements

Book Review: The Faith Equation (part 1)

A few weeks ago, I received an email about a new book, “The Faith Equation”, by Marvin Bittinger. Bittinger is an author of math textbooks – including, I think, my first calculus text. The book is supposed to be Bittenger’s explanation of how mathematics validates christianity. Needless to say,
I asked for a review copy – this is something right up my alley.

I’ve taken longer to get around to reviewing it than I intended, but life’s been busy
lately. I’m going to review it in several parts: it’s too dense, full of bad arguments of so many different kinds that I can’t possibly do it justice with only one post.

Today, I’ll cover the introdution and first two chapters: “The Beginning of a Mathematician’s Journey”, “Apologetics and Faith Axioms”, “Paradoxes in Mathematics and Christianity”.

Continue reading

Dirty Rotten Infinite Sets and the Foundations of Math

Today we’ve got a bit of a treat. I’ve been holding off on this for a while, because I wanted to do it justice. This isn’t the typical wankish crackpottery, but rather a deep and interesting bit of crackpottery. A reader sent me a link to a website of a mathematics professor, N. J. Wildberger, at the University of New South Wales, which contains a long, elegant screed against the evils of set theory, titled “Set Theory: Should You Believe?”

It’s an interesting article – and I don’t mean that sarcastically. It’s over the top, to the point of extreme silliness in places, but the basic idea of it is not entirely unreasonable. Back at the beginnings of set theory, when Cantor was first establishing his ideas, there was a lot of opposition to it. In
my opinion, the most interesting and credible critics of set theory were the constructivists. Put briefly, constructivists believe that all valid math is based on constructing things. If something exists, you
can show a concrete instance of it. If you can describe it, but you can’t build it, then
it’s just an artifact of logic.

Some of that opposition continues to this day, and it’s not just the domain of nuts. There are
serious mathematicians who’ve questioned the meaningfulness of some of the artifacts of modern
set-theory based mathematics. Just to give one prominent example, Greg Chaitin has given lectures in which he discusses the idea that the real numbers aren’t real: they’re just logical artifacts which can never actually occur in the real world, and rationals are the only real real numbers. (I don’t think that Greg really believes that – just that he thinks it’s an interesting idea to consider. He’s far
too entranced with set theory. But he clearly considers it valid enough to be worth thinking about
and talking about.)

Continue reading

Friday Random Ten

Sorry for the slow posting this week, but work has been a bit intense, and I’ve also had some
family matters to take care of, which have left me with very little blogging time. Hopefully things will
be a bit less insane next week. In the meantime, here’s a random bunch of weird music I’ve been listening to.

  1. The Mars Volta, “This Apparatus Must Be Unearthed”: the Mars Volta is a neo-progressive band I recently discovered. They’re on the dark and noisy side. The best description I can give is that they sound sort of like what you’d get if you mixed King Crimson and Dream Theater, and then fed them too much caffeine.
  2. Spock’s Beard, “Onomatapea”: a track from the first SB album after the original bandleader left. The album as a whole is kind of hit-or-miss; this song is one of the really good ones.
  3. John Corigliano, “Pianissimo Scherzo” from the Red Violin Concerto, performed by Joshua Bell: if you like semi-atonal modern classical music – which I do – this is simply spectacular; one of the finest new compositions I’ve heard in years, performed with elegance by one of the most amazing violinists in the world.
  4. Lunasa, “Mi Na Samhna”: a beautiful Uillean pipe-led traditional Irish lament.
  5. The Redneck Manifesto, “Who Knows?”: great post-rock in the same stylistic vein as Mogwai.
  6. Sonic Youth, “Titanium Expose”: Old Sonic Youth. Noisy, strange tonality, crazy guitar playing. Brilliant.
  7. Elizabeth and the Catapult, “Waiting for the Kill”: a song by a NYC band. I’m not sure how
    to classify; jazzy folk-rock maybe? They’re a great band.
  8. Rush, “Malignant Narcissism”: great instrumental track by Rush.
  9. Porcupine Tree, “Fear of a Blank Planet”: the title track from Porcupine Tree’s brilliant latest album. If you like neo-progressive rock at all, this album is a must-have.
  10. A Silver Mt. Zion, “Goodbye Desolate Railyard”: a track off of another Silver Mt. Zion album that I just got. The album is “This is our punk-rock, thee rusted satellites gather+sing”. It’s my favorite of the ASMZ albums that I’ve heard, which is saying a lot. This isn’t my favorite track, mostly
    because I don’t care for the voice of the lead-singer. But a mediocre track by ASMZ would be a
    spectacular one by almost anyone else.

Colored Petri Nets

Colored Petri Nets
The big step in Petri nets – the one that really takes them from a theoretical toy to a
serious tool used by protocol developers – is the extension to colored Petri nets (CPNs). Calling them “colored” is a bit of a misnomer; the original idea was to assign colors to tokens, and allow color-based expressions on the elements of the net. But study of analysis models quickly showed
that you could go much further than that without losing the basic analyzability properties
that are so valuable. In the full development of CPNs, you can associate essentially arbitrary
collections of data with Petri net tokens, so long as you use a strong type system, and keep
appropriate restrictions on the expressions used in the net. The colors thus become
data types, describing the types of data that can be carried by tokens, and the kinds of tokens that
can located in a place in the net.

So that’s the fundamental idea of CPNs: tokens have types, and each token type has some data value associated with it. Below the fold, we’ll look at how we do that,
and what it means.

Continue reading

Checking up on old "friends": Gary Osborn

Checking In on Old Friends

As long-time readers of this blog know, there are a few crackpots who I’ve written about multiple
times. Those nutters have their fans, and people seem to want to hear about what they’re up to. So today, I’ll give you a brief look at what’s going on with the three fan favorites: Gary Osborn (he of the
23.5 degree angle), the Lords Witnesses (the folks who keep making failed predictions about when the UN will get bombed), and of course, George Shollenberger (supposed God-prover and all-around genius). We’ll start with Gary, and then talk about the Witnesses and old Georgie in later posts.

So what’s Gary up to? In case you weren’t around, Gary is someone who I wrote about back when this
blog was on Blogger
, and who got into a rather long debate in my comments, and then later took the debate back to his own website, which (naturally) doesn’t allow comments.

Gary has an…. interesting… theory that the angle 23.5 degrees has great mystical meaning, and
that this meaning has been passed down through generations of artists, who have been planting
features in paintings that feature the magic 23.5 degree angle. Gary’s definition of a painting
containing a 23.5 degree angle is, pretty much, “It looks like a 23.5 degree angle to me”. If he can find a way of making the angle precise, then the precision of it is critically important; if it’s off by a degree or two, well, it’s a painting, these things aren’t perfect

Continue reading