What my research is about
Dec. 10th, 2009 08:46 pmAt which point
First, you need to remember what an equation is. This is an example:
x + 1 = 2
The important thing with an equation is that there's something that's unknown, and your goal is to find out what the unknown thing is equal to. In this case the unknown thing is the "x", and it's easy to see that it must be equal to 1. So x=1 is the solution of the equation.
In differential equations, which is what I do, the unknown thing isn't a number any more, but a function. A function is something where you enter one thing (often a number, which is called the variable), and the function does something with the variable according to a rule, and gives you a result. For example, the function
f(x) = 2x
takes the number x and doubles it. More generally, you can think of a function kind of as a recipe--you enter in all the ingredients, the recipe tells you what to do with them, and then you get a cake as the output.
Often a function isn't defined everywhere, that is, there's a rule that says we can only enter certain numbers. For example, we could decide that we only allow numbers between 0 and 1. In this example, the boundary of the area where the function is defined is the 0 and the 1, because they are at the "edges" of the area.
The regularity of a function has to do with how much the output changes if you only change the input a little bit. If the output jumps around a lot when you change the input just a little bit, it has low regularity. This is generally undesirable in applications.
An operator is sort of like a meta-function. Ordinary functions take a number as input and give you another number as output. Instead, an operator takes a function as input and gives you another function as output. Operators are often used to construct differential equations (also, they often involve taking the derivative of the function, if you know what that is). You get an equation like this: if A is an operator, f(x) is an unknown function and g(x) is a known function, then
A(f(x)) = g(x)
is an equation. Often, one also specifies the values of f(x) at the boundary. We want to find the solution, i e figure out what kind of function f(x) is.
Hopefully these sentences will make more sense now: If an operator has a particular regularity, what regularity will the solution have? How does the solution behave at the boundary?
So what do you use these things for? Well, partial differential equations have lots of applications. For example, you can think of heat as a function of three space variables and one time variable. We use a particular point in space and time as the input, and the heat function tells us the temperature at that point. We can specify the temperature in a room at a specific time, and also specify what the walls do (maybe they are insulating?). This is equivalent to specifying the values of the heat function at the boundary. Then, solving the heat equation is the same as figuring out how the temperature inside the room changes as time passes.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-13 12:33 am (UTC)(Actually, you did help me get what the limits limit.)
In my experience, most math graduate students must work as teaching assistants while they're working on their PhDs — is that the case for you?
However, on that far-off day when you're assimilated by the tsunami of SGA fandom, you'll be exceptionally well-equipped to write math!fic.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-13 10:18 am (UTC)Yeah, I worked as a TA when I worked on my Ph D. I actually got my Ph D two years ago, and now I'm have no teaching at all for a while. It's nice to be able to concentrate just on research, although I do like teaching as well.
SGA will never assimilate me! : P
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-13 09:53 pm (UTC)Unrelated: Hi, I'm Q, I'm adding you :D? Because due South, yay, and also Sweden, hey, that's where I am! XD
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-13 10:14 pm (UTC)Och det är alltid svårt att veta om man ska skriva på svenska eller engelska. : )
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-13 10:26 pm (UTC)Det är ju det, haha. Det spelar verkligen ingen roll för mig egentligen, men jag brukar utgå från att använda engelska inom fandom.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-14 10:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 08:19 pm (UTC):P
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 08:42 pm (UTC):P
The second most common response is "You must be so smart."
And hee, I like your icon.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 08:51 pm (UTC)The common response to biochemistry is "does it have anything to do with cancer?" XD
Anyway, my next thought after jokes about "putting functions in your functions so you can derive while you derive" (silly joke involving MTV shows) is what have you found, at all? How does the character of the operator influence the functions? If, you know, that can be explained to me, who has regressed to the most basic algebra imaginable after 6ish years of avoiding calculus. Analogies are my friend. :D
Edit edit...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 08:59 pm (UTC)what have you found, at all? How does the character of the operator influence the functions?
Hmm, well. I wouldn't say I have found anything, here. I mean, what I do is one tiny piece of a huge puzzle that a lot of people have worked with for centuries. But in general, I guess you could say that the higher the regularity of the operator, the higher the regularity of the solution.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:19 pm (UTC)(Then there is the perennial: "Explain to me why we don't have a cure for X yet." I don't know! Am not expert in X causation. Also I can't fully explain your doctor's reasoning because I am not any kind of clinician and I deal with molecules, not people.)
And small pieces of giant mathematical puzzles are guaranteed to blow my tiny mind. It is particular operators and functions you look at, yes? Ones that are not as well characterized by all those other people working on related problems? (Which, hey, there goes all of research science. "Hey! You didn't explain that one!")
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:29 pm (UTC)Yes. It's like "okay, so someone showed this theorem for these particular operators. Maybe I can prove the same thing for these other operators? Or maybe I will have to modify the theorem?"
But isn't it the same thing for you? I mean, you must also be working with some small piece of a biochemical puzzle, right?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:55 pm (UTC)The advent of whole genome sequencing has done more wonders in a decade for molecular biology than was managed in the half century before. I mean, you used to be able to base a PhD on the sequencing and characterization of one gene. You could make a carerr out of splicing together a single vector. Now we've got master's students screening, like, the entire human transcriptome for things. Crazytown.
I'm in the details end, myself, working on fiddly bits of structural biology. Very much a "small part of a big picture" thing. I'm looking at the biogenesis of a very complicated macromolecule by knocking out one accessory factor. Fiddly. :D
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:04 pm (UTC)Oooh, explain this for liberal arts major pls.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 11:12 pm (UTC)So, there is something called the central dogma of biology, that is genes (DNA) are transcribed into copies or RNA messages (mRNA) which are then translated into proteins (the translation is done by a big RNA enzyme or ribozyme, which is important later). Proteins are basically the tools the cell uses to do almost everything -- from making more DNA, to producing chemicals and digesting others, infecting hosts. Now, depending on the type of cell, its life cycle, etc. there will be a different repertoire of proteins produced at any given time. This is controlled at all three levels -- by blocking or inducing transcription, blocking or inducing translation, or by modifying the produced protein.
And, proteins being the go-to for most everything, the things that modulate gene expression tend to be effector proteins -- inducers, repressors, enzymes that digest RNA or proteins, etc. Insulin is a protein. Hemoglobin is a protein. Their production is controlled by other proteins. You get the idea. For a very long time, one assumed that if a modification or modulation was happening, it was about how proteins were affecting the gene or the message or the product.
But! In genomes there are many little bits of DNA that are transcribed into short RNAs that do not go on to be translated into proteins, or that are trimmed off of larger pieces. So if it's not a message, why is the cell wasting time and energy producing these little bits? The way you test the utility of anything in biology is by knock-out -- removing it and seeing what happens. Someone deleted these "extras"... and the result was that in some cases crazy things happened to the progression of the cell's life cycle and processes, even though no protein-encoding gene had been affected.
It turned out that the cell can control the RNA messages with other RNAs -- complementary bits and pieces that can block translation of proteins because the stick to essential parts of the messenger RNA. Since then they have discovered whole systems of small interfering RNAs, microRNA, satelliteRNA and other things that are manipulating processes in ways we didn't even know about. It's turned out to be very, very important for understanding developmental biology, and is even useful clinically.
Also it helps explain and confirm some of the ideas about the recursive issues in cell biology (which came first, DNA or protein?) Turns out RNA, which was always sort of thought as an adaptor between DNA and proteins, may be the precusor molecule. (Look up "RNA World Hypothesis" for good time).
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 11:31 pm (UTC)My take on it is it's like the work of the early anatomists -- knowing more about the physiology of bacteria is the goal itself... I can hardly tell what it will mean before I sort out how it works!)
... of course, I won't begin my most important experiment until the New Year, so ask me how cool I think it is then. :P
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 09:26 am (UTC)Ahaha. Yes, this is true in math as well--it's easier to get grant money for applied math than for pure math.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:49 pm (UTC)I will try to remember this if I ever meet a mathematician or biochemist. No mentioning cancer; check!
The most common response to archaeology is "How about those Romans, eh?" or "Will you help me with my family tree?". Also, "Oh, do you dig up dinosaurs?"
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 11:33 pm (UTC)Sadly, I study bacterial physiology. Bacteria do not get cancer. >.>
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:03 pm (UTC)I actually really liked algebra and chemistry, a lot. I liked the gram-to-mole problems. I found it really satisfying to work them out.
Math fascinates me because it's a language, you know? One I don't really get, because I still can't divide decimals (::cries:: it's so confusing!) but I love to see how people use it and what they do with it and how it relates to stuff. Eeee!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 08:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:24 pm (UTC)Well, some functions behave nicely (= have high regularity) everywhere they are defined, but they are fucked up at the actual boundary. For example, the function
f(x) = 1/x
works fine if x is larger than 0, but once you reach zero, it's not defined (because you can't divide by zero). And actually, when you get close to zero, this happens:
f(0.1) = 10
f(0.01) = 100
f(0.001) = 1000
It kind of "blows up" and approaches infinity. So if we have a solution to a differential equation, we often want to make sure that things like these don't happen. Under certain conditions, we might be able to prove that the function behaves nicely on the actual boundary (that is, it's defined on the boundary and has a high regularity there).
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:42 pm (UTC)Or are you looking at it from the other direction... here is a function that behaves like so with these boundaries. What are the uses? Or are you even at the application level? Are you working in fundamental question country?
How are the boundaries defined? Do they sort of define themselves naturally as you work out how the function goes, or do you define them yourself? Like, okay, I can't divide by zero, so I decide that people cannot put things less than 1 into the function f(x) = 1/x. Or nothing but integers >0 or whatever. So it is a well-behaved function, but I made it that way by saying myself what values are not allowed.
... I may not be thinking about this rightly at all. :D?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:01 pm (UTC)I am not making models, so I don't actually know much about making these things work in applications--I'm doing pure math. Basically, in the stuff I do, we try to allow for as broad a class of boundaries as we can, so that it's applicable to as many types of problems as possible. In a specific problem, boundaries can be really concrete--like, they can be given by the walls of a room or something.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 11:40 pm (UTC)Wheee, pure math. That is a bogglement to me indeed, since at the end of the day biology is very much about concrete things. Molecules are on the tiny end, and you have to make up ways to represent them, but they are not abstract. *g*
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:00 pm (UTC)......!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 11:51 pm (UTC)My favourite thing about the field of Mathematics is the large number of mathematicians that lived bizarrely tragic lives before dying in some equally bizarre way. Like Évariste Galois; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois .
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 09:33 am (UTC)I hope I don't have a tragic life and die in a bizarre way. Actually, at my math department in Göteborg there were a bunch of musically inclined people who wrote a musical about Galois' life and then performed it. It was before my time there, though, so I didn't get to see it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:55 pm (UTC)I was totally with you up until the meta-function/operator, but I read that out loud and that helped a lot, so I now get it! Mostly! You figure out equations dealing with functions, where the first function has perimeters (boundaries) and you figure out what the solution (which is another function?) is, and then how the regularity of the function changes. Is that the solution!function that changes? Or the first one? Like:
A(f(x)) = g(x)
You're looking for f(x), y? So when you want the regularity, do you want the regularity of that function? Or do you play that function (the solution!function) to see how it affects g(x)? Or vice versa? :D?
Then, solving the heat equation is the same as figuring out how the temperature inside the room changes as time passes.
Oh! Oh! I get that. Thank you. The example is what always does it for me. So the temperature= f(x) and the passing of time is the thing with the regularity? :D?
This is neat! Confusing to my totally words-based, visual brain, but I like it!! What kind of things are you working on? Can you say or is it SECRET? Eeee!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:58 pm (UTC)Math could be complicated EXTREMELY by the addition of phrases like y/y? and :D! Notation all over the place...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 09:59 pm (UTC)MAN I WISH THAT WAS REALLY MY JOB.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:15 pm (UTC)You're looking for f(x), y? So when you want the regularity, do you want the regularity of that function?
Yes, that's it. g(x) is a fixed function (but the regularity of that function can also affect the regularity of f(x)).
So the temperature= f(x) and the passing of time is the thing with the regularity? :D?
Well, kind of. Actually, the temperature = f(x,y,z,t). It's a function of four variables, where the last one is time, and one is interested in the regularity of that function in all four variables, not just in the time variable.
What kind of things are you working on? Can you say or is it SECRET? Eeee!
No, it's not secret. It's just probably incomprehensible to people who haven't taken several years of math. : (
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-10 10:44 pm (UTC)I had to take a couple of statistics classes at uni; the sheer volume of information you get out of an archaeological dig sort of makes some kind of statistical analysis necessary, otherwise it's pure guess work. We did ... analysis of variance, I think? And the Mann-Whitney test. I'm afraid I've forgotten most of it already. :-/
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 09:41 am (UTC)Yes, that's it!
And yeah, one tends to forget the stuff that one is not actively using. I took maybe a semester of probability and statistics, but I've forgotten most of it, too, because I never use it.
I suppose my question to an archaeologist would be "do you get to do fun fieldwork and actually dig up cool stuff, or is it mostly indoors lab work?" Uh, I suppose this mostly reveals my opinion that outdoors fieldwork = fun, and lab work = boring. *g*
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 12:43 pm (UTC)Well, that's often true! Although if it's pouring with raining then sometimes you can be pretty glad to be in the lab.
Most archaeologists specialise in a particular kind of evidence; ceramics, animal remains, human remains, metallurgy, plant remains, worked flint, you get the idea. So they might go out on site if their expertise is needed, or they might get the material sent to the lab to do research on it as a follow up to the dig, or they might have a research project going re-analysing old materials. New theories have to be tested on the evidence that's already on record as well as new stuff coming out of the ground.
This is where museums are such a necessary part of archaeology, because everything that's dug has to be properly curated by someone who knows what they're doing. Being able to display it for the public is a side benefit to archaeologists; although naturally, that's where the money comes from.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 02:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-11 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-18 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 08:51 pm (UTC)You could try reading popular science books about math, maybe? For example, I'm pretty fond of "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. Then you wouldn't have to do any actual calculating, but could just read about cool stuff. I mean, math is a specialty, and not everyone needs to know how to do it, except for the basic stuff like plus and minus and percentages that you need in daily life.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 10:50 pm (UTC)My sister read this book, and really liked it. It definitely is going on my list. And I haven't given up on learning, either. I think I just have to figure out how to learn in a way that might be different from other ways. I mean, blind kids earn to read just as well and with just as much understanding as a sighted ones; they just do it a different way. It's the same kind of idea, right? :)
ETA: What you're thinking about is probably dyscalculia (http://www.dyscalculia.org/symptoms.html), which, yeah, is probably what I have (I was never given a specific diagnosis beyond the basic "LD"). I fit the majority of the symptoms (although some of those symptoms are also present in ADD, something else I have). The brain, whee! Fun place.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-20 11:57 am (UTC)It could maybe be a help that you're not in school anymore and now you're doing it for fun, not because you have to? Because we all know it's not as much fun to do stuff someone else is making us do...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-20 05:04 pm (UTC)I'm hoping to go back to school in the spring and will have to take two semesters of Chemistry, which is math intensive. I have the option of doing an IEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualized_Education_Program), I'm pretty sure, but I don't know if I want to end up being labeled. We shell see. :)