Crunching the Numbers on Energy Efficiency

This fall and winter, I’ve been making some improvements around the house. I’ve gotten some new furniture, added several new houseplants, and added a handrail to the uneven front steps. The big project now is energy efficiency. 

Credit: Jonathan Cohen, Flickr. CC BY-NC 2.0

It’s a bit overwhelming to figure out which energy upgrades are the most important and most effective. It can be hard to find breakdowns of the energy, environmental, and cost impact of different choices. Companies are happy to put information about my electric bill and current home energy profile into spreadsheets and spit out energy savings numbers, but I want to see the nuts and bolts. What were their assumptions and how do different numbers or assumptions affect the output?

As I’ve tried to sort the facts from the sales pitches, I’ve found several blogs with helpful information. I’m writing about them now not just because I have energy efficiency recommendations coming out of my ears but also because it’s the beginning of the year, a good time to think about the improvements we want to make in our lives. If addressing your energy consumption is one of your goals for the coming year, these blogs have some facts, figures, and tips that might help. They’re a little less obviously mathematical than most of our recommendations, but deep down, they’re full of arithmetic, statistics, and fluid dynamics.

As I started my quest for reliable energy information, in a fog of recommendations about windows, weather stripping, and insulation, I stumbled on the blog of the Energy Institute at Haas, a joint program of the Haas School of Business at Berkeley and the UC Energy Institute. It covers a lot of different topics at the intersection of the environment and economics.

Take light bulbs. Growing up, my parents were early adopters of fluorescent/CFLs, so I’ve always defaulted to getting energy-efficient bulbs. In recent years, LEDs have supplanted CFLs as the superior energy-efficient lightbulb and may be responsible for the recent slight decline in household electricity usage in the US. When I buy a lamp, I generally buy an energy-efficient lightbulb to put in it. But the previous owners of our home didn’t have the same approach. When we moved in, there were dozens of incandescents in the fixtures. As they’ve gone out, I’ve replaced them with LED bulbs, but according to this post, I should think about throwing away those perfectly functional energy hogs and replacing them all now. Well, maybe. It turns out that in the parts of the house where I use the lights the most (and therefore switching to LEDs would do the most good), the old incandescents have already burned out and been replaced. But the post has equipped me to run the numbers for the remaining bulbs and decide whether to replace them now or later.

The most expensive decision we’re looking at right now is solar. Will the unshaded part of our roof, which faces east, generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile? What are the energy and financial risks and rewards? If we go for it, should we install it while there are still federal and state tax incentives or wait a few years, assuming technology will improve? Digging into their archives for posts about solar hasn’t exactly made the decision easier. In fact, it’s probably made it more difficult by giving me even more information to consider! As a side note, I’m glad I’m not the only one who is frustrated with the way solar companies tend to present financial savings estimates.

Although I found the blog looking for answers to my own particular questions about my own particular home, the blog has articles that questions about energy policies at a much larger scale. I was particularly interested in this post about making energy improvement programs more fair and this one about whether climate change will have an overall impact of increasing or decreasing energy consumption in the US. In other words, how does the reduced cold days vs. increased hot days cage match turn out?

After finding the Haas blog so helpful, I decided to look for more energy efficiency blogs to help me answer other lingering questions. I knew I had found a keeper when I ended up on a series about building science and the laws of thermodynamics at the Energy Vanguard blog. I also consulted the Energy Auditing Blog after our home energy audit to get information about some of the products and problems our auditor had pointed out. The blogs at Green Building Advisor are good, too, though some posts are behind a paywall. I was particularly interested in the posts at Energy Vanguard and Green Building Advisor about the global warming potential of insulation itself, as we are adding some insulation to the house and would prefer to have a net positive impact on the environment.

Posted in Applied Math | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Crunching the Numbers on Energy Efficiency

Best and Worst of 2017

New Year’s Eve, that magical night in the long cold dark of winter when we reflect on the best and worst of the year gone by. Image via Flickrcc @shaireproductions.com

As this year comes careening to a screeching halt, it’s time once again for that annual tradition of the best and worst of the year…in math. And what a year it’s been! Where to begin? Let’s start with the good stuff.

The Best of 2017

The movie Hidden Figures (based on the book Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly), about role of the african american lady mathematicians in space travel, was a huge and exciting success. The movie is fantastic, and may even pass some of 538’s new and improved spins on the classic Bechdel Test.

There has also been a bunch of fun stuff going on in the computer science realm this year. An unknown blogger turned hero stopped a multinational terrorist conglomerate in the WannaCry episode, neural networks have been getting more sophisticated and we’ve started to get a better understanding of the apparent bottlenecks, and cryptocurrency and the blockchain is currently the coolest thing to blab about at holiday parties. Although, full disclosure, I’m writing this on Dec. 22 and as of this morning Bitcoin is down 30$% from its all-time high, so cryptocurrency may be full-on milkshake ducked by the time you read this.

In very (very) recent news, it looks like some doubt has been cast on the famed Navier Stokes equations. Physicists use the equations to model fluid flows but mathematicians have long been in search of a rigorous proof of (or counterexample to) the equations. As reported by Kevin Hartnett in Quanta, it looks like a group out of Princeton has shown that under certain conditions the Navier Stokes equations return rubbish. This is a compelling development. Incidentally, these equations were also a critical plot point in the mathematical blockbuster Gifted that also came out this year.

Finally, one of my personal favorites in math writing this year was Mathematics For Human Flourishing, written Francis Su on his blog The Mathematical Yawp. It was, and is, an important and thoughtful reminder as we bring this tumultuous year to a close. Which brings us to…

The Worst of 2017

The situation in Washington DC has continued to be the worst. Karen Saxe, who writes the AMS blog Capital Currents has done a great job keeping us abreast of how changes in Washington will affect mathematicians. Most recently, how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will affect graduate students (read: badly), and the current climate of federal funding for mathematics (read: doomed).

In that vein, the Simons Foundation updated their eligibility requirements this year for their Collaborative Travel Grant. Now it seems that only tenure stream faculty at institutions granting PhDs in mathematics are eligible to apply. This is really bad for the great many of us who work at institutions that grant many PhDs in fields *other* than math and therefore are eligible neither for Simons funding, nor for NSF Research at Undergraduate Institution funding. Let’s fix that, eh?

This year saw the passing of several notable mathematicians, including Maryam Mirzakhani, the first female Fields Medalist, and Fields Medalist Vladimir Voevodsky.

And now, as I’ve done for many years, I’ll close with an update on Mochizuki’s claimed proof of the ABC conjecture. I’ve been wrestling with whether to put this in the best or worst subheading, but here is where the hammer dropped. It looks like Mochizuki’s proof is poised to be published in the Publications of the RIMS. In a persuasively written post on his blog Persiflage, Frank Calegari argues that the ABC conjecture has (still) not been proved. The current state of things with ABC is, as Calgari puts it, “a complete disaster.” Largely, he says, because whether or not the paper is correct it hasn’t gained any clarity in the referee process and it still completely opaque, despite the fact that there was a 300-page summary published by Go Yamashita this year, saving the intrepid reader ~100 pages. Other number theorists disagree. On Facebook, Chris Rasmussen argues that the state of ABC is hardly a disaster, and in fact is no different from the verification of any mathematical breakthrough, it’s simply proceeding at a slower pace.

I’m going to close 2017 of the mind that ABC is still a conjecture. I’ll let you know where I stand next December. If you disagree with me, let me know why @extremefriday. Until then, a happy new year to you and yours. May you find clarity in all of your logical arguments, satisfaction in all of your mathematical endeavors, and grant funding raining from the sky!

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Best and Worst of 2017

News in Numbers and Nurturing Numeracy

My attention span is a little short right now. There’s always the news, of course, but the lack of daylight around the end of the year gives me a weird combination of restlessness and lethargy. That’s why one of my favorite columns in my blog feed right now is Significant Digits from FiveThirtyEight. Every weekday, Walter Hickey rounds up a few numbers from the news. FiveThirtyEight is well-known for its data-driven reporting about sports, politics, health, and pop culture, and I highly recommend their multi-article in-depth reports. (The series on gun deaths was particularly compelling, and I’m looking forward to reading and listening to their work on gerrymandering.)

Credit: Jorge Franganillo, via Flickr.

Significant Digits boils everything down to bite-sized nuggets of numbers, often with a splash of humor. I can almost ignore the occasional sponsored content and the fact that the numbers are listed in increasing order, but he treats percentages as 100 times their value. (That is, 85% is filed under 85, not 0.85. Am I pedantic? Very well then I am pedantic.)

Numbers by themselves can do as much to obscure as to clarify. A million is a lot. But is raising or lowering the national debt by a million dollars a lot? Does a disease with a million sufferers affect a lot of people? I appreciate the fact that Significant Digits tries to contextualize the numbers and links to longer news stories so people who want to can get a more complete picture.

I think of myself as a fairly numerate news consumer. When I read numbers in the news, I try to roll them around in my head a little to put them into context. A million dollars added to the US national debt is $0.30 per person or on the order of magnitude of 0.00001% of the current national debt. I like to play with Fermi problems, as I’ve written about here before. So it was especially hard on my ego when I visited math teacher Fawn Nguyen’s website Between 2 Numbers and found out I was out of my depth trying to answer a lot of the questions. How many grains of sand does it take to cover LA to the depth of a foot? I have no idea. I guess I have some work to do to catch up to her students!

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , | Comments Off on News in Numbers and Nurturing Numeracy

The Blockchain Party

Image via Flicker CC, Peter Shanks.

Maybe you think bitcoin is silly, maybe you think it’s dangerous and socially irresponsible, maybe you’re a bitcoin millionaire (in which case, hi), or maybe you are desperate to join the blockchain party. Whatever your stance, it seems that you can’t escape bitcoin and the blockchain these days. And yet it feels like every time I try to understand it, I’m treated to some mumbly semi-confused version of the truth.

So in case you’re confused, here’s a little bit about the math behind bitcoin. Transactions in the bitcoin (or generally the cryptocurrency) marketplace are made very secure by a public ledger system called the blockchain. This works by using something called the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm. The blog The Mathematical Investor gives a really thorough rundown of the algorithm, but for anyone with a passing knowledge of elliptic curves, I’ll just mention that it’s related to the the modular arithmetic on the group structure of points on an elliptic curve. The point of the blockchain is that it acts as a decentralized digital public record of all bitcoin transactions and since its continually updated and there’s no master version, it’s thought to be unhackable. In theory this means it should be impossible for people to steal bitcoins, spend the same bitcoin twice, or just invent bitcoins out of thin air.

New blocks in the chain are created when miners solve certain computationally laborious but not particularly difficult hash functions. The Programster’s Blog gives an easy to digest explainer on hash functions and bitcoins. Essentially, the bounty for solving one of the hash functions is 25 bitcoins and a new block in the chain with your name on it. To solve the function you can’t do too much better than random guessing, so solving any particular one might take millions or billions of tries. This is why miners set up giant farms of CPUs cranking away at these problems all day until they hit a solution.

So basically there are two ways to get bitcoins and get yourself onto the blockchain ledger: you can mine them, or you can buy them. And mining them, in principle, is not illegal or bad any more than mining for gold or diamonds is illegal or bad. But much like diamond mining, it’s not without deeply troubling consequences.

The big problem that’s been hot in the news in the past week is the tremendous environmental cost of mining bitcoins. Mining for bitcoins uses tons of electricity – by some estimates more energy than the entire country of Ireland annually – and that is having a big global effect. Countries with cheap (or government subsidized) energy are sucking up electricity to the point of causing rolling blackouts. Some suggest that at the current rate bitcoin mining is poised to eat up more electricity than is available on planet earth by the year 2020. This is bad news for anyone interested in quitting fossil fuels and advocating for responsible energy usage.

It seems pretty clear that for any individual trying to mine bitcoins at home, there is no way you can make more money that you’re spending on electricity. This inspired one enterprising miner to rig up a mining operation in his Tesla with the goal of stealing free electricity from Tesla charging stations. One charity organization trying to raise money to help people pay bail – on its face a worthwhile charity – is advocating mining cryptocurrencies on the servers at your corporate day job to donate. You know, really stick it to the man. And the same charity recently doubled down and suggest that you use the electricity and networks at your local evil gentrifying coffee shop to mine for charitable cryptocurrency.

There has even been speculation about rich regime type North Koreans burning coal to mine bitcoins that they use to buy expensive sneakers. Truly the stuff of dystopian science fiction!

It’s crazy. I’m totally into it. And I just know there’s got to be a better way.

Posted in Current Events, Mathematics and Computing | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Unsolved Problems in Math Class

Credit: Randall Munroe. CC BY-NC 2.5

A few years ago, I directed a high school summer math program. Half the day was devoted to exploring the delights of modular arithmetic—we ended the summer with a cake decorated with Fermat’s Little theorem!—and half to learning to program in Python, with number theory questions as motivation. One Friday afternoon, we included these questions in the programming part of the day.

Goldbach conjecture: Any even number larger than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers.

  • Is there a counterexample to this conjecture for an even number less than 10,000
  • Prove this conjecture.

Collatz conjecture: Choose some number a0.
Define an by a
n=3an-1+1 if an-1 is odd or an-1/2 if an-1 is even.
Then an will be 1 for some n.

  • Is there a counterexample to this conjecture for a0<10,000?
  • Prove this conjecture.

Perhaps it was a tiny bit evil to give these longstanding open problems to high school students without warning them, but it was a lot of fun to watch them come up with programs to search for counterexamples and brainstorm about ways of approaching the proofs. (And yes, we did eventually tell them the questions were still open. We didn’t want to ruin their weekends completely!)

Math teachers Annie Perkins and Sam Shah have written about the benefits of exposing kids to advanced math concepts early rather than waiting until they’ve mastered all the easy stuff. If you too would like to torture your students kindle your students’ curiosity and challenge their intuition, with unsolved math problems, there are lots of places to go for inspiration.

The MathPickle site (tagline: “Put your students in a pickle!”) has puzzles organized by grade level, board game suggestions, and a blog. I’ve seen this site mentioned in a few places, including a discussion on Dan Meyer’s blog.

Lior Patcher has a list of suggestions for how to use unsolved problems in K-12 classrooms at his computational biology blog Bits of DNA. I was especially excited to see a question involving Namibia’s mysterious “fairy circles,” circular patches of bare ground surrounded by vegetation. It’s nice to see some modeling and applied math get some love there. Why should number theory have all the fun?

Mike Lawler often discusses advanced and unsolved problems with his kids, and the Collatz conjecture has made several appearances on his blog. In his most recent post on the topic, his kids make music with John Conway’s “amusical” variation of the problem. (As a violist, I’m delighted that one of them does so in alto clef!)

Ben Braun writes about using unsolved problems in his college math classes at the AMS math education blog On Teaching and Learning Mathematics. He highlights some of the benefits for his students, including mindset shifts away from answer-getting and toward seeing failure as part of mathematical productivity.

It goes without saying that your students probably won’t solve the Goldbach conjecture or get a definitive answer about fairy circles in one or two class periods, but you never know. Some open problems might end up being easy to solve, or at least easier than we might think. The Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP blog has a fun post about open problems with short solutions.

Posted in Math Education | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Just In Time For The Holidays

When it comes time to breaking bread on the holidays, just remember that 58% of people in the room is more than half the people in the room. Image via Flickr CC Satya Murthy.

Well, I’ve done you a favor and shielded you from these juicy mathematical and political morsels until after Thanksgiving. A recent NPR/PBSNewshour/Marist poll showed that 58% of people were not looking forward to discussing politics at their holiday table, while 31% said they were looking forward to it. Now, I know this isn’t really how these things work, but my preferred reading of this is the following: if you are one of the 31% who is excited to talk about politics while eating your turkey, look to your left, and look to your right. Neither of those people want to talk to you.

So I’ve spared you from being that guy. But spare no more! I have some mathematical and political news I want to talk about!

Nate Silver, editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight finished his 11 part series The Real Story of 2016, examining the misunderstood polling, flawed mathematical modeling, biased human intuition, and journalistic errors that went into the coverage and execution of the 2016 election. I just finally read through the whole thing today and it is an eye-opening interrogation of the intersection of math and media. Silver gives a thorough analysis of what went wrong in the Electoral College math for Clinton and what went right for Trump.

In part VII, Clinton’s Groundgame Didn’t Cost Her The Election, Silver provides some compelling data from after-the-fact regression analysis to point out the unavoidable importance of demographics in election outcomes. We can pick apart the ground strategies and die speculating that if-only-she’d-gone-to-Wisconsin, but Silver makes a pretty clear case that it would have made almost no difference.

In the final installment, The Media Has A Probability Problem, Silver talks about how easy it is for journalists and consumers to misinterpret probabilities. If one candidate has an 85% chance of winning, that just means that the modelers have spun out all likely scenarios and in 85% of possible scenarios the candidate will win. Which means she still loses in 15% of them. And this is totally different from polling at 85. And we mathematicians obviously get that, but I think when people glance at infographics those numbers can be quickly and easily conflated and internalized in the wrong way.

Understanding what numbers mean and why they work is so important and sometimes so difficult.

Since we’re already in the political mode, if you haven’t read it yet, I implore you to go read Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction. It’s a trove of infuriating examples of data being used and abused to the detriment of democracy and the citizens of the United States. If you can’t see yourself reading an entire book in the next few weeks (I know, it gets hectic, but come on, treat yo self) then at least read O’Neil’s recent New York Times oped about the looming specter of big data and algorithms.

So, I’m sorry I didn’t share this with you sooner so that you could simultaneously dazzle your Aunt TeeTee with your pumpkin pie recipe and all the facts she so desperately craves. The good news is, you now have all of this in your back pocket so that you can be sure to win every conversation you have at every holiday party in the next month.

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Just In Time For The Holidays

Application Advice for Students, Job-Seekers, and Recommendation Letter Writers

I really didn’t know what I was doing when I applied for graduate school, and I am thankful for the assistance of the professors at my undergraduate university who helped me and the luck that got me into a few schools, including one that ended up being a good fit for me. But I could have used more help at all stages of the process.

If you’re in a similar position, Susannah Shoemaker’s posts on the subject for the AMS Graduate Student blog might be useful. In her first post, she suggests starting with some introspection about why you want to go to grad school. I particularly saw myself in that part of the post. She writes, “If I’m being completely honest, I applied to grad school in part because it was a well-defined, familiar path: more schooling (a known quantity), followed by a career in academia, which I imagined would be full of fulfilling teaching interactions and, importantly, blissfully free of business-wear and rigid 9 am start times.” In the second post, she focuses on crafting a good statement of purpose and advocating for yourself once the acceptances start coming in.

A few years later, you may be on the market for an academic job. Zsuzsanna Dancso, who writes the blog Math, Chocolate & Circus has some advice academic job applications and interviews. I appreciated the way she framed her advice. (Also, I kind of want a pizza now.)

I know you’ll probably be applying for a hundred jobs, but this is advice on how to get one of the few you actually want. I’m going to tell you to put in a lot of effort, and you should focus that effort where it counts. When I was applying widely, I had this rule of thumb: if I’d rather have delivered pizza in Toronto, I would not apply. Imagine living in your favourite location working in a boring unremarkable job; this is a thing you are allowed to do. As you’re writing a cover letter for a tenure track position that will make you strictly less happy, remind yourself that it’s ok not to.

It’s not just applicants who can use advice. Sexism in academic letters of recommendation has been a hot topic for several years, but I still hear about sexist letters making their way to the eyeballs of hiring committee members. Recommendation letter writers, you want to avoid embarrassing yourself and hurting applicants’ chances by accidentally writing a sexist letter. The Astrobetter blog has some letter writing advice for avoiding unconscious sexism. There’s also a handy poster (pdf) from the University of Arizona commission on the status of women. This online gender bias calculator will take the content of your letter and point out gendered words to you. It’s a blunt tool, but it should help you fend off some glaring problems. There is some more general advice about writing academic letters from the Science Professor blog and Inside Higher Ed. If you’ve got some recommendation letter writer’s block, Natalia Lukina has a list of words and phrases that might help you get the process flowing.

If you end up staying in academia (by no means the only successful career trajectory; see this post for information about non-academic math jobs), you may one day find yourself with the awesome responsibility of advising students yourself. At the Computational Complexity blog, Lance Fortnow has some advice about advising.

Posted in Issues in Higher Education | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Application Advice for Students, Job-Seekers, and Recommendation Letter Writers

Bees and Bombs

hue strip, courtesy of David Whyte.

His name is Dave, he used to do physics, now he makes GIFs. Dave is known on Twitter as beesandbombs and he has a Tumblr of the same name.

David Whyte studied theoretical physics as an undergraduate at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. He went on to get his PhD in physics, studying foams and soap bubbles. It was at this point that Whyte says he started messing around with math and was really taken by the powerful visualizations in mathematics. On math, Whyte says, “it was the visually accessible courses that grabbed my attention. As soon as I couldn’t understand it visually it eluded my grasp.”

Inspired by the blog dvdp, Whyte decided to take his mathematical visualization game to the next level by making mathematically inspired GIFs. He creates them using an open-source sketchbook software called Processing. The software uses Processing (the language), which is inspired by BASIC and Logo, and is intended to be a first programming language for people at the intersection of visual arts and technology. I’ve never used it myself, but according to Whyte, it was pretty easy to use straight out of the box.

What’s not easy, is using the software to make kickass GIFs. In making his GIFs, Whyte has a few standard tricks he turns to. He says, “find something simple and duplicate it on a grid so that timing depends on placement on the grid. Also offsetting a simple motion based on position.” This week, I’ve been particularly mesmerized by polygon laps, below.

polygon laps, courtesy of David Whyte.

One that he said mathematicians might like to consider is weaving stars, below. It’s all built out of explicit translations and rotations. It may looking like mysterious infinite void, if you look under the hood it’s just linear algebra!

weaving stars, courtesy of David Whyte.

I’ve been looking at Whyte’s GIFs for awhile now, but since I talked to him I’ve started looking at them with a totally different eye. What are the explicit linear transformations that would give me that? And can I ask that on a linear algebra final?

two squares / four triangles. Courtesy of David Whyte

Another of Whyte’s favorite visual tricks is finding clever ways to morph one object into another, like in two squares/four triangles above (which totally makes me think of all the interesting square to triangle disection problems). Whyte says he usually has an idea of what he might want to do, and then he sketches the whole thing out on paper before trying to code it.

You can step up your own GIF game by check out 17 Mathematical GIFs That Are Deeply Soothing by other people. You can follow Whyte on Twitter @beesandbombs and you can be a patron of the arts by supporting him on Patreon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Bees and Bombs

Math Education Researchers Deserve Respect

In what has become sadly routine, right-wing news sites started publishing inflammatory articles about a professor whose work they don’t like about two weeks ago. (I am not linking to their stories in this post because they contribute to this scholar’s harassment.) In this case, it was a math education professor at UIUC, Rochelle Gutiérrez. Her faculty profile begins, “Dr Gutiérrez’ scholarship focuses on equity issues in mathematics education, paying particular attention to how race, class, and language affect teaching and learning.” She is being harassed because in a chapter of a book about math education, she wrote that mathematics teaching can reinforce white supremacy and that math has a level of unearned privilege in society, just like whiteness does.

I understand why some mathematicians have had negative reactions towards these statements. Is she calling us racist? We’re good people! We’re not racists. Math isn’t white. By saying that it is tangled up in whiteness, she’s showing us that she’s the Real Racist! One of my best mathematician friends is black…

If someone wandered into an algebra seminar and said everything in it was wrong because a group doesn’t have to have inverses because any collection of anything is a group, mathematicians wouldn’t take their criticism seriously. They would (kindly, I hope) explain that mathematicians use a particular technical definition for that word and that the person needed to learn a little more about the foundations of the subject before lobbing criticism at seminar speakers.

Most mathematicians do not have much training in education or social science research. We don’t always know the terminology, assumptions, or methods in those fields. It’s arrogant to assume we can swoop in and understand education researchers’ work better than the researchers themselves do, especially when our understanding is based on a few inflammatory news articles. Mathematicians absolutely should participate in discussions about math education research and practices, but we should do so with humility and a willingness to do some background research.

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction about Gutiérrez’ work, what if we (and by we I mostly mean mathematicians who are who are not from racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in math or who feel defensive about the idea of white privilege in math) started with the assumption that she has thought about and studied these questions for a long time and probably isn’t a quack? What if we started by assuming people who study math education know more about it than research mathematicians who don’t study math education, that they, like mathematicians, are experts in their fields? Once we do that, how can we learn more about Gutiérrez’ work and what can we do to help her and other scholars who become the targets of harassment campaigns?

I’m glad you asked! In the weeks since Dr. Gutiérrez became a target, many math and math education bloggers have blogged and tweeted (using the hashtag #IStandWithRochelle) about race and equity in math education, particularly Dr. Gutiérrez’ work. Here are some of the articles I have seen. I urge you to read them with an open mind and, even if you disagree with them in the end, try to contribute to the discussion about these issues without feeding into the harassment machine.

Get up to speed on #IStandWithRochelle with this post from the newly launched Equity Mathematics Education blog, which also shared this statement of support for Dr. Gutiérrez from Deborah Ball, math education researcher and president of the American Education Research Association. At the AMS inclusion/exclusion blog, Brian Katz also wrote about this incident in his post Complicit Function Theorem. (His post includes a link to an earlier i/e post about Gutiérrez’ work.)

Math teachers and math education professors who have been influenced by Dr. Gutiérrez’ work have written in support of her. Jennifer Dao worked with Dr. Gutiérrez starting as an undergraduate and writes, “This is the professor who embraces the beauty of mathematics, strives for equity in mathematics education, and recognizes the politics surrounding the teaching of mathematics.” Jose Vilson reminds us that math was never neutral. Matt Felton-Koestler defines some terms and writes a about math and white privilege in a post on his blog. Trevor Warburton writes that “Dr. Gutiérrez’s influence on my work is without equal” and describes some of his reflections about whiteness in math education and her generosity to him when he was starting his dissertation work in math education.

As I wrote at the top of this post, harassment campaigns like this are becoming more and more common. Inside Higher Ed published an article about how to support academics under attack two years ago, and it is still relevant.

Posted in Math Education | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

A Not Too Mathy Math Blog

Lauren Miller’s favorite number is 23. “I really liked being 23, that was the year I decided to become a mathematician,” Miller told me over burgers and beers in Claremont, California this week. After taking a circuitous route through education that took her through costume design, working as an optician, and eventually landing her in a mathematics program, Miller is now a mathematician, librarian, lady-hacker, and blogger at Life By Number.

Life By Number blogger Lauren Miller, photo courtesy of Lauren Miller.

Life by Number is a blog, in the words of Miller, “for people who find math fun.” Whether that’s the students she’s teaching this semester at Lindenwood University, the great math teachers of the #MTBoS, or her own mother, Miller’s goal is to bring math to the level where people are. “I started writing it for me,” she says, “but then I also want to the share interesting things I’ve found, the amazing literary resources that are out there!”

She covers a range of topics, but working on the staff of the St. Louis Public Library, her book reviews are a particularly unique feature to her blog. Written in a chatty and comfortable style, they make me want to hit the stacks and nestle up to a good mathematical biography. She discusses the relative merits of several children’s books on Ada Lovelace (I know, can you believe there are several of them? I’ve been hanging out in the wrong Dewey decimal numbers) as well as some books on fellow mathematicians.

Miller also has a keen interested in math history. In one post she gives a brief history of the axiom of choice, tracing the AC from Cantor to Cohen. As a mathematician who likes to sweep this sort of thing under the rug all the time, it’s fun to see a glimpse at the drama behind it all. Miller places the axiom of choice in context, she says, viewing it in terms of the main players’ “attitudes towards others as well as in communication standards of the time.” It is fun to trace an idea from 19th century Germany all the way to New Jersey.

I met Miller at a Women In Sage workshop where she’s been working on a project in dynamical systems, a topic she studied while completing her Master’s degree at St. Louis University. Miller has been involved in other initiatives for women in programming, including a partnership with Girls Who Code at the the St. Louis public library where she is the adult research and community outreach coordinator. She’s also participated in — and blogged about! — her experiences in Google’s Summer of Code.

Check out the blog, and let Miller know your favorite number. Mine is 7, which apparently makes me not very unique . I just like that it’s prime, congruent to 3 mod 4, and big but not too big. Also, it was at age 7 that I first decided I wanted to be an engineer and dressed up as one for career day. I wore a sensible knee-length skirt and carried physics books around all day. Some of that came true.

Posted in History of Mathematics, Math Education | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments