As can be surmised, I have been terribly uncreative in choosing a name for this weblog. I liked that Feynman book, and I’ve really been getting more and more interested in mathematics lately.

Yes… it’s another math blog.

On the other hand, a cursory search shows that there aren’t that many blogs that talk about numerical methods or special functions, which are the very parts of mathematics I will be dealing with in this weblog.

I will say in advance that I have no degree of any sort in mathematics; the descriptor “amateur” very much applies. Apart from the courses I have taken at school, I am mostly self-taught. If something I write in this blog lacks the appropriate sophistication, now you know why. ;) (I would very much appreciate being educated in new stuff, though.)

Still, I’m hoping some of the stuff I’ve been playing around with might be useful to other people, or at the very least make them think.

This would be a good time to end this christening entry. :) Happy trails!

\Jan

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 4:35 pm and is filed under Site-Related. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

4 Responses to With concomitant apologies to Feynman

That’s odd. Whenever I tried starting blogs as a (younger) kid I always labored a couple hours first over the design before I wrote anything. Lots of off-the-cuff math/sci bloggers seem to do the opposite!

Also, I have to ask: did you happen to go to Wikipedia after a Lambert W discussion, try looking up a certain integral for 1/(1+W(1)), then wind up editing the relevant m.se question looking for a proof? Because barring the edit that’s exactly what I did around the same time you edited it… (Additionally, I sent an email to both the cited professor and to the MW team for a reference.)

1. I labored over the design for an old(er) blog of mine, but I’ve somehow found that it takes stamina to wear both the “blogger” and “designer” hats. I guess this place could be prettier, but I haven’t really found the time to devote myself to that. :)

2. Blast, you’ve figured my nefarious scheme! Well actually, except for the “go to Wikipedia” part, everything else that you’ve said is entirely accurate. From the accounts I’ve seen, this was one of those integrals whose values were first found numerically and then “recognized” with PSLQ before a rigorous proof for it was done. It’s great that you e-mailed Adamchik; hopefully he is more forthcoming.

You might want to take a look at Fredrik Johansson’s blog, where he talks about developing mpmath

Thanks for the link, I’ll have a look. :)

That’s odd. Whenever I tried starting blogs as a (younger) kid I always labored a couple hours first over the design before I wrote anything. Lots of off-the-cuff math/sci bloggers seem to do the opposite!

Also, I have to ask: did you happen to go to Wikipedia after a Lambert W discussion, try looking up a certain integral for 1/(1+W(1)), then wind up editing the relevant m.se question looking for a proof? Because barring the edit that’s exactly what I did around the same time you edited it… (Additionally, I sent an email to both the cited professor and to the MW team for a reference.)

1. I labored over the design for an old(er) blog of mine, but I’ve somehow found that it takes stamina to wear both the “blogger” and “designer” hats. I guess this place could be prettier, but I haven’t really found the time to devote myself to that. :)

2. Blast, you’ve figured my nefarious scheme! Well actually, except for the “go to Wikipedia” part, everything else that you’ve said is entirely accurate. From the accounts I’ve seen, this was one of those integrals whose values were first found numerically and then “recognized” with PSLQ before a rigorous proof for it was done. It’s great that you e-mailed Adamchik; hopefully he is more forthcoming.