At least two 2-associahedra, QFT and the importance of taking a bird’s eye view

A useful idea to study an object is, it turns out, not to just consider the object but an entire space of objects like it. Consider, for instance, the situation in which you want to simplify an object to one you understand (like in the solution of the Poincaré conjecture) or when the space is naturally evolving over time (like spacetime): in this case, it is often easier to understand the space of spaces, rather than the space itself, as difficulties like singularities can vanish once you have taken a broader, bird’s eye view.

I want to discuss a specific case of this, based on a great talk Daria Poliakova gave in our seminar. If you don’t like it, well…

Continue reading

Angles, gherkins, polytopes and a sociological experiment

Let me start by admitting that this blog is a social experiment to see how long people take to ask me “what the fuck?” (I am kidding)

(seriously though, I am always a bit of chaos. Nothing out of the ordinary, though admittedly a bit sick and depressed at the moment. Thank you and all the love for caring y’all. Love you all 😉 )

Now, on to the other stuff: At some point in my life, I was doing my PhD and being an all around useless student (I spent most of my office computer hours watching Game of Thrones and Gossip Girl; this is not to say I did not work, but I usually cannot sit in an office chair and work. I paced around outside. Honestly I feel most time was wasted because I was anxious about seeming to work and ending up watching series rather than going out and thinking my own way), my advisor PhD Günter Ziegler and I looked at a gherkin and said: this is going to make a fine math paper. Anyway, tonight I was visited by three ghosts, and they told me a tale.

Continue reading

I am failing most of the time (or: ideas are better than solutions)

Recently, I asked two of my students/postdocs what they were working on. One answered, when referring to a paper we discussed together, that

“My brain is burning, melting, and hurting after day 1 of acquaintance with xxx, but it’s a really beautiful thing. Still need to play with examples to understand things better (xxx), but what a way to do induction, omg!”

which, you know, is the thing you want to hear. The second answered that he had an idea for an old conjecture that many people had been working on, essentially since the inception of the field..

I said ok (sceptically).

He told me the idea.

And suddenly it seemed possible.

Like all of a sudden you see the mountaintop in the distance, and see the real possibility of scaling it. While I will not spoiler on whether it works, I should say that this is the moment I love. Not the solution, not the feeling of being done (honestly that lasts a second, and is kind of disappointing when it is over) it is the idea I love. The moment that something goes from “impossible” to “maybe”.

And even just maybe. Most of the time, that fails. Even in the area I am supposed to be expert in, it is at least 90 percent failure. But I love the trying part, the idea part still. Not only because it leads to a solution, but because going from impossible to possible is a huge step. And you kind of owe it to the idea to try it. Because how else do you know it is worth it.

Cute monsters in the lower left corner by Titian

I don’t believe in functioning

I am a bit depressed. Probably an understatement.

I honestly am most of the time. Not as severely as others, probably, but that really should not matter. One can hardly compare in these matters.

What one can compare is, probably, the strategies of dealing with it. I often hear that one should work through it, and that just sitting down, doing your work and dealing with it helps. Or take a vacation and then come back, functioning.

But for myself, I don’t believe in functioning. I believe that the heart of every depression and anxiety is a core pattern that has to be identified and understood. And even that might not be the end. And that often needs time and thought and another person to talk to.

So that is my idea, I would guess. The problem needs logic (in the sense of analyzing the issue) and kindness (in the sense that the person needs time and warmth).

In the first aspect, it is not unlike a scientific problem. To get to the root of the issue requires making a hypothesis, testing it, discarding it. Going back to the logic of what is there that affects you, and slowly working yourself to the core issue of the problem. Just like with scientific problems, or any other (Hello Dr. House) you might have a process that helps you go through that. Whether that is writing it down, or needing another person to reflect. Just like any problem, that is often hard. Compounded here with additionally the issue that you might be in pain when doing it.

My personal go to is, to overstretch a metaphor, to find a transcendental point. To step outside from everything, and one by one add assumptions again until what pains me is found. As opposed to the process of restriction, where one closes out influences (i.e; look at simple examples first) I look at everything and try to find out the things making it tick. Either way, that process takes time.

And as with every other problem, take whatever route you need.

But I believe a core issue is there somewhere.

The secondary point is often more difficult. One needs a safety net, some time and patience. One needs a warm home while working through that issue, and that is not always the easiest. One needs the resources one needs. Try to find that place for yourself, if you are in need. And, more importantly, if you are in a position where you can give the resources, give them.

That is the somewhat asinine point of this stupid text: it feels like putting the responsibility on the person in need. It is not, of course. But the person in need is often the first person to read this.

And then, if you find that issue? Then one can try to deal with it. Sometimes in can be resolved. Sometimes it cannot. But one can live with it. However, just like you probably have that mole checked out, it is better to know the issue than to ignore it. After all, it is better to actually find out if that leg can be saved first before you write it off. And after that, you can start to cope.

Anyway, that’s my way. What’s yours?

Vampire/Love and Pain by Munch




The ballad of Max the melon

Messing around with OpenAI

Having a sick day, messing around with the OpenAI chatbot while enjoying soup.

Do you know who Mikhail Gromov is?

Yes, Mikhail Gromov is a Russian mathematician known for his work in geometry and topology. He was awarded the Fields Medal in 2010 for his contributions to the field of geometry, including his work on the structure of manifolds and the theory of groups of polynomial growth. He is currently a professor at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France.

Do you know who Karim Adiprasito is?

Yes, Karim Adiprasito is a mathematician known for his work in algebraic and discrete geometry. He is the co-author of the book “Algebraic and Combinatorial Aspects of Tropical Geometry”, which has been recognized as a groundbreaking work in the field. Adiprasito is currently a professor at the Institute of Mathematics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel.

Write an application letter for someone who wants to work with Karim Adiprasito as a postdoctoral researcher

Continue reading

Subtlety, minimal resolutions, the value of the mystic, FromSoft, David Lynch and root polytopes

First, let me praise another excellent talk by Ayah Almousa; she presented newest work with my friend Anton Dochterman as well as Ben Smith on triangulations of root polytopes and the applications to minimal resolutions. Recall: A free resolution is a way to write a module M as a Matryoshka doll of free modules, that is, as an exact sequence

0 \rightarrow F_i \rightarrow F_{i-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow F_{1} \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0

where the F_i are free (that is, as simple as you could ever want). And whoever tried to ever studies something hard knows how valuable it is to write something in simpler terms. A minimal free resolution is just that, and a root polytope is a polytope whose vertices correspond to the root directions of a Coxeter group. Ayah surveyed how triangulations of the latter are related to resolutions of monomial ideals, and applied this to prove some new results as well as give more insightful proofs to previously known ones. Bravo, Ayah, Anton and Ben! Here is her talk.

Now to more serious business. Real serious.

Overall maidenless behaviour
Continue reading

Sustainability, climate change and intersection cohomology

While I ponder one of my great loves, intersection cohomology, and a cat meows in protest because I can only really think while pacing around, which prevents cuddling (apologies also to the neighbors living below me), I want to discuss, for a second, the issue of sustainability.

Oh my perverse sheaves, why have you forsaken me?

There are immediate things we can and have to do to preserve the planet, such as more sensible and sustainable encounters with our waste, our energy, or transport, with respect to what we eat and what and how much we buy. Most of what we buy and produce is not actually needed, and that includes the hyperloop (which is an interesting engineering project at best).

But these notions are obvious (well, they should be). Then why is it still getting pushback, why are changes slow?

Continue reading

Keynesian dialectics, the Ukraine-Russia war, and the problem with amplitudes

What is a public documentation of half-knowledge if not something one can cringe about when looking back in a few years.

Motivated by a very real rule that made it tricky for me to invite a collaborator.

Let me start with a triviality. The amount and value of information any member of society possesses at any given point in time, is subject to fluctuation. Just like the amount of economic capital we have at our disposal is undergoing ebb and flow, so is the informational content we can lord over.

Corollary is that the flow of information, and its volume, is an ebb and flow.

All high brow nonsense, but let me apply this to the current situation. No particular perspective taken.

The first order of approximation is that we think the other side is doing bad, and hates us.

This applies to every side, however. The west hopes for a coup (which will be bad, at least in short term, for the Russian populace) or a humiliating defeat (which will be equally bad for the Russian populace). The Russian side hopes for a victory, an expansion of territory, and a reemergence of Russian might (which needless to say will be bad for Ukraine). Currently the signs point, mildly speaking, to a defeat of Russia.

And rightly so. Ukraine is fighting for its self-determination, nothing less.

The effect will be a further fracturing of the world. This applies not only to the present conflict, which serves merely as example, but equally to Israel (I remember vividly the first time I arrived to the country, and hearing from encounters of both groups that one could not talk to the other side because “they want to kill us”), the emerging conflict with China or many other examples.

That is not to say that more open people do not exist, in all walks of society (and I count my best friends among them). However, this may become an increasingly fringe viewpoint as not only the respective groups stay in their respective echochambers, but these partitions of the world become increasingly enforced with real and permanent restrictions (see the restriction of social media in some countries).

I feel that I woke up to a post-Covid world that will, for some time, not be open again. That walls were increased in height. And now, behind those walls, pressure will increase further until both sides will suffer an explosion. Or many.

The second order of approximation is that we realize the other side thinks we are doing bad, and that we hate them.

Hence the logical thing is to work anticyclically. In peacetime, one of the tasks of politics is to keep the peace. Now that politics is pointing towards a war of systems, we have to soften the blow. Decrease the pressure. And while my personal modus operandi is to circumvent rules I think are nonsense, there are much easier things that can be done.

This involves keeping lines of communication open.

It involves keep if only to fight with your friends and enemies rather than avoiding uncomfortable discussions.

And while boycotts can be measures that I support on occasion, I like to avoid boycotts of information. Because intel is the one thing that can decrease pressure.

(Unless you are boycotting me, of course. Continue at your own leisure. I have at best been described as weaponized incompetence).

Concretely, I think we have to keep communication to Russians open. Because many are trapped in an echo chamber (as everyone is. I learned only recently I should not use the idiom “jedem das seine” (german for to each his own, with a dark connotation) 😉 ). Because at the very least, while they may not be an empire anymore, a free discourse is welcome. So don’t only communicate to those whose mind is already open, but equally to those whose mind is not.

The current approach I would favor is to speak softly and carry a big stick. We are carrying a big stick, and Russia/Putin knows (the Ukrainians are pushing back the Russian Empire with sticks we made mostly 20-30 years ago, and their own which are even older). We are making that stick even stick even bigger and are putting quite a few thorns on it (which I am afraid will not only be necessary vis-a-vis Russia). That is necessary and good. However, many of them are caught in an information bubble that will invariably collapse, and the cost of the Russian populace will be dire.

Moreover, there is a strategic aspect. A Russia that collapses and is humiliated, but does not reform (either because Putin is still around, or because his successor is just as deluded) and that hence will be ostracized and excluded from Europe will inevitably fall into another domain of influence, most likely ending up a vassal state of some other power.

But to reform Russia, the reformers need support. And this likely cannot come out of the ranks who already support reform. Diplomatically, we have to extend an arm to those that are still caught in the bubble, but only stay there because there is no alternative. I think there is no convincing some of them, but one has to try with those in the middle from time to time.

There are many obstacles. And, if not taken so serious, there are many ways around them.

Fun fact: there was a lot of fun being made about Russia calling it a special military operation, rather than a war. Did you know that the last war congress declared was in 1942 against Romania?

(even if this was written in Amsterdam, I swear I am not high. Right now. Just a lil bit. חצי-חצי)