This is a rather odd post – nothing to do with mathematics or physics – about the amazing racing tipster Prince Monolulu, a man who has interested me for the last couple of years. A blog by Simon Singh & Richard WisemanWe have been discussing the finances of science festivals for several months, between ourselves and with others, and recently we met the CEO of Cheltenham Festivals to raise our concerns. Given Philip Pullman’s recent statement on, we thought now was a good time to publish a blog about science festivals in general and the Cheltenham Science Festival in particular. While Philip Pullman has highlighted the lack of payment for authors, our main concern is high ticket prices, but the two problems are both clearly related.In the past we have been very supportive of The Cheltenham Science Festival, and we have spoken at the festival several times.
Using Technology See the Technology Guides at the end of the chapter to see how to add and subtract matrices using a TI-83/84 or Excel. Alternatively, use the Matrix Algebra Tool at Chapter 3 Tools Matrix Algebra Tool There, first enter the two matri-ces you wish to add or subtract (subtract, in this case) as shown: J= 20, 15, 10 12, 8,4 F= 23, 12, 8 12, 4,5. Disclosing patents’ secrets Disclosure status of all 1,809,932 patent applications filed at the USPTO between 1996 and 2005 for which patents were granted through mid-2012. Applicants shifted toward disclosing know-how after AIPA became effective 29 November 2000. By Stuart Graham 1.
However, we are now increasingly concerned about the financial model underpinning the Festival.Tickets for many talks and events now cost in the region of £8-£10 (plus the £3 online booking fee). A quick look at last year’s weekend lectures show that only a small fraction of events were less than £8 per ticket.Given that the biggest Festival venue has 650 seats and three others have about 300 seats, many events generate large sums of money. In addition, there is revenue from festival and event sponsorship, and some percentage from book sales (always sold at full price).
Moreover, the festival benefits from a large team of unpaid volunteers, and speakers who are paid just a nominal fee of £100.We appreciate that there are costs associated with running a festival, but none of these justify such high ticket prices. A festival that was started to promote science seems to have re-invented itself as big business, taking advantage of both speakers and audiences. By comparison, the Cambridge Festival offers dozens of high quality events, and the overwhelming majority are entirely free.With 40 years’ experience between us of giving public science talks, it strikes us that the Cheltenham Science Festival is being run in a hugely inefficient manner.
Our feeling is that something needs to change. With a new director in place, there is a real opportunity for a new way forward.
Our proposal is that no event should that cost more than £7 (£5 concession), and that the majority of events should be £5 (£4 concession) or less.It would also help if the Festival bookshop stopped exploiting people and offered discounts of at least 10% discount to ticket holders.This would mean that events are more accessible and audiences are not over-charged. We met with the CEO of Cheltenham Festivals, Louise Emerson, in December, in order to raise our concerns and discuss our proposals.
SKY POLICE, The Simpsons, March 2015 – TM and copyright Twentieth Century FoxThe screen grab above was taken from “Sky Police”, which aired in America in March. It is a really great episode with lots of great lines, but from a mathematical point of view the screen grab above stands out. The last line appears to conclude that:1 – 1/2 + 1/3 – 1/4 + = 0Before explaining how something can be equal to nothing, let me know explain how this bit of mathematics cropped up in the episode.In order to raise funds to rebuild the church, Apu teaches the congregation to card count; a strategy that allows a player to beat the casino at blackjack. When there are concerns about gambling in the name of religion, Apu replies that card counting is “math”, not gambling.It should be no surprise that Apu knows about the mathematics of card counting, because I explained in “” that the episode “Much Apu About Nothing” reveals that Apu studied at CalTech. Of course, in this case, CalTech is not the California Institute of Technology, but rather the Calcutta Institute of Technology.However, in “Sky Police” we learn that Apu attended MIT the Mumbai Institute of Tantric Sex.
That is where he learned to card count (something I have experimented with and written about in the past – “”). Apu won enough money at blackjack to be able to attend the more famous MIT, the one in America. Indeed, we see the blackboard during a brief MIT flashback. I have labelled the lines on the blackboard in order to help explain how an apparently logical series of steps can prove:1 – 1/2 + 1/3 – 1/4 + = 0.Line A – You might be thrown by opening line, which suggests that summation A1 equals summation A2. However, if you write out the terms then you will see that they are equivalent:A1 = 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + A2 = (1/1 + 1/2) + (1/3 + 1/4) + And a bit of shuffling shows that A2 and A3 are equivalent.Lines B & C & D are fairly straightforward.If A1 equals the two terms in line D, then we can cancel the summations of 1/x from both sides, which implies that the second term in line D equals zero.Line E rearranges that second term, which still equals zero.Line F shows the terms in the summation in line E, which still equals zero. And that is why:1 – 1/2 + 1/3 – 1/4 + = 0.Obviously, there is a flaw in the mathematics.
Can you spot it?UPDATE:J. Stewart Burns, who suggested this paradox for the show, explained: “The issue of course is that the initial series is divergent.
Effectively, the stuff before the word “So” boils down to infinity = infinity + something. From which I incorrectly deduce that something equals nothing.”The sum of 1/ n for n running from 1 to infinity is known as the sum of the harmonic series.
As the terms diminish as n tends to infinity, it is not unreasonable to think that the sum might be finite, but there is a neat proof that shows that the sum is infinite. In fact, the proof is super neat and well worth a look.The proof can be found at, or there is a video explanation at the, or another video at mathematics (but I should warn you that this last video leaves you with another paradox).This entry was posted in on. LHC and the Big BangHaving just returning to civilisation after watching the eclipse on the Faroe Islands I was suddenly reminded that the revamped LHC is about to be fired up.
I tweeted the first LHC story that crossed my twitter feed, without even reading it. The article was ” “, by, the science editor at the Telegraph. I don’t know Sarah and don’t know anything about her science background. The headline was sensationalist, but when you work in journalism you soon learn that the headline writers are paid to cherry pick and then add a bit of hyperbole on top.So, why I am blogging about this article and my tweet. Well, it is all because the reaction on twitter to this story was rather hostile. When I RTed a comment about Fred Hoyle being amused by the article, there were a couple more negative tweets.
Some suggested that I should not be spreading such nonsense.My opinion is that I don’t feel very strongly about this article, and I am surprised others are so outraged. This article is not going to win any prizes, but neither is it particularly terrible. As a positive, it might encourage a few non-physicists to become interested in the LHC restart.
That does not mean that I encourage exaggeration in order to generate interest in science.)I did not respond on twitter as these issues are not simple and I did not want to get drawn into a long discussion limited to just a few words. Instead, I contacted someone who is actively researching this area and asked his opinion on the article. I have quoted him below, but he also made two additional comments. (1) The scientists in the article may have credited colleagues in the interview, but these credits might not have been included in the article. (2) He did not want be named as he was not impressed by the tone of the twitter discussion.Anyway, here is the view of a researcher close to this topic:You can read about rainbow gravity in. As you can see, it is really an idea which might remove any singularity from the big bang, but of course everyone believes that some form of quantum gravity must intervene to prevent that in any case.
Inflation is the conventional way of starting a big bang these days and that does not require a singularity either. Removing the singularity in no way debunks the big bang. You will also note that Smolin says in as many words that the authors have not really got to grips with the idea. (In fact, rainbow gravity has never been mentioned by theorists as a serious idea in my presence.)When Dr Faizal says “we predict” he really means, “this was all predicted by smart people 15 years ago or more”. So all the stuff in the article below the picture is correct, but nothing to do with him. His new idea is to use rainbow gravity (speculative and not his idea) to make a prediction of the energy scale relevant to extra dimensions (also speculative).
He then goes off into wilder shores of speculation by extrapolating to the early universe. In particular his quote “If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity’s rainbow and extra dimensions are correct” is absolute rubbish.As far as the LHC goes, none of this is novel. We started looking at mini-black-hole scenarios more than a decade ago when the ADD model brought extra space dimensions up to date and suggested that they could be observed via strong gravity effects. Observing a black hole at the LHC would prove that gravity is stronger at small scales, but nothing more than that. It could be that we just don’t understand gravity, or it could be that we are seeing extra space dimensions – you would need to make the measurements to try to find out. Even if we established the presence of extra dimensions, they would be relatively large ones (about the inverse TeV) and so nothing to do with string theory dimensions.So I think you can conclude that the Big Bang theory is safe and well.This entry was posted in on. Six months ago, the (one of India’s biggest selling newspapers) asked me to write an article about homeopathy.
I was busy and suggested delaying it to coincide with my trip to the, which took place last week.When I finally submitted the article to the Hindustan Times in early January, I was surprised that the person who commissioned article was unhappy with my use of the words bunkum, quackery and pseudoscience in relation to homeopathy. She went on to write: “ While we agree that it is important to debunk myths about alternative medicine, we would also like to avoid lawsuits!”I tried to point out that there was nothing wrong with the article, but she replied: “ This may spiral out of control, considering the wide reach of the magazine. We would much rather be cautious, that’s all.” In the next email, she wrote: “ We do not want to indulge in name-calling in the magazine. Using pejorative words doesn’t help in building up an argument – and removing the aforementioned words will not change the nature of the article at all! And if we carry the piece, I’m afraid, I must insist on certain words to be removed.”It is not my finest piece of writing, and it does not say anything that has not been said before, but I find it shocking that the Hindustan Times is so reluctant to offend anyone. Or maybe I am being unreasonable?You can decide for yourself, as the article that I submitted is pasted below.
If the HIndustan Times would like to shed any further light on their decision then I would be happy to include its response in full and uncensored.Whenever I return to India, I am always unpleasantly surprised at the popularity of homeopathy. I hear of senior political figures endorsing this quackery. I read that PM Narendra Modi has appointed a minister whose portfolio includes homeopathy. And I see that Bollywood stars endorse this pseudoscience.Perhaps I should not be so surprised, after all the situation is very similar in London, where I currently live. We have several senior politicians in the House of Commons who believe in the power homeopathy, we have a National Health Service that wastes money on these pointless pills and we also have celebrities who endorse the biggest joke in medicine.So, how did this peculiar form of medicine (which believes in the ridiculous notion of diluting ingredients to the point of non-existence) become so popular in both Europe and India?Homeopathy was invented in Germany in the late 1700s, and soon became popular among the gentry in Paris and London.
In 1829, Dr Martin Honigberger, a Transylvanian physician, brought it to India when he joined the court of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. The idea then spread rapidly, prospering largely because it was perceived as being in opposition to the imperialist medicine practised by the British. Attitudes towards British medicine were so negative that vaccination programmes failed dismally in the mid-nineteenth century.Moreover, Indians who wanted to pursue a career in conventional medicine often encountered prejudice when they attempted to join the Indian Medical Service, so a more realistic career option was to train to be a homeopathic practitioner. It was also felt that homeopathy and the Ayurvedic system of medicine could work together in harmony.As the decades passed, tens of millions of Indians came to rely on homeopathy for their healthcare, and this European invention is now firmly embedded in the Indian culture of healthcare. And, back in Europe, homeopathy still remains popular in Britain, France and Germany.Given its long history and global popularity, what makes me so sure that homeopathy is bunkum?Homeopaths will tell you that they have plenty of happy patients. Even more impressively, a study of 6,500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital over six years concluded that 70% of them showed clinical improvements following homeopathic treatment.
However, there are many reasons beyond homeopathy that might explain why these patients reported that they felt better, including the body’s own healing abilities, conventional medicine and the placebo effect.In order to set aside the issue of the placebo effect, homeopaths will often cite how pets and babies seem to get better after taking homeopathic remedies. They argue that pets and babies have no expectations and so cannot exhibit placebo responses.
However, both pets and babies may react positively to the loving care of their owners or parents, and we should not underestimate the temporary effect of a shot of sugar, particularly on a baby who is teething. On top of this, those who report apparent improvements are not unbiased observers, but presumably believers in homeopathy who want their loved ones to get better.Homeopaths will often state that some conventional doctors prescribe homeopathy. Some do, but many do not. In fact, the overwhelming majority of real doctors think homeopathy is pseudoscience. After all, homeopaths typically dilute their remedies until they contain no actual ingredients.
Even though zero was invented in India, I suspect that most Indians would spurn the ridiculous notion of pills containing zero.Of course, the ultimate factor in deciding whether or not homeopathy works is putting it to the scientific test. At the start of the year, me, Mrs Singh and Hari Singh visited the, “a memorial built to honour the Indian dead of the First World War.
It stands on the Downs near Patcham at the place where Hindu and Sikh soldiers who died in Brighton war hospitals during 1914-1915 were cremated. It was unveiled by the Prince of Wales on 21st February 1921.”Mrs Singh’s (AKA Anita Anand) book is about Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who served as a nurse at one of the hospitals in Brighton, where Indian soldiers returning from the Western Front were being treated – Hindus and Sikhs who died in Brighton were cremated at the Chattri, about 5 miles north of Brighton.There is an annual memorial service, but visitors can access the Chattri any time – it is less than a thirty minute walk across the South Downs. There is a “” page on the Chattri website, but it is not particularly clear so below is a map that shows the route across a couple of fields.
From the starting point (the lower red circle), just head NNW across an open field. Once you reach the gate/style, you should soon be able to see the Chattri in the distance.N.B. Via twitter, @jonathanhearsey pointed out: “Just keep away from the cows they are truly vicious blighters. Pumped up on steroids, I reckon. Worse if you have a dog.”.
I am trying to generate an inverse gaussian distribution using the ICDF function in matlab. The parameters are:mu = 4.68lambda = 12286I get the following error: Warning: Divide by zero. This warning will be removed in a future release.
Consider using DBSTOP IF NANINF when debugging.The issue is that the lambda is very high - when I try values of 50, 100, or 1000 there is no problem. I'm working with Matlab 2006, so I can't use the makedist function. Is there a way to avoid this error, or another function I can use to generate an inverse gaussian from a set of random probabilities?Thanks!