Chapter 5 : Generalization

Note: original "generalization" == creating more complex mathematical objects out

of simpler ones. hexagons from triangles, say. but here seems toob just the *usual*
meaning of generalizations == abstraction.

Olive Oil Plum Cake

basic idea seems to be that we take a concrete thinge (here a recipe for cake) and
generalize it 'cover' more things than it originally did.
you generalize 'cake' to encompass things that are not exactly cakes.
In mathematics same idea. start with something 'familiar' then change it a bit and
make it more general.
e.g: congruent triangles (equal angles *and* sides) to similar triangles (equal
angles, any size)
There are more triangles that satisfy 'similar' than 'congruent'.

Flourless Chocolate Cake - Inventing Things By Omission

the basic idea: in math to prove X, you prove 'not X' is impossible.
Proof By Contradiction is sometimes unsatisfying, because it does not tell us *why*
X is true, only that 'not X' is false, and so X *is* true, but not why.
PbC can be very efficient, and sometimes mathematicians use it as a last resort,
when they can't determine *why* something *is* true.

Sometimes when you try to prove something by PbC, you find that (a) x *is*
possible, (b) x~ is possible, where x~ is something slightly different from x. In
cooking when you try to make cake without flour, you 'discover' flourless chocolate
cake. When you try to make bread without yeast, you end up with unleavened bread.

(KEY) This is how generlizations sometimes turn up, almost by accident.

A good example is parallel lines.

Parallel Lines - The Genius Of Euclid

Once upon a time, Euclid sat down and tried to come up with the minimum number
of *facts* about geometry, which were to be assumed to be true, and from which all
other facts can be generated by inference. i.e, he tried to *axiomatize* geometry.

He came up with 4 simple axioms, and 1 annoyingly complicated one.

simple:
1. There is exactly one way to draw a straight line between two points.
2. There is exactly one way to extend a finite straight line to an infinite
straight line.
3. There is exactly one way to draw a circle with a given centre and radius
4. All right angles are equal.

complicated
 5. If you draw three random straight lines, they'll make a triangle
somewhere, if you draw them long enough, unless they are at right angles.(in this
case, two of the lines are parallel and they never meet,This is why the fifth
'axiom' is called the parallel postulate, even though it doesn't mention parallel
lines explicitily)

This last rule sounds very complicated as compared to the first four. So people
spent hundreds of years trying to prove it was *not* an axiom, i.e, it could be
proved from the first four, but all these efforts failed.

So then they tried to use PbC. I.e they assumed the first four axioms held, the
fifth law didn't and searched for a contradiction 'things that go horribly wrong'
and nothing did. It was just different, and a new form of geometry was invented.

There are two types of geometry where the first four axioms hold but the parallel
postulate does'nt.
1. Imagine you are on the surface of a sphere or ball. Here angles of a triangle
add up to > 180 degrees.
2. a surface where angles of a triangle add up to less than 180

the case where the parallel postulate does hold is like being on a flat surface,
when we have "Euclidean Geometry" (see Marvin Greenberg's book)

Taxi Cab - The Generalization Of Distance

'distance as the crow flies' != 'distance as measured by a taxi trip'

distance 'as the taxi drives' depends on things like one way streets.

'taxicab metric' is a genuine mathematical concept.

we build up the notion of 'metric' by thinking about what sort of properties

'distance like' entities should have.
throwing away inconvenient details - like the possibility of diagonals - is called
(KEY) 'idealization' which is a key part of mathematics.

If we visualize a grid, with no diagonals, where taxis can take (only) right angled
turns, then the distance from one point on the grid to another is less than (or
equal to, when both points are the same) the diagonal "as the crow flies".

The properties of this system are

1. The distance from A to A is
A and B are the same point.
2. The distance from A to B is
3. Triangle Inequality - Given
less than the sum of lengths of A
zero. The distance from A to B is zero only when
the same as the distance from B to A
a triangle A, B, C the length of one side is
and B

(KEY) the 'taxi distance' notion of 'metric' obeys these rules.

Train Tickets - Generalizing Distance A Bit More

'Train ticket distance' does not follow the above list because it can be *cheaper*
(note the measure is money not kilometres traveled) to get two separate tickets
from A to B , and B to C, than a direct ticket from A to C.
In mathematics, when we come up with a list of 'axioms' for the notion of
distance, we try to 'break' them and find exceptions. This is not so we can 'rebel
against rules' but to test the strength and boundaries of the 'world' these axioms
set up.

'train ticket' distances break rule 3. 'one way roads' break rule 2.

What breaks rule 1?

With GPS, you can see how many 'metres away' someone is. *but* this applies in *3*
D space. so '1 meter' away may not be useful in your context, if the 'distance' is
vertical.

Suppose your 'distance like' metric is not physical distance, but the amount of
energy required to transport something from point A to point B.
In this case, a point 1 metre below you can be 'zero distance' away since you can
just drop the transported entity without expending any energy.

As we see later, when we combine generalizaton *and* abstraction, we get into

topology.

Online Dating - Generalizing Distance Even More

A 'distance like notion' is called a metric in mathematics. In addition to the

above 3 properties, it has to obey one more rule - the distance from A to B can
never be negative.

This notion can be relaxed. (KEY) which is a form of *generalization* (_note: see
the connection between dropping an axiom and generalizing).
E.g when studying how much it will cost to transport something from one point to
another, you might encounter a situation where people are paid to transport things
- i.e instead of spending money (let this be counted positive) you gain money (this
is negative).

Three Dimensional Pen - Generalizing By Adding Dimensions

the problem with using GPS for navigating to an online date is that it works when
separation between people is 2 dimensional, but not when it is *3* dimensional -
when both parties are in a skyscraper for instance. (_ is this an artifact of how
the gps distances are *rendered* ?), where the third dimension is important.

(KEY) Adding dimensions is a 'standard' way of generalizing in mathematics. Math

joke: when encounter an incomprehensible presentation, ask "can this be generalized
to n dimensions?"

(KEY) A Sphere is a higher dimensional generalization of a circle.

Imagine fixing a compass point on a point on a sheet of paper (a plane) and drawing
a circle with radius r.
Now imagine fixing a '3d compass' at any point in a 3d space and 'drawing a circle'
of radius r touching all *3d* points r cm away. This gives a sphere.

We can generalize this notion to 4,5, 6, .. n dimensions, even though we don't know
exactly what this means, but 'not knowing exactly' does not matter, because we are
concerned about the *idea* not a concrete instance ( _ and only that the *idea*
fits into the set of axioms we derive)

So this 'notion' of distance (euclidean distance?) makes sense in n dimensions, and

so is a valid generalization.

But, there could be other possible generalizations.

Doughnut - A Different Generalization Of The Circle

Imagine a doughnut .
imagine taking a cylinder, stretching it 'in a circle' so one end joins the other.
Now we have a 'single hole doughnut'. Likewise a slinky. Likewise a soap bubble in
a frame. The resulting shape is a 'torus' and the torus is a generalization of a
circle (since we 'constructed' it from a circle, by dragging a circle around in a
3d dimension)

When we drag a 3d object (say a doughnut) around in a 4 dimensional space, we get a

generalization of a torus (whatever the resulting object 'looks like').

Sweeping Statements - A Different Kind Of Generalization

A different kind of generalization' seems to talk about making universal

statements. In real life ('it is always raining in England') there are many
exceptions.

this kind of generalization is not about relaxing 'caging axioms' but about
ignoring whatever falls 'outside the cage'.

Do we study objects 'inside' (the normal) or 'outside' (the exceptions)?

Answer: Both. We study both 'the core' and 'the extreme', the 'usual' and the
'unusual'.

Bagel, Doughnuts And Coffee Cups - An Introduction To Topology

A branch of mathematics that studies 'shapes'. Here we use 'distance' but in a new
way. We only care about whether one thing can turn into another (_ without adding
'holes', without sticking anything together, and without caring about size). So in
this system (or 'world') all triangles are 'the same'. As are all circles. The
circles are the same as the triangles'. We don't care about curvature. But a figure
8 is different because it has two holes.

One way to imagine this is to imagine everything is made of playdough and seeing
whether we can shape one thing into another without adding more holes. Thus a bagel
can be shed into a teacup (with a hole at the handle). So a bagel and a teacup are
'the same'.

Ouestion: Which capital letterl are 'the same' topologically?

No holes: C, E, F G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, S, T, U, V, W , X , Y , Z
One hole: A, D, O, P, Q, R
Two Holes: B

Topologically almost all letters are the same. This is why OCR/handwriting
recognition is hard.
Consider a lump of playdough. It has no 'holes'. To make a bagel, you have to
either make it into cylinder and stick two ends together, or poke a hole in in it.
In both cases, you are shifting the 'holity', so a bagel is not the same as a lump
of playdough.
A two holed bagel is different topologically from both.

the study of which things are topologically the same or different has different
applications.

Example: The mathematics of knots is studied with topology.

The basic (and key) idea is that unlike of drawing as usual, we fill in the whole
page, then *erase* certain parts to make a picture in white.

We now generelize this idea to 3d.

We color in the whole volume inside a box. Then we use a '3d eraser' to 'erase' a
knot from that volume. This is very hard to imagine, but easy to study
mathematically.

A Challenge For Your Imagination

'erasing something in 3 dimensions' == 'taking the complement'.

Key is to 'create a bagel' from a circle, then erasing *that* from a 'filled in
sphere'.

can't figure out how 'complement of intersecting circles' gives us ' a sphere with
a doughnut stuck to the side'?

(KEY) The power of mathematics is that it enables us to study these 'very hard to
imagine' things rigorously.

don't understand/can't visualize *at all*, (creating 3d shapes from squares,

octagons etc in specific ways)

A Generalization Game

Consider the following shapes

- square - 4 sides, all sides equal, all angles 90
- rhombus = square minus 'angles necessarily 90' . all sides are equal,
*opposite* angles are equal
- 'all sides equal' -> opposite sides are equal == parallelogram
- only one pair of sides are equal == trapezium
- any shape with four sides == quadrilateral

(KEY) Each step of generalization occurs by *dropping one or more constraints* on

the shape in question.

(KEY) we get different routes to generalization depending on the *order* of

relaxation (== exactly what AOPP says)
(KEY) there are *always* *different* possible generalizations, depending on (a)
what pov you take (b) how far you want to go.

(KEY) This is a reason why mathematics as a subject keeps growing at an ever

increasing rate, as each generalization gives rise to a multitude of others