Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog

Not personally. Someone hacked into my website.

I would like to thank my readers Qiaochu Yuan, Mark Rudkin, “ano” and Paul who alerted me to the problem. Viewers who were using the Google Chrome browser and who tried to visit my website got this message: “This site contains content from howmanyoffers.com, a site known to distribute malware.”

It took me some time to figure out what was going on. It appears that on June 19 someone from 89-76-135-50.dynamic.chello.pl hacked into my hosting account and added a script to all my html files and to my blog header. It seems that the script was dormant and wasn’t yet doing bad things.

As soon as I grasped what was going on, I replaced all the affected files.

I have had my website for many years without changing my hosting password. Unfortunately, passwords, not dissimilar to humans, have this annoying tendency to become weaker with age. I wasn’t paying attention to the declining strength of my password and so I was punished.

Now I have fixed the website and my new password is: qwP35q2054uWiedfj052!@#$%.

Just kidding.

John Conway taught me how to tell time at night. But first I need to explain the notions of the “time in the sky” and the “time in the year.”

The clock in the sky. Look at Polaris and treat it as the center of a clock. The up direction corresponds to 12:00. Now we need to find a hand. If you find Polaris the way I do, first you locate the Big Dipper. Then you draw a line through the two stars that are furthest away from the Big Dipper’s handle. The line passes through Polaris and is your “hour” hand. Now you can read the time in the sky.

The hand of the clock in the sky makes a full rotation in approximately 24 hours. So if you stare at the sky for a long time, you can calculate the time you spent staring. Keep in mind that the hand in the sky clock is twice as slow as the hour hand, and it turns counter-clockwise. So to figure out how long you’re looking into the sky, take the sky-time when you start staring, subtract the sky-time when you stop staring and multiply the result by 2.

To calculate the absolute time, we need to adjust for the day in the year.

The clock in the year. A year has twelve months and a clock has twelve hours. How convenient. You can treat each month as one hour. In addition as a month has about 30 days and an hour has exactly 60 minutes, we should count a day as two minutes. Thus, January 25 is 1:50.

Fact: on March 7^th at midnight the clock in the sky shows 12:00. March 7^th corresponds to 3:15. So to calculate the solar time you need to add up the time in the sky and the time in the year and multiply it by 2. Then subtracting the result from 6:30, which is twice 3:15, you get the solar time.

You are almost ready. You might need to adjust for daylight savings time or for peculiarities of your time zone.

This time formula is not very precise. But if you are looking into the sky and you do not have your watch or cell phone with you, you probably do not need to know the time precisely.

The last time I talked to John H. Conway, he taught me to walk up the stairs. It’s not that I didn’t know how to do that, but he reminded me that a nerd’s goal in climbing the steps is to establish the number of steps at the end of the flight. Since it is boring to just count the stairs, we’re lucky to have John’s fun system.

His invention is simple. Your steps should be in a cycle: short, long, long. Long in this case means a double step. Thus, you will cover five stairs in one short-long-long cycle. In addition, you should always start the first cycle on the same foot. Suppose you start on the left foot, then after two cycles you are back on the left foot, having covered ten stairs. While you are walking the stairs in this way, it is clear where you are in the cycle. By the end of the staircase, you will know the number of stairs modulo ten. Usually there are not a lot of stairs in a staircase, so you can easily estimate the total if you know the last digit of that number.

I guess I am not a true nerd. I have lived in my apartment for eight years and have never bothered to count the number of steps. That is, until now. Having climbed my staircase using John’s method, I now know that the ominous total is 13. Oh dear.

I already wrote about the research of my friend Olga Amosova who studied the sickle-cell anemia mutation. She and her colleagues needed to store short fragments of hemoglobin genes for their experiments. All the fragments were identical. They noticed that with time the fragments always broke down in the same place. It was a mystery. When good scientists stumble on a mystery, they start digging.

They found that one of the nucleotides rips off the DNA fragment at the site of the Sickle-cell mutation. That place on the DNA becomes fragile and later breaks down. These sites need to be repaired. The repair is very error-prone and often leads to a mutation.

When DNA strands are left unattended, they want to pair up. There are four types of nucleotides: A, C, G and T. So mathematically the fragment of DNA is a string in the alphabet A, C, G, T. These nucleotides are matched to each other. When two DNA strands pair up, A on one strand always matches T and C matches G. So it is logical that if there are two complementary DNA pieces on the same fragment, they will find each other and pair up. They form a hydrogen bond. For example, a piece AACGT matches perfectly another piece TTGCA. Suppose a substring of DNA consists of a piece AACGT and somewhere later the reverse of the match: ACGTT. Such a string is called an inverted repeat. The DNA fragment I mentioned contains a string AACGT****ACGTT. Two pieces AACGT and ACGTT are complementary and not too far from each other in space. So it is easy for them to find each other and to bond to form a so-called stem-loop or a hairpin structure. The site of Sickle-cell mutation falls into the loop.

Olga and her colleagues discovered that for some particular loops the orientation in space becomes awkward and one of the nucleotides rips off. Such a rip off is called depurination. In further investigation, Olga found examples of when depurination happens. The first sequence of the pair that will bond later has to have at least five nucleotides and has to end in T. Correspondingly the second part in the pair has to begin with A. In the middle there needs to be four nucleotides GTGG. The first G flies away. Enzymes rush like a first aid squad to repair it and introduce mistakes that lead to mutation and diseases like cancer.

DNA was thought to be simply a passive information storage system, not capable of any action. Now we see that DNA is capable of action. DNA can damage itself. Damage provokes a mutation. For all practical purposes it is self-mutilation. Olga and her colleagues scanned the human genome for other sequences that are capable of self-mutilation. They found that such sequences are overwhelmingly present. They are present in much higher numbers than would be expected statistically. The pieces that are capable of damaging themselves occur 40 times more often than would occur if the nucleotides were distributed randomly. They are especially overrepresented in genes linked to cancer.

Self-damaging shouldn’t happen in normal situations. It can be provoked by the environment, for example, the chemistry of the cell. That means, that our cancers are not only in our genes but also in our life-style. There was, for example, a suggestion in a recent NY Times article, Is Sugar Toxic?, that too much sugar in a diet might provoke cancer. If the rate of mutation depends on the environment, we can influence it and prolong our lives.

It is not clear why the ability to self-mutilate survives in the evolutionary process. It is quite possible that if something very bad happens to our planet, we need our genes to be able to mutate very fast in order to adjust to the environment so that humans can survive.

Though I never tried to donate my sperm to a sperm bank, because of my inability to produce it, I know that sperm banks look for people who have ancestors who lived for a very long time. Such sperm is in bigger demand as everyone wants their children to live longer. I wonder if this tendency is a mistake. Global warming is upon us. People with longevity genes might not be flexible enough for their children to survive the changing of the Earth.

I wrote how the written entrance exam was used to keep Jewish students from studying at Moscow State University, but the real brutality happened at the oral exam. Undesirable students were given very difficult problems. Here is a sample “Jewish” problem:

Solve the following equation for real y:

Here is how my compatriots who studied algebra in Soviet high schools would have approached this problem. First, cube it and get a 9th degree equation. Then, try to use the Rational Root Theorem and find that y = 1 is a root. Factoring out y − 1 gives an 8th degree equation too messy to deal with.

The most advanced students would have checked if the polynomial in question had multiple roots by GCDing it with its derivative, but in vain.

We didn’t study any other methods. So the students given that problem would have failed it and the exam.

Unfortunately, this problem is impossible to appeal, because it has an elementary solution that any applicant could have understood. It goes like this:

Let us introduce a new variable: x = (y³ + 1)/2. Now we need to solve a system of equations:

This system has a symmetry which we can exploit. The graphs of the functions x = (y³ + 1)/2 and y = (x³ + 1)/2 are reflections of each other across the line x = y. As both functions are increasing, the solution to the system of equations should lie on the line x = y. Hence, we need to solve the cubic y = (y³ + 1)/2, one of whose roots we already know.

Now I offer you another problem without telling you the solution:

Four points on a plane used to belong to four different sides of a square. Reconstruct the square by compass and straightedge.

Recently I asked my readers to look at the 1976 written math exam that was given to applicants wishing to study at the math department of Moscow State University. Now it’s time to reveal the hidden agenda. My readers noticed that problems 1, 2, and 3 were relatively simple, problem 4 was very hard, and problem 5 was extremely hard. It seems unfair and strange that problems of such different difficulty were worth the same. It is also suspicious that the difficult problems had no opportunity for partial credit. As a result of these characteristics of the exam, almost every applicant would get 3 points, the lowest passing score. The same situation persisted for many years in a row. Why would the best place to study math in Soviet Russia not differentiate the math abilities of its applicants?

In those years the math department of Moscow State University was infamous for its antisemitism and its efforts to exclude all Jewish students from the University. The strange structure of the exam accomplished three objectives toward that goal.

1. Protect the fast track. There was a fast track for students with a gold medal from their high school who got 5 points on the written exam. The structure of the exam guaranteed that very few students could solve all 5 problems. If by chance a Jewish student solved all 5 problems, it was not much work to find some minor stylistic mistake and not count the solution.

2. Avoid raising suspicion at the next exams. The second math entrance exam was oral. At such an exam different students would talk one-on-one with professors and would have to answer different questions. It was much easier to arrange difficult questions for undesirable students and fail all the Jewish students during the oral exam than during the written exam. But if many students with perfect scores on the written exam had failed the oral exam, it might have raised a lot of questions.

3. Protect appeals. Despite these gigantic efforts, there were cases when Jewish students with a failing score of 2 points were able to appeal and earn the minimum passing score of 3. If undesirable students managed to appeal all the exams, they would only get a half-passing grade at the end and would not be accepted because the department was allowed to choose from the many students that the exams guaranteed would have half-passing scores.

I have only heard about one faculty member who tried to publicly fight the written exam system. It was Vladimir Arnold, and I will tell the story some other time.

I am reading the book Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman. It contains a formula that as a math formula doesn’t make any sense. But as an idea, it felt like a revelation. Here it is:

HEALTH = NUTRIENTS/CALORIES

The idea is to choose foods that contain more nutrients per calorie. The formula doesn’t make sense for many reasons. Taken to its logical conclusion, the best foods would be vitamins and tea. The formula doesn’t provide bounds: it just emphasizes that your calories should be nutritious. However, too few calories — nutritious or not — and you will die. And too many calories — even super nutritious — are still too many calories. In addition the formula doesn’t explain how to balance different types of nutrients.

Let’s see why it was a revelation. I often crave bananas. I assumed that I need bananas for some reason and my body tells me that. Suppose I really need potassium. As a result I eat a banana, which contains 800 milligrams of potassium and adds 200 calories as a bonus. If I ate spinach instead, I would get the same amount of potassium at a price of only 35 calories.

The book suggests that if I start eating foods that are high in nutrients, I will satisfy my need for particular nutrients, and my cravings will subside. As a result I will not want to eat that much. If I start my day eating spinach, that might eliminate my banana desire.

I’ve been following an intuitive eating diet. I am trying to listen to my body hoping that my body will tell me what is better for it. It seems that my body sends me signals that are not precise enough. It’s not that my body isn’t communicating with me, but it is telling me “potassium” and all I hear is “bananas.” What I need to do is use my brain to help me decipher what my body really, really wants to tell me.

As Dr. Fuhrman puts it, we are a nation of overfed and malnourished people. But Fuhrman’s weight loss plan is too complicated and time-consuming for me, so I designed my own plan based on his ideas:

I will start every meal with vegetables, as they are the most nutritious. I hope that vegetables will provide the nutrients I need. That in turn will make me less hungry by the next meal, at which time I’ll take in fewer calories. I will report to my readers whether or not my plan works. I’m off to shop for spinach. Will I ever love it as much as bananas?

I read an interesting article on the paradoxes involved in allocating seats for the Congress. The problem arises because of two rules: one congressperson has one vote, and the number of congresspeople per state should be proportional to the population of said state.

These two rules contradict each other, because it is unrealistic to expect to be able to equally divide the populations of different states. Therefore, two different congresspeople from two different states may represent different sizes of population.

Let me explain how seats are divided by using as an example a country with three states: New Nevada (NN), Massecticut (MC) and Califivenia (C5). Suppose the total number of congresspeople is ten. Also suppose the population distribution is such that the states should have the following number of congresspeople: NN — 3.33, MC — 3.34 and C5 — 3.33. As you know states generally do not send a third of a congressperson, so the situation is resolved using the Hamilton method. First, each state gets an integer portion of the seats. In my example, each state gets three seats. Next, if there are seats left they are allocated to states with the largest remainders. In my example, the remainders are 0.33, 0.34 and 0.33. As Massecticut has the largest reminder it gets the last seat.

This is not fair, because now each NN seat represents a larger population portion than each MC seat. Not only is this not fair, but it can also create some strange situations. Suppose there have been population changes for the next redistricting: NN — 3.0, MC — 3.4 and C5 — 3.6. In this case, NN and MC each get 3 seats, while C5 gets the extra seat for a total of 4. Even though MC tried very hard and succeeded in raising their portion of the population, they still lost a seat.

Is there any fair way to allocate seats? George Szpiro in his article suggests adding fractional congresspersons to the House of Representatives. So one state might have three representatives, but one of those has only a quarter of a vote. Thus, the state’s voting power becomes 2 1/4.

We can take this idea further. We can use the Hamilton method to decide the number of representatives per state, but give each congressperson a fractional voting power, so the voting power of each state exactly matches the population. This way we lose one of the rules that each congressperson has the same vote. But representation will be exact. In my first example, NN got three seats, when they really needed 3.33. So each congressperson from New Nevada will have 1.11 votes. On the other hand MC got four seats, when they needed 3.34. So each MC representative gets 0.835 votes.

Continuing with this idea, we do not need congresspeople from the same state to have the same power. We can give proportional voting power to a congressperson depending on the population in his/her district.

Or we can go all the way with this idea and lose the districts altogether, so that every congressperson’s voting power will be exactly proportionate to the number of citizens who voted for him/her. This way the voting power will reflect the popularity — rather than the size of the district — of each congressperson.

I’ve been celebrating my 29th birthday for many years. Once, when I was actually 45 and wanted to have a big party, I invited everyone to the 5th anniversary of my 29th birthday.

Last week my son turned 29 and I realized that it is time to drop this beautiful, prime, evil, deficient, lazy-caterer number, that in addition is the largest power of two to have all different digits. No more celebrating 29.

For my next age, I picked 42. Not because it is the smallest abundant odious number, but rather because it is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Thank you everyone who congratulated me on my birthday two days ago. For your information, from now on I am 42.

Two days ago I threw at my readers the following problem:

A plane takes off and goes east at a rate of 350 mph. At the same time, a second plane takes off from the same place and goes west at a rate of 400 mph. When will they be 2000 miles apart?

The purpose of throwing this problem was to discuss the nature of the implicit assumptions that we are asked to make when solving math problems, and the implicit assumptions we teach our children to make when we teach them to solve math problems. This is especially important for problems like this, that are phrased in terms of a situation in the real world. The real world is too complex to model all of; the great power of mathematics is that sufficiently idealized situations are predictable. But which idealizations are appropriate? How does one choose? How does one teach youngsters what to choose?

Before I get to the actual discussion, however, I want to re-throw this problem at my readers, in an effort to highlight what originally jumped out at me as being wrong with it.

Neglecting the effects of altitude, differential wind, acceleration, relativity, measurement error, finite size and non-superimposability of the planes, and the Earth’s deviations from perfect sphericity,

1. Find how much time it takes them to become 2000 miles apart, assuming that the planes are starting from Boston and the distance is measured as
   1. a straight line in 3-space.
   2. the shortest surface distance.
2. How far from the closest pole may the starting point be located, so that the answer to the problem is “never”? Solve separately for
   1. the 3D distance.
   2. the shortest surface distance.
3. What portion of the Earth’s surface do the “never”-locations of the previous question occupy?
   1. under the 3D distance?
   2. under the shortest surface distance?

Hint: The easiest question is 2b.