Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Army applying new areas of math

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#41

Post by tzs »

Darmani wrote: post #12
wenc wrote: post #3

I wonder if there's anyone here working on Homotopy Type Theory that can explain what it is, and how it is used in modeling? I skimmed the PDF of the book but am drawing blank as to its connection to an application. Perhaps it's used for verification of concepts, similar to how formal methods in CS (e.g. TLA+) are used to conceptually check algorithms?

One application: It makes it easier to do mechanized reasoning to optimize SQL queries. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04822.pdf

Abstract: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04822

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#43

Post by Qworg »

amirhirsch wrote: post #21
romwell wrote: post #8

For anyone interested in applying traditionally pure fields, Applied Topology has been slowly gaining steam lately (as reflected in the article: "topological" is now a hot word). Robert Ghrist of UPenn has been at the forefront of bringing topology into applied fields; and has written a good text on the subject.

Hipster Topology: I studied Algebraic Topology before it became "Applied"

To borrow from AI, Good Old Fashioned Algebraic Topology?

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#44

Post by noobermin »

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings.

The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endlessly political academia. Moreover, while the contractor we work with has something like a 30% odd markup for grants, the nearest university (that I got my PhD from) takes a whopping 56% of grant money as "overhead," I imagine to pay the salaries of the President, coaches, and superstar medical faculty salaries, as well as the new development all along the nearby street.

I'm happy for my job, I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#45

Post by geoka9 »

noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something.

Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape.

I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#46

Post by [deleted] »

noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

[deleted]

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#47

Post by bshipp »

geoka9 wrote: post #45
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

Having a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#48

Post by ska »

salty_biscuits wrote: post #40
ska wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite right, in my opinion. In a past life I was an (applied) research mathematician, but started off fairly pure. Wearing both hats you can find yourself creating new mathematics, but there is a difference in why you are doing it, and what you consider progress to mean.

And how worried you are about rigorous proofs. You can happily hand wave your way to some approximation in Applied Maths land (because you need the result, not that you are trying to prove that it is true). Then you can spend the next bit of time relaxing various assumptions about your approximation and see where it takes you. A lot of new tools come from thinking deeply about roadblocks to applied problems, that sor…

You still need rigorous proofs at the end, if you are trying anything new. I think I would look at it more as you might try an ugly/practical approximation, or add a term, or whatever just to see if it will improve things. And maybe it gets you "close enough" for the application. But if you have a deep think about where you are stuck and come up with a new tool, then you have to be careful.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#49

Post by effie »

noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

Do you think that negative attitude would change if you told them you are working on math problems? I don't think much, the attitude is there for a deep reason. If people do not identify with actions of their military, they won't like that you're helping the military. If they do identify, they would support you even if were working on actual bombs.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#50

Post by awakeasleep »

bshipp wrote: post #47
geoka9 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

Having a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.

Its more like buying a very expensive hammer, and “everything looks like a nail”

See: afganistan, expanding africom, iraq, etc

Post reply on HN