See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317380928

Mathematics as the Prime Human Endeavor

Conference Paper · June 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 1,037

1 author:

Johan Gielis
University of Antwerp
137 PUBLICATIONS   845 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Generalized Möbius-Listing bodies View project

Applications of Gielis Transformation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Gielis on 07 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Interna'onal Conference on Differen'al and Difference
Equa'ons and Applica'ons

June 5-9, 2017 in Amadora, Portugal

Presentation at the Opening Ceremony


1
Mathema'cs as the Prime Human Endeavor
In the 21st century the main questions revolve around how to deal with the many challenges
humanity faces on a global scale. We are living in an increasingly connected world, where the
population and pressure on ecosystems are growing at unprecedented rates. Many efforts
and novel strategies will be needed to make this world a better place to live.

Figure 1: Global Challenges

In Figure 1 these challenges are listed. All challenges related to environment and science and
technology, can only be addressed by science. In particular:
• How can scientific and technological breakthroughs be accelerated to improve the
human condition? 
• How can education make humanity more intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise
enough to address its global challenges? 

In all of our current technologies and sciences, mathematics is at the basis. The Industrial,
Green, the Information or similar revolutions have all been dependent on the mathematics
that have been developed and applied. In the long history of mathematics, from the Ishango
bones 20000 years ago, over Babylonia, Egypt, India, Persia, and Greek mathematics to the
present era, the development of mathematics has always been inspired both by the study of
natural phenomena and by technological applications. Indeed, from counting and land
surveying to the current technologies (lasers, cryptography, spaceflights, particle accelerators,
medicine…): no technology would have been possible without mathematics. That being said,
technology has not always been used to improve human well-being. The challenges differ, but
the human endeavor to analyze problems and search for solutions are very old. In Ancient
Greece for example (Figure 2), Socrates stands for ethics, Plato for mathematics and
Aristotle for the sciences (and formalization).

2
 Figure 2: Rafael’s School of Athens

From this rich history and legacy in our era mathematics has evolved into more than 3600
(highly) different subfields. A sort of delta, but it is always good to look back to the main
stream(s) from which the fields evolved, to get a bird’s eye view on the role of mathematics
in the natural sciences. In the Hellenistic age the Greek already had very accurate analog
computers (Antikhytera) and it is only in 1907 that a palimpsest with Archimedes’ Methods
and Stomachion was discovered. The Greek translated number theory into geometrical
continuum (Euclid’s Elements) and only 2000 years later this was translated into an
arithmetical continuum.

The Holy Trinity in mathematics is Geometry, Algebra, and Calculus. They complement and
nourish each other, continuously, but perhaps Geometry is at the core, now and then. Bartel
Leendert Van der Waerden (1903-1996) wrote: “The reason why the Greeks had to translate the
algebraic problems and solutions of the Babylonians into geometrical language, is the discovery of
irrationals. The solution of equations in numbers, for the Greek this meant rational numbers, is no
longer possible, and the Greeks would not settle for approximate solutions. The geometrical solution
is exact and generally applicable”. And Gabriel Lamé (1795-1860): “Why geometry? If we wish to
find the solution of a problem along routes that have not been explored before, comparing geometric
shapes is one of the greatest powers of geometry. What should we admire most? Algebra that
starts its search for a solution with confidence and almost always arrives at the response to the
question? Or Geometry that starts out without promising anything, and very often delivers a solution
to the problem along with solutions to many other problems that were even not asked for, but which
can simply be harvested along the way?” Analysis and logic are crucial too, of course, be it the
Standard Model or computer, but in the opinion of Shiing-Shen Chern (1911-2004): “While
analysis and algebra provide the foundations of mathematics, geometry is at the core“.

One broader view of the development of science is that two main lines may be distinguished.
One line focuses on pure description, where conic sections show up. Here we find such
names as Apollonius of Perga (who developed the full theory of conics and conic sections),
Kepler and Galilei (who applied conic sections to describe trajectories of planets and
projectiles) and Gabriel Lamé. The second line then focuses on practical computation using
the Euclidean circle as the unit circle, with Archimedes, Ptolemy, Newton and Fourier as most
important representatives. In the 19th and 20th centuries, this gave the mathematical tools
to unify electricity and magnetism and to develop relativity theory and quantum mechanics,
and its multiple applications in technology.

3
In trying to make sense of the world we should not forget however, that underlying the
sciences are the choices made, and these are human choices, based on rational arguments.
As human beings we are free to roam in any direction, so Euclidean geometry was a logical
choice to start from. We measure with a yardstick based on the Pythagorean theorem, or a
modification thereof in surface theory. According to René Thom, Euclidean geometry is real
magic. “The dilemma posed all scientific explanation is this: magic or geometry. Classical Euclidean
geometry can be considered as magic; at the price of minimal distortion of appearances (a point
without size, a line without width) the purely formal language of geometry describes adequately the
reality of space. We might say, in this sense, that geometry is successful magic”. Geometry was
enriched more recently by Riemannian and Riemann-Finsler geometries.

In the mathematical toolboxes we have a range of choices to start building models about
natural phenomena. How do we build models?

Figure 3: A human endeavor

The mathematical quantities (geometries, groups, axioms…) are compared to observations
and data from the fields of physics and biology, from chemistry or astronomy, to determine
possible identification between the two types . “If these relations coincide (within experimental
errors) with relations which appear to be accepted by physicists and astronomers, we say that these
last relations, or the experimental and observational facts expressed by them, are explained on the
bases of the mathematical theory: in some cases when the relations stated in the formulas have not
been observed prior to their derivation, but are observed after, we speak of predictions that have
been verified. In both cases we speak of confirmation of the theory of observation. In this respect
it differs from the concept of truth held by some people. The question whether there is such a thing
as truth – questions of the type “What does actually happen?” questions about “physical reality” –
we do not consider.” As Leonard Euler taught us: “Although to penetrate into the intimate
mysteries of nature and thence to learn the true causes of phenomena is not allowed to us,
nevertheless it can happen that a certain fictive hypothesis may suffice for explaining many
phenomena”.

4
At the Dawn (just past the first minute) of a new Millenium
The mathematical or geometrical structure is something we need to decide upon, and then
the question of commensurability is at the very heart of science and mathematics. How does
one compare the shapes of flowers and circles? Measuring (μετρεω) is key, but how does
one define a common measure or ruler for starfish, squares, cubes, cylinders or a variety of
less regular shapes? And how does one describe the transition from a circle to a square, or
from an egg to a starfish? Is there a common ruler or compass for such purposes? How
does one pass from isotropy – the idea of (the ideal) circle, as the locus of all points at the
same distance from a central point - to the anisotropy of natural shapes? Where to start?
Prof. Leopold Verstraelen told me that there are three ways of doing maths: Invent New
maths, Solve Problems or Better understand of what is already there. He advice the latter
route for me and this proved very fruitful: going back to the ancient foundations and
principles, to better understand what I had been working on. Going back meant: to think
about harmony and symmetry and this is the reason why symmetry is so central in
mathematics. Symmetry (with –μετρια as its root) for the Ancient Greek mathematicians
means proportion or right balance and to “symmetrize” (συμμετρεω) is the deliberate act of
measuring by comparison, thus making objects commensurable, forming the real basis of
mathematics and geometry. Commensurability can come in varieties, the two extremes
being shape in topology, whereby a torus and a teacup have the same topology, and measure
in geometry, with well defined ways of measuring. These can be same length, same area (equi-
areal) or n-volume (equi-n-areal), isochrony (same duration), or any scalar valued parameter
(isobar, isotherm…).

Our laws in physics (Kepler, Newton…) are all examples of this and undoubtedly, the 20th
century was the century of physics. In the 21st century, understanding life and complexity
will be the major challenge for science. Despite the exponentially growing mountains of data
in the life sciences, the challenge of developing geometrical models, always at the core in eras
of scientific progress (Newton, Riemann, Einstein), remains completely open. Marcel Berger
wrote explicitly: ‘‘Present models of geometry, even if quite numerous, are not able to answer
various essential questions. For example: among all possible configurations of a living organism,
describe its trajectory (life) in time’’. We are still far from describing life mathematically, despite
the numerous successful applications of mathematics in the life sciences.

Applying mathematics in the life sciences brings hope that what works in physics will also
work in biology, where one of the most widely used quotes on the Unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics in the natural sciences by Eugene Wigner (1902-1995) whereby natural
sciences refers to physics. A geometrization of physics then seems to be a simpler task than
a geometrization of biology. As the Russian mathematician I.M. Gelfand (1913-2009) who
had a great interest in biology said: ‘‘There exists yet another phenomenon which is comparable
in its inconceivability with the inconceivable effectiveness of mathematics in physics noted by Wigner
- this is the equally inconceivable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology”. A geometrization of
biology, or more generally of nature, based on forms and formation of natural shapes (a
geometrical theory of morphogenesis) is both an enormous challenge and a prerequisite for
progress in science and the life sciences.

5
Our current tools for the study of nature however, are mainly straight lines and circles, also
for studying squares and starfish. We impose “our” geometry onto the study of nature. Our
current scientific methods are based on our own human perception of the world. We can
build models about nature and its shapes, but computational models able to predict are not
enough to understand. What is really needed are dedicated geometries with intrinsic natural
anisotropy through dedicated semi-rigid and continuous transformations. In particular, it will
allow us to connect the isotropic with the anisotropic. They will become interchangeable.
This requires new pairs of glasses.

A Pythagorean Theorem for the 3rd Millennium?

Here I will take my own work as an example. Two decades ago my botanical work led me to
the development of an equation, which was later called Gielis transformations by
mathematicians. Gielis transformations are being used in geometry, in applied mathematics
and in many fields of science and technology. Using the parameters of the transformations in
optimization schemes, highly efficient antennas and other structures for use in electronics
industry have been developed. They are even used in data analysis at CERN. Other
applications included better turbines, more efficient heat shields for manned space vehicles,
improved wind turbines, wings for airplanes and aircraft optimization, or novel methods in
lasers and printing of highly viscous inks and even printing at nanolevel: wherever fixed
canonical shapes rule, improvements can be expected. In nanotechnology with optimization
schemes using the transformation, (theoretical) improvements have been reported in solar
cells, spectroscopy and cancer treatments, due to the tuning of the scattering response by
optimizing the shape of nanoparticles.

Figure 4: Different natural shapes in fluid mechanics, flowers and diatoms

My own interests is to use these transformations as a method to study natural shapes and
their development, e.g. leaves and tree rings of softwoods, or diatoms. The model was
compared to a classical model of tree rings regarded as circles using the Aikake Information
Criterion, a trade-off between the model’s success in fitting the data and the complexity of
the model and was much better than any existing model, with a higher complexity.

6
 Figure 5: Universal Natural Shapes: in flowers and outer space

A surprising fact is that these transformations are a generalization of the Pythagorean

theorem, in a very simple way, having the same structure. Instead of describing only a circle,
they can describe a wide range of natural and abstract shapes in one Generalized
Pythagorean formula. The name Universal Natural Shapes denotes that we now have a
unified and uniform description at all levels ( This is the Keplerian step in science), and from
this unification methods can be developed to understand why and how species develop and
grow (the Newtonian step). Leopold Verstraelen: “The geometrical description of curves and
surfaces and the shapes that are derived via Gielis-transformations, describe and determine in a
uniform and universal way an enormous diversity of natural shapes”. Circles and spirals are the
geometrical keys, and these basic shapes, enriched with Gielis transformations, are found
throughout nature. A Pythagorean theorem for the 3rd Millennium, for a better
understanding of the world around us.

This example shows that surprising discoveries (even by biologists) can provide new
mathematical glasses (and new microscopes and telescopes) to study natural shapes and
phenomena. It is living proof that mathematics (and consequently the sciences) is a human
endeavor (not robots or AI). Furthermore, as it is human it should not be surprising that
the edifice of mathematics has many many chambers, and many more doors, with many
different interpretations. William Thurston stresses in On Proof and Progress, “Human
understanding does not follow a single path, as a computer with a central processing unit; our brains
are much more complex and capable of far more than a single path”. We should not forget that
it has taken mathematicians thousands of years to come to a good understanding of
concepts like derivatives, and as a consequence there are many possible definitions. For the
Third Millennium it is in my view absolutely necessary to honor this diversity in education.
We are not training students to solve problems according to prescribed rules.

7
Our goal should be to teach students to understand, since this is pivotal for the future of
science. Thurston continues: “Unless great efforts are made to maintain the tone and flavor of
the original human insights, the differences start to evaporate as soon as the mental concepts are
translated into precise, formal and explicit definitions.” Radu Miron wrote: “If Mathematics could
be torn from its foundations (i.e. the mental concepts) it would become a series of formulae,
recipees and tautologies that could not be applied any longer to the objective reality, but only to
some rigid, mortified scheme of this reality.”

One example is the development of algebra and its deviation from geometric numbers.
Consider a polynomial x 3 + x 2 + x . Geometrically it is a sum of a line with length x , and a
square and a cube, also with sides of length x but with area x 2 and volume x 3 respectively,
and these should never be added. Contrary to Viète’s Lex homogeneorum however, it is very
easy to get the same dimension for any term of a polynomial using the unit element. For

( ) +( ) ( )
3 3 3
example, the same polynomial can be written as 3
x.x.x 3
x.x.1 + 3
1.1.x ; all

cubes of the same dimension and actually, all geometric means of different orders between x
and the unit element (and hence related directly to derivatives). All mathematicians in the
16th and 17th century knew this, but it has largely been forgotten. We forbid our children to
think like this. We are not computers, we are human beings, and stressing this should be a
primary goal in mathematical education. Education, information are at the core, and crucial
to the challenge: How can education make humanity more intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise
enough to address its global challenges? 

We should celebrate and cherish human creativity and ingenuity, from the source:
mathematics. This conference is on differential and difference equations, the motor of almost
all of science and technology. The participants are mathematicians whose life and career is
dedicated to solving hard problems (not to be satisfied with half solutions) and to deep
challenges. Their work combines the three pillars of mathematics (algebra, geometry,
calculus), and continues to build the foundations of the future. Not to develop a theory of
everything, but to advance human understanding of mathematics and the world around us.
Each of them has his or her own talents, with a personal background and cultural heritage.
What is most important is that this conference is a place to learn, discuss ideas and results,
to advance mathematics, and form networks for further cooperation and education. There
is indeed a lot to learn and to advance. As Shiing-Shen Chern said at the age of 8P: “My
mathematical education continues, everyday”.

Johan Gielis

Amadora, June 5, 2017

University of Antwerp www.genicap.com www.antennacompany.com

8
 9

View publication stats