[HN Gopher] The Mandelbrot Monk (1999)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Mandelbrot Monk (1999)
        
       Author : rfreytag
       Score  : 133 points
       Date   : 2021-06-05 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (users.math.yale.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (users.math.yale.edu)
        
       | rsj_hn wrote:
       | This is great stuff. Udo of Aachen being the first discoverer of
       | the Mandelbrot set brings to mind other famous clergymen:
       | 
       | Alfred Young, discoverer of Young's Tableux and Young diagrams,
       | which are widely used in mathematical physics and representation
       | theory, was a parish priest in Birdbrook, Essex
       | 
       | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Young_Alfr...
       | 
       | Johann Werner (1468-1822), an ordained priest in Nuremberg,
       | discovered a way to determine your position from sightings of the
       | moon, discovered trigonometric identities and worked on conic
       | sections, and was a pioneer of modern meteorology.
       | 
       | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Werner/
       | 
       | Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), of Mersenne Prime fame, was a French
       | monk, a member of the The Order of the Minims "having been set up
       | by St Francis of Paula in 1436, was thriving at this time. They
       | believed they were the least (minimi) of all the religions on
       | earth, and devoted themselves to prayer, study, and scholarship.
       | They wore a habit made of coarse black wool with broad sleeves
       | and girded by a thin black cord (as seen in the portraits of
       | Mersenne). "
       | 
       | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Mersenne/
       | 
       | Magnus Joseph Weininger (1919-2017) was a mathematician, ordained
       | priest, and Benedictine monk who discovered constriuctions for
       | the remaining set of uniform polyhedra, and authored over 25
       | books on mathematical topics related to convex geometry.
       | 
       | Edwin Abbot (1938-1926) was an ordained priest, schoolmaster, and
       | author who wrote many books including the pop-math books such as
       | "Flatland" as well as "Shakespearean Grammar", "How to write
       | clearly", and exegetical texts on the works of Paul and John in
       | the New Testament, and Koine Greek grammars.
       | 
       | John Polkinghome (1930-2021) as an anglican priest, mathematical
       | physicist, and theologian who worked on high energy physics. A
       | student of Murray Gell-Mann at Caltech, he authored many research
       | papers on Scattering matrices, renormalization, pertubation
       | theory, spinors, and other topics in quantum mechanics, with
       | fellowships at SLAC, Cern, Berkeley and Princeton. He was elected
       | to the Royal Society and received a knighthood.
       | 
       | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Polkinghor...
       | 
       | Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) was a Jesuit priest who
       | worked in mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, and optics. His most
       | famous discovery was the diffraction of light, by creating a
       | prototype of Young's double slit experiment.
       | 
       | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Grimaldi/
        
         | Tagbert wrote:
         | Are all of these hoaxes as Udo of Aachen was? Or are you mixing
         | real discoveries with the hoax? I've always despised April
         | Fools jokes of this sort because they tend to outlive the joke.
        
           | wizzwizz4 wrote:
           | Many are real.
        
       | pvg wrote:
       | Short previous thread:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14614196
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | oolonthegreat wrote:
       | my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined. can
       | anyone point me to an actual monk who was 700 years ahead of
       | their time please?
        
         | lioeters wrote:
         | Not seven centuries ahead, but who comes to my mind is:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Kircher (1602-1680)
         | 
         | > One of the first people to observe microbes through a
         | microscope, Kircher was ahead of his time in proposing that the
         | plague was caused by an infectious microorganism and in
         | suggesting effective measures to prevent the spread of the
         | disease.
        
           | johnaspden wrote:
           | > wearing facemasks to prevent the inhalation of germs
           | 
           | so about three hundred years ahead of the WHO, then...
        
         | michaelsbradley wrote:
         | Albertus Magnus, perhaps.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus
        
         | computerphage wrote:
         | Thomas Bayes?
         | 
         | ...but you might have wait another 400 years to be sure
        
         | boomboomsubban wrote:
         | Though unnamed and I won't provide links, the monks that
         | doodled pictures of things like nuns picking penises off a tree
         | in the margins of books might qualify. It's called marginalia
         | if you're interested.
        
         | kybernetikos wrote:
         | Roger Bacon, although probably 300 rather than 700.
         | 
         | Bede is another contender.
        
       | katzgrau wrote:
       | Ack, had me fooled. I wanted it to be true!
       | 
       | But I don't agree with the comments suggesting that we need to be
       | more skeptical - and that not as many people should have been
       | fooled if they were.
       | 
       | If an article/expert goes to great lengths to fool you, bringing
       | in-depth falsehoods and an impressive platform, at some point you
       | aren't the one to blame.
        
       | denton-scratch wrote:
       | I was completely taken in; and astonished. It's a tale well-told.
        
       | benjohnson wrote:
       | This is a good fun - but there is a 13th century painting that
       | does make you wonder a bit:
       | 
       | https://home.ubalt.edu/NTYGFIT/ai_03_illuminating_love/ai_03...
        
         | inigojonesguy wrote:
         | I thought this is a hoax as well but
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_moralis%C3%A9e
         | 
         | Good one, thanks!
        
       | zeeshanqureshi wrote:
       | April 1st 1999 in the footer had me thinking.
        
       | sangeeth96 wrote:
       | I was about to share this with my peers and end the day with a
       | happy discovery but you had to ruin it, didn't ya?
        
       | Biganon wrote:
       | With the Basilisk collection
       | (https://suricrasia.online/unfiction/basilisk/), this is the
       | second time this month that I get fooled by a hoax! My
       | disappointment is big every time
        
       | dukeofdoom wrote:
       | Heart of Jesus with the cross. Seems to my eyes to be similar in
       | shape.
       | 
       | https://www.wallpaperflare.com/collage-cover-art-cross-heart...
        
         | dvt wrote:
         | It _is_ the same shape! Namely, the Cardioid[1]. It 's simply a
         | happy coincidence that the human heart and Mandelbrot set have
         | the same basic geometric shape, and probably not a Dan Brown-
         | ian conspiracy :)
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid
        
       | anikan_vader wrote:
       | >> (I say 'lucky' because Buffon's Method converges extremely
       | badly, and it's well possible that Udo achieved this good result
       | by choosing his stopping point judiciously - perhaps influenced
       | by the 3.1418 quoted by his contemporary, Leonard of Pisa,
       | otherwise known as Fibonacci).
       | 
       | Udo was truly well ahead of his time [1]. Martingale theory
       | wasn't discovered until the 20th century, but Udo finds a way to
       | subtly apply martingales in a way that many of us would struggle
       | to understand even today.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_stopping_theorem
        
         | I_Byte wrote:
         | The article is an April fools joke. I let my guard down and it
         | got me as well until I looked at some of the other comments.
        
           | anikan_vader wrote:
           | My comment is a joke as well. If you frame Buffon's needle
           | game as a Martingale, playing until you get an answer that
           | agrees with Fibonacci's previous work does not meet the
           | preconditions for the optional stopping theorem. Intuitively,
           | it's equivalent to starting with $1 and making fair bets with
           | infinite credit until you have $2. Sure, it's possible, but
           | it's not a "fair" betting game.
           | 
           | I just thought the quote from the article was unbelievably
           | good -- "choosing his stopping point judiciously" is such a
           | well-done understatement.
        
       | akuro wrote:
       | This kind of thing, whilst fun, is kinda dangerous. I'm not so
       | sure what to make of it. I sniffed it out quickly because I have
       | extensive experience with maths. Many people don't, because
       | unlike me most people have social lives.
       | 
       | My dad still believes that the Sun makes the "Om" sound after
       | seeing a post by some kind of Hindu nationalist on Twitter. I
       | have told him many times, in the kindest way I can, that it's a
       | load of rubbish. He still doesn't really believe me, mostly
       | because the idea of the Sun making that sound is a pleasant idea
       | that agrees with his world view.
       | 
       | Send this article to a hundred people and a lowball of seventy
       | will take it as fact. Of that seventy, there will be a fraction
       | who will believe it - or rather, internalise the notion of it -
       | even despite being told that it is false.
       | 
       | In all fairness it's also very likely that I'm a just a nasty
       | killjoy.
        
         | dvt wrote:
         | > Send this article to a hundred people and a lowball of
         | seventy will take it as fact. Of that seventy, there will be a
         | fraction who will believe it - or rather, internalise the
         | notion of it - even despite being told that it is false.
         | 
         | So what's your solution? Living in a world with no jokes, no
         | satire, no hyperbole, no poetry, no simile? A world where
         | Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" would've never been
         | published because some people might take it a bit _too_
         | seriously? I posit that _this_ is the real danger.
        
           | whatshisface wrote:
           | I think some people might actually be taking _A Modest
           | Proposal_ a bit too seriously. ;)
        
         | hutzlibu wrote:
         | "Send this article to a hundred people and a lowball of seventy
         | will take it as fact. Of that seventy, there will be a fraction
         | who will believe it - or rather, internalise the notion of it -
         | even despite being told that it is false."
         | 
         | And there will be at least some people, who got a valuable
         | lesson, that not everything which looks like a proper citation,
         | is real.
         | 
         | But btw. most people will not read the whole thing alltogether
         | and of those who do, because they know the Mandelbrot set -
         | they will likely figure it out, too.
        
       | johnaspden wrote:
       | This is priceless, thank you!
        
       | eeegnu wrote:
       | This is really a great lesson at always taking things in
       | skeptically. I saw yale.edu and the great detail in multiple
       | sections and the block of citations at the bottom that I let my
       | guard down.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | michaericalribo wrote:
       | This is a fun little piece, but worth noting:
       | 
       | It is absolutely a work of fiction ("hoax", as Wikipedia puts it
       | [1]). I was fooled the first time I read it...but the date at the
       | bottom gives it away.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_of_Aachen
        
         | skullgrid wrote:
         | TBH this post should probably be taken down, or at least
         | explicitly stated as an April Fools joke in the title. I almost
         | didn't come to the comments section, and I didn't read all the
         | way to the bottom date. I definitely would have taken this as
         | fact.
        
           | bla3 wrote:
           | Sounds like you learned a valuable lesson about believing
           | things you read on the internet today :)
           | 
           | Taking it down means others won't be able to learn this
           | lesson.
        
             | Quekid5 wrote:
             | I agree that it's important to learn these lessons, but if
             | recent history has taught us anything it's that reach and
             | amplification will drown out most voices of reason.
             | 
             | I think Vimes might have had an aphorism about this...
             | 
             | EDIT: aphorism, not proverb
        
           | dvt wrote:
           | This a very well known April Fools joke (especially in
           | academia). Maybe the date should be added, but taking it down
           | is a bit much.
        
           | JKCalhoun wrote:
           | My skeptic-radar was pinging at a rate that it sounded like a
           | continuous tone.
        
             | lanstin wrote:
             | While I enthusiastically retweeted it with a little nostrum
             | on how funny people's interests are. Then read the
             | comments, and then deleted the tweet.
        
         | hoseja wrote:
         | I was extremely skeptical from the start, simply because it's
         | fairly impossible to stumble on the Mandelbrot set by just
         | messing about, it's a result of iterating a fairly arbitrary
         | function on complex numbers and can't reasonably be generated
         | by hand.
        
           | orangecat wrote:
           | You don't need the full theory of complex numbers. Start with
           | a zero vector, then iterate doubling the angle, squaring the
           | magnitude, and translating by the vector you're evaluating.
           | It's not totally inconceivable that somebody could have come
           | up with it by just messing around geometrically.
           | 
           | But yes, good instincts.
        
             | hoseja wrote:
             | Wow, thanks! Never heard the geometric explanation and it,
             | as usual, is way more intuitive.
        
         | joshspankit wrote:
         | The photo definitely looks photoshopped, but it's just
         | believable enough to warrant reading the comments
        
         | SkyMarshal wrote:
         | It definitely needs the title to be flagged. It's a time waster
         | unless you know it's a hoax and still want to read it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-05 23:00 UTC)