Skip to main content

Brian Hayes - Four Way Interview

Brian Hayes writes about science, mathematics, computation, and technology. In the 1970s he was an editor at Scientific American, and later at American Scientist. The essays collected in his latest book, Foolproof, and Other Mathematical Meditations, began life as columns in the latter magazine. He holds a courtesy appointment at Harvard University and is supported by a fellowship from Y Combinator Research. Next year he will be journalist-in-residence at the Simons Institute for Theory of Computing in Berkeley, California.

Why maths?

I suppose I could go on about the austere beauty of mathematical truths — and there’s actually something in that. The world of mathematics has a comforting stability and solidity. It’s 'a less fretful cosmos,' according to Bertrand Russell. When the turmoil of life is getting you down — or keeping you up at night — it’s a relief to noodle away on a little maths problem, tucked away in the back of your head. And it’s such a pleasure when you finally solve it.


But mathematics is not just problems and solutions, or theorems and proofs. It’s also a human endeavor, a social activity carried on by a community of people with distinctive histories, traditions, habits of thought, rituals, stories, jokes. I find it a fascinating culture, and part of what I’m up to is trying to give the rest of the world a peek into the lives and minds of mathematicians.

Why this book?

Some stories are worth telling more than once. And sometimes it takes more than one telling to get a story right.

Over the years, I’ve written lots of essays on mathematical and computational themes, published in Scientific American, The Sciences, and American Scientist. In putting together Foolproof, I collected a dozen of these essays that I thought deserved a second chance to find an audience. It’s a second chance for me, too: an opportunity to update, revise, improve. 

The aim of the book is not to teach mathematics. I’m not going to help you brush up your calculus. But neither is it a book of recreational mathematics, focused on puzzles and clever problems (although there is a chapter on sudoku). I think of it more as a travel book, where I visit various mathematical territories, sample the cuisine, and try to learn a few words of the language by chatting with the locals.


Incidentally, the magazine versions of all the essays are still available on the web (though without the updates, revisions, and improvements). I provide links to PDF files on the book’s website. The site also has a couple of live-action playthings based on illustrations from the book.

What's next?

I’m working on a book-length project called Tinkering with the Universe, about mathematics and computation as tools for exploring the world we live in. If you want to understand how rivers carve their meandering channels, how birds in flocks coordinate their flight, or how rumors spread through a population, a computer model can be highly illuminating. Computer models of the earth’s climate have assumed special importance in recent years; based on what those models tell us, we’re asking seven billion people to change their behavior. 

I have written about many such models and simulations, but having only words and pictures to explain them leaves me frustrated. I want to give my readers a chance to play with the models themselves, twiddling all the knobs and watching what happens. In the past few years, it’s become possible to offer that experience on the web: The program for a simulation can be embedded in a web page, so that the reader can experiment with it. Yet even that marvel of modern technology still falls short of the ideal. It turns out that the big learning opportunity in computer modeling comes not from running the finished model but from building it in the first place. You have to get your hands dirty mucking about with the source code. That’s what I’m aiming for in Tinkering with the Universe. A web page will offer both a running model and a live view of the source code; when the reader modifies the program, the model changes accordingly. The first chapters should go live next year.


I also have a side project — a work of fiction. I’m not ready to reveal much beyond the working title: Fork Me on GitHub: A Novel for Nerds. This too I expect to serialize on the web starting next year.

What's exciting you at the moment?

I’m intrigued by the current enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural networks. I’m old enough to remember two previous waves of AI optimism. In the 1960s and early 70s the grand goal was 'general AI' — building a mind something like a human one. In the 1980s attention shifted to more specialized 'expert systems,' which would master a single domain, such as medical diagnosis. Both of those undertakings were thought to require a deep understanding of how reasoning works, as well as extensive knowledge about the world at large. That’s where they faltered. The new AI takes a much shallower approach, applying statistical methods to masses of unstructured data. I never would have expected it to work, but the results are impressive, at least in areas such as image recognition and language translation. I’m amazed. I’m also unsure how it will all end.


Apart from what excites me, I also have to mention what scares me. I cherish my opportunities to withdraw into Bertrand Russell’s less fretful cosmos, but I can’t help noticing that the world outside my cozy nook seems to be falling to pieces. We should all remember the story of Archimedes, who was too engrossed in his geometry to look up at a Roman soldier who disturbed his studies, and then slayed him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on