Wednesday, December 16, 2020

My Understanding of The Hodge Conjecture

(So, this is an unbelievably naïve attempt at understanding the conjecture; I literally just heard about it for the first time today.)

(Before I begin, I would like to give major props to David Metzler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIi92JSZ9J4 and Aleph_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqbvat1fhPI for their wonderful videos explaining to me and introducing to me, respectively, The Hodge Conjecture.)

 So, it is a theorem of Bézout that if algebraic varieties $V$ and $W$ have degrees $n$ and $m$ respectively, they have $nm$ intersection points.

But, as David Metzler explains it, there are three major impediments to finding/counting the intersections of algebraic varieties. 1) The varieties may not have any real intersections, or, at least, fewer than are predicted by Bézout's Theorem; for this, we use complex varieties. 2) The varieties, like parallel lines in the plane, may not intersect in the finite portion of $\mathbb{R}^N$; for this, we use a projective space. Hence, to consider intersections of varieties, we use $\mathbb{C}P^N$ (for $N$ large) as an embedding space for all the varieties in question. Note that by a confluence of about 10 theorems, any complex submanifold $M$ of $\mathbb{C}P^N$ is Kähler. Finally, 3) an intersection may be a "multiple" intersection, and so to correctly "count" the number of intersection points, the intersection points may need to be "counted with multiplicities"; to get around this third point, we assume all complex varieties are smooth manifolds and make both varieties transverse.

So, in $\mathbb{C}P^N$, we consider a smooth complex variety $V$ with $2n$ intersections with any (and, hence, all) lines $L$, adjust $V$ to a complex manifold $M$ with $M$ transverse to $L$, so they genuinely intersect in $2n$ points. Now, consider an $H^{2n}(M; \mathbb{Q})$ Poincaré dual $w$ to $M$. As $M$ is Kähler, $w$ has a unique representation as harmonic differential forms $\sum_{p+q=2n}r_{p,q}\omega_{p,q}$. By black magic, the integrals $\displaystyle \int_{V'} \omega_{p,q} = 0$ for $(p,q) \neq (n,n)$, so, for reason to which I'll come back some other day, we need only consider $\omega_{n,n}$.

 The Hodge Conjecture asks if there is a collection of complex varieties $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_m$ with $\omega_{n,n} = \sum_{i=1}^m q_i[V_i] \in H^{2n}(\mathbb{C}P^N; \mathbb{Q})$, where each $[V_i]$ is a rational Poincaré dual to $V_i$; that is, The Hodge Conjecture asks if $\omega_{n,n}$ must be algebraic.

I think this is the coolest open problem in manifold topology I have ever seen (with possible apologies to The Borel Conjecture).

Robotics

 So, I had been told a bajillion times at topology math conferences that robotics is a big area for applications of manifold topology and geometric group theory, but I never really took the statements seriously: that was "applied math".

Low and behold, as I was Googling for applications of manifold topology and Larangian mechanics to geometric control theory, thisYouTube video playlist popped up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y1_y9DI_Hw&list=PLZaGkBteQK3HQFSWDM7-yRQWTd86DeDIY&index=1 and I don't think my life will ever be the same.

Robotics is the application of manifold topology and Lagrangian mechanics for which I had been looking for, I think, my whole life. So, their 4x4 transformation matrices, which are really representations of the special Euclidean group, $SE(3) = \mathbb{R}^3 \rtimes SO(3)$, are just wonderful mathematics, and DH tables are a fabulous ways of encoding and automating the process of creating transformation matrices.

So, I now have a new purpose in life. I am considering postponing my MS in Control Engineering at UW-Platteville to seek a (hopefully online) BS or BS Certificate in Mechanical Engineering and then, with that credential in place, completing an MS or Ph.D. in Control Engineering, either at UW-Platt or U Washington (in Washington State).

 I think a future in Robotics Engineering could be a very bright and rewarding future for me indeed.

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Books to Study to Learn Geometric Control Theory

Here is a list of books to study to learn geometric control theory:

Ogata
  1. Stewart https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-James-Stewart/dp/1337624187/
  2. Zill https://smile.amazon.com/Differential-Equations-Boundary-Value-Problems-Dennis-ebook/dp/B00B6G3JBE/
  3. Lay or Robbin (Robbin is a personal favorite; his original manuscript for the book is even better) https://smile.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Its-Applications-David-ebook/dp/B00XIHIO6E/ https://smile.amazon.com/Matrix-Algebra-Using-MINimal-MATlab-ebook/dp/B00SC80XLS/
  4. Munkres https://smile.amazon.com/Analysis-Manifolds-Advanced-Books-Classics/dp/0201315963/
  5. Kosinsiki https://smile.amazon.com/Differential-Manifolds-Pure-Applied-Mathematics/dp/0124218504/ 
  6. Bott and Tu https://smile.amazon.com/Differential-Algebraic-Topology-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0387906134/   
  7. do Carmo https://smile.amazon.com/Riemannian-Geometry-Manfredo-Perdigao-Carmo/dp/0817634908/
  8. Arnold https://smile.amazon.com/Mathematical-Classical-Mechanics-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0387968903/
  9. Norton https://www.amazon.com/ISE-Design-of-Machinery/dp/1260590844/ (This is really the lynch pin connecting manifold topology to mechanical systems.)
  10. Close, Frederick, and Newell https://www.amazon.com/Modeling-Analysis-Dynamic-Systems-Newell/dp/8126539291/
  11. Fundamentals of Electrical Circuits https://smile.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Electric-Circuits-Charles-Alexander/dp/0078028221/ 
  12. Dorf and Bishop https://smile.amazon.com/Modern-Control-Systems-13th-Richard/dp/0134407628/
  13. Nise https://smile.amazon.com/Control-Systems-Engineering-Norman-Nise-ebook/dp/B00UGE1DJW/ 
  14. Ogata https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Time-Control-Systems-Katsuhiko-Ogata/dp/0130342815/
  15. Bullo and Lewis https://smile.amazon.com/Geometric-Control-Mechanical-Systems-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B07ZKTDN9X/
  16. Vrabie, Vamvoudakis, and Lewis https://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Differential-Reinforcement-Learning-Principles/dp/1849194890/


Monday, November 18, 2019

Routh Arrays

So, this week, we learned about Routh arrays. It's evidently a theorem about the sign changes of the real part of the roots of a polynomial based on the coefficients. I knew a few of these from my undergrad and graduate math days, but didn't think they were very important. I kind-of knew there would be some interest in the roots of polynomials, but didn't know exactly how it would come into play.

There's a MATLAB function someone evidently wrote to compute Routh arrays https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/58-routh-m. It's super-useful. I got my homework done this week in ~30-45 minutes using it, which I think that might have take 4 hours or more computing all the Routh arrays by hand.

I always knew there was more to Brandon Routh than met the eye, and now I found out what it is. I was always very sorry he never got to reprise his role as The Man of Steel, and was very happy to see he was cast in the Arroverse "Crisis on Infinite Earths" story arc. More "Arne Saknussemm" notes on my way to the center of the control engineering universe.


Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Control Engineering Degree Ahoy!

So, this Fall 2019 semester, I matriculated at UW-Platteville as a distance education MS student in their Control Engineering program. I am taking Engineering 7310 Control Engineering I. It's simply fascinating. Chapter 2 of the book should be entitled, "Everything You Wanted to Know About Transfer Functions (but Were Afraid to Ask)" - it's simply fascinating.

It appears that in according-to-Hoyle control engineering, one has ODEs on manifolds, but simply takes a coordinate patch about a point of interest, pulls back the vector field along the coordinate patch, takes the Jacobian matrix of the vector field at the point of interest and evaluates it, then finds the transfer function for that linear system of ODEs with constant coefficients via a Laplace transform. [I peeked ahead in Bullo and Lewis, and this appears to be exactly what they do (at least in certain places). This simultaneously took the wind out of my sails and gave me hope as to what can be done in the real world.] It appears there are even ways to approximate a higher-order than second-order system by the transfer function of a second-order system, so mass-spring-dashpot systems/RLC circuits are completely general by some points-of-view.

I really think control engineering is my calling. This is all just fascinating. Next semester, we go over state-space representations of control systems, which is where manifold topology evidently comes into the picture. I really wish I had know about this in my undergrad. Of course, then I likely wouldn't have a Ph.D. in manifold topology; there's always a trade-off.

But, I think I'm on the right path now. We'll see if we can get it to pay actual dividend in terms of an increased salary in the future.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Week Unknown: "Open" Problems

The four problems on which I want to work when I have time:

On the circle, S1, with its standard Riemannian metric it inherits as a subspace of ℝ2, find a second-order ODE that is
  1. gradient but not Hamiltonian
  2. Hamiltonian but not gradient
  3. both gradient and Hamiltonian ("harmonic") (I think I have a heuristic proof there are no non-trivial ones)
  4. neither gradient nor Hamiltonian

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Week 62: Self-Realization

[This post doesn't really belong here, but I've been thinking about it for a while, and I want to preserve the post, not let it just get lost amongst my Twitter postings.]

So, I've done some thinking about my teaching/teaching style, and I guess what I really like and what "got me into teaching" is that I like teaching new concepts to students. This is probably a mistake to say, especially given the School at which I'm currently teaching, but I appear to dislike teaching skills: I like teaching new concepts and the new worlds of ideas to which they lead for students, but I dislike working with students to develop skills and real proficiencies with the new topics. I had professors in the past (well, at least one professor :/ ) who would give exams that emphasized knowledge over skill - he would design his exams so if you had a good theoretical knowledge of the course, you would do well, but didn't need a good skill set to be able to perform well on the exam in the time allotted - and I kind-of thought that was math. But developing skills - both for myself and in my students - is a very important part of the game, I'm beginning to realize, even if you're not teaching them any new ideas.

[On an unrelated note, I (finally!) began Tony Robbins's Ultimate Edge program today; I intended to start it 10/09/2016, evidently, but never "felt I had the resources", I correct myself, until today. I'm very excited about it and can't wait to finish it; I hope it will bring a lasting improvement in me.]