Autor

Populäre Sachbücher, Philosophie und Wissenschaft "für jedermann"

Freitag, 5. April 2013

Lesungen "1+1=10: Mathematik für Höhlenmenschen"



Der Autor Jürgen Beetz liest aus seinem Buch „1+1=10:Mathematik für Höhlenmenschen“ im Rahmen der Veranstaltungsreihe „Erlebnis Wissenschaft“ in zwei Filialen der Verlagsgruppe „Lehmanns media“ die amüsantesten und garantiert formelfreien Geschichten vor.



Mehr als die einfache Logik eines Frühmenschen braucht man nicht, um die Grundzüge der Mathematik zu verstehen. Deswegen kann der Autor bei seinem Unternehmen, die Mathematik „begreiflich“ zu machen, in die Steinzeit zurückgehen – genauer gesagt: etwa in die Jungsteinzeit, 10.000 Jahre vor unserer Zeitrechnung.

Gemeinsam mit dem Denker und Mathematiker Eddi Einstein, dem Geometer und Erfinder Rudi Radlos, dem Druiden und Seher Siggi Spökenkieker und der Weisen Frau und Hexe Wilhemine Wicca treffen wir viele einfache, fast gefühlsmäßig zu erfassende mathematische Prinzipien des täglichen Lebens an.


Termine:


  • Montag, 29. April 2013 20.30 Uhr: 30159 Hannover, Georgstraße 10
  • Samstag, 4. Mai  2013 16.00 Uhr: 10623 Berlin, Hardenbergstraße 5 (am „Wissenschaftlichen Erlebnistag für Jung und Alt“)

Näheres siehe hier.

Nachtrag:  

Eine Buchbesprechung ist in Norman Etmanskis Matheblog erschienen. Danke!



 




Kommentare:

  1. hello, Jürgen. I wonder is there some english translation of your book?

    i was interested with headline, and just want to see if has something in common with an idea that i wrote on some forums in Serbia (part of ex Yugoslavia) last year partially, an idea (or theza, or theory) called "matematica alogica", that i wrote all on this place few days ago (http://www.elitesecurity.org/t464104-matematica-alogica).

    if you're interested and have someone who can translate this to you from serbian (or croatian, it's the same language), maybe you'll find something usefull. it's a pretty abstract idea, but the most simple is: with wrong statements we can figure out the world that is out of our usuall - (3+1)d and 5 senses - based on anollogy that we can, on the same way, from hypottetical 2d world find out how 3d world looks like.

    it sounds complicated but it's not :)

    best wishes.

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. Hi Anonymous,
      "it sounds complicated but it's not :)" <== you will have to prove that!
      But, NO, unfortunately my book is only in German... up to now.
      Your idea / theory / hypothesis / ... sounds a litte bit unusual, but why not?!
      I personally stick to "real things"... and simple ones which a man from the stone age still can understand.
      Best regards
      Jürgen

      Löschen
  2. tnx for your opinion for my idea!
    i read few pages of your book (with google translate...) and the idea for presenting math very simple to a large number of people is very nice. it's kinda 'sophie's world', from jostein gaarder, not about philosophy but math, if i don't mistake?

    when you say "you will have to prove that!", if you mean on this sentence "we can from hypottetical 2d world find out how 3d world looks like", (i think) i proved it on link i gave you: http://www.elitesecurity.org/t464104-matematica-alogica

    i can't explain this in my poor english, but i'll try:

    -in book "flatland" from edwin abbott he claims that we can not figure out how 3d world looks like - from 2d world. i think i crash his theory. on next way:

    if we say (wrong) statement for circle: O/R<pi, we get a... half of ball, or cone, for example.
    when O/R=2 we get a half of ball. and condition always is that O of the circle (curve around the circle) stays unchanged.

    we can imagine this as a plastic curve around rubber circle (like a tramboline but small), and if we put a finger in the middle of that and push the rubber, circle transformes in cone.

    depending what conditions we say, we can get different 3d objects.

    the same thing is for other 2d figures, squere, triangle, or any shape, we repeat the same procedure as for the circle.

    and, in this way, we can get, litterary, any shape of the 3d world.

    the constante condition is that O (curve aroung 2d figure) stays unchanged.

    and... thats it. long comment :).

    cheers

    AntwortenLöschen
  3. Hi Anonymous,
    sorry, due to circumstances I did not read your answer until now.
    I know the book "flatland", and I think it is not a math problem but rather a question of human perception. That means you can prove (as you did) that one can conclude the properties of 3D objects from a 2D world, but we cannot imagine a (geometrically) 4D world since our evolution let us grow up in a 3D world.
    Best regards
    Jürgen

    AntwortenLöschen