## Areas of Mathematics

For one of my upcoming talks I am trying to include an exhaustive mindmap showing the different areas of Mathematics, and somehow, how they relate to each other. Most of the information I am using has been processed from years of exposure in the field, and a bit of help from Wikipedia.

But I am not entirely happy with what I see: my lack of training in the area of Combinatorics results in a rather dry treatment of that part of the mindmap, for example. I am afraid that the same could be told about other parts of the diagram. Any help from the reader to clarify and polish this information will be very much appreciated.

And as a bonus, I included a script to generate the diagram with the aid of the `tikz` libraries.

\tikzstyle{level 2 concept}+=[sibling angle=40] \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.49, transform shape] \path[mindmap,concept color=black,text=white] node[concept] {Pure Mathematics} [clockwise from=45] child[concept color=DeepSkyBlue4]{ node[concept] {Analysis} [clockwise from=180] child { node[concept] {Multivariate \& Vector Calculus} [clockwise from=120] child {node[concept] {ODEs}}} child { node[concept] {Functional Analysis}} child { node[concept] {Measure Theory}} child { node[concept] {Calculus of Variations}} child { node[concept] {Harmonic Analysis}} child { node[concept] {Complex Analysis}} child { node[concept] {Stochastic Analysis}} child { node[concept] {Geometric Analysis} [clockwise from=-40] child {node[concept] {PDEs}}}} child[concept color=black!50!green, grow=-40]{ node[concept] {Combinatorics} [clockwise from=10] child {node[concept] {Enumerative}} child {node[concept] {Extremal}} child {node[concept] {Graph Theory}}} child[concept color=black!25!red, grow=-90]{ node[concept] {Geometry} [clockwise from=-30] child {node[concept] {Convex Geometry}} child {node[concept] {Differential Geometry}} child {node[concept] {Manifolds}} child {node[concept,color=black!50!green!50!red,text=white] {Discrete Geometry}} child { node[concept] {Topology} [clockwise from=-150] child {node [concept,color=black!25!red!50!brown,text=white] {Algebraic Topology}}}} child[concept color=brown,grow=140]{ node[concept] {Algebra} [counterclockwise from=70] child {node[concept] {Elementary}} child {node[concept] {Number Theory}} child {node[concept] {Abstract} [clockwise from=180] child {node[concept,color=red!25!brown,text=white] {Algebraic Geometry}}} child {node[concept] {Linear}}} node[extra concept,concept color=black] at (200:5) {Applied Mathematics} child[grow=145,concept color=black!50!yellow] { node[concept] {Probability} [clockwise from=180] child {node[concept] {Stochastic Processes}}} child[grow=175,concept color=black!50!yellow] {node[concept] {Statistics}} child[grow=205,concept color=black!50!yellow] {node[concept] {Numerical Analysis}} child[grow=235,concept color=black!50!yellow] {node[concept] {Symbolic Computation}}; \end{tikzpicture}

## Stones, balances, matrices

Let’s examine an easy puzzle on finding the different stone by using a balance:

You have four stones identical in size and appearance, but one of them is heavier than the rest. You have a set of scales (a balance): how many weights do you need to determine which stone is the heaviest?

This is a trivial problem, but I will use it to illustrate different ideas, definitions, and the connection to linear algebra needed to answer the harder puzzles below. Let us start by solving it in the most natural way:

- Enumerate each stone from 1 to 4.
- Set stones 1 and 2 on the left plate; set stones 3 and 4 on the right plate. Since one of the stones is heavier, it will be in the plate that tips the balance. Let us assume this is the left plate.
- Discard stones 3 and 4. Put stone 1 on the left plate; and stone 2 on the right plate. The plate that tips the balance holds the heaviest stone.

This solution finds the stone in two weights. It is what we call *adaptive measures*: each measure is determined by the result of the previous. This is a good point to introduce an algebraic scheme to code the solution.

**The weights matrix**: This is a matrix with four columns (one for each stone) and two rows (one for each weight). The entries of this matrix can only be or depending whether a given stone is placed on the left plate , on the right plate or in neither plate For example, for the solution given above, the corresponding matrix would be**The stones matrix**: This is a square matrix with four rows and columns (one for each stone). Each column represents a different combination of stones, in such a way that the*n*-th column assumes that the heaviest stone is in the*n*-th position. The entries on this matrix indicate the weight of each stone. For example, if we assume that the heaviest stone weights*b*units, and each other stone weights*a*units, then the corresponding**stones matrix**is

Multiplying these two matrices, and looking at the sign of the entries of the resulting matrix, offers great insight on the result of the measures:

Note the columns of this matrix code the behavior of the measures:

- The column indicates that the balance tipped to the left in both measures (and therefore, the heaviest stone is the first one)
- The column indicates that the heaviest stone is the second one.
- Note that the other two measures can’t find the heaviest stone, since this matrix was designed to find adaptively a stone supposed to be either the first or the second.

Is it possible to design a solution to this puzzle that is not adaptive? Note the solution with two measures given (in algebraic form) below:

Since each column is different, it is trivial to decide after the experiment is done, which stone will be the heaviest. For instance, if the balance tips first to the right (-) and then to the left (+), the heaviest stone can only be the third one.

Let us make it a big harder: Same situation, but now we don’t know whether the stone that is different is heavier or lighter.

The solution above is no good: Since we are not sure whether *b* is greater or smaller than *a*, we would obtain two sign matrices which are virtually mirror images of each other.

In this case, in the event of obtaining that the balance tips twice to the left: which would be the different stone? The first, which is heaviest, or the fourth, which is lightest? We cannot decide.

One possible solution to this situation involves taking one more measure. Look at the algebraic expression of the following example, to realize why:

In this case there is no room for confusion: if the balance tips three times to the same side, then the different stone is the first one (whether heavier or lighter). The other possibilities are also easily solvable: if the balance tips first to one side, then to the other, and then to the first side, then the different stone is the third one.

The reader will not be very surprised at this point to realize that three (non adaptive) measures are also enough to decide which stone is different (be it heavier or lighter) in a set of twelve similar stones. To design the solution, a good weight matrix with twelve columns and three rows need to be constructed. The trick here is to allow measures that balance both plates, which gives us more combinations with which to play. How would the reader design this matrix?

## So you want to be an Applied Mathematician

The way of the Applied Mathematician is one full of challenging and interesting problems. We thrive by association with the Pure Mathematician, and at the same time with the no-nonsense, hands-in, hard-core Engineer. But not everything is happy in Applied Mathematician land: every now and then, we receive the disregard of other professionals that mistake either our background, or our efficiency at attacking real-life problems.

I heard from a colleague (an Algebrist) complains that Applied Mathematicians did *nothing but code solutions of partial differential equations in Fortran*—his skewed view came up after a naïve observation of a few graduate students working on a project. The truth could not be further from this claim: we do indeed occasionally solve PDEs in Fortran—I give you that—and we are not ashamed to admit it. But before that job has to be addressed, we have gone through a great deal of thinking on how to better code this *simple* problem. And you would not believe the huge amount of deep Mathematics that are involved in this journey: everything from high-level Linear Algebra, Calculus of Variations, Harmonic Analysis, Differential Geometry, Microlocal Analysis, Functional Analysis, Dynamical Systems, the Theory of Distributions, etc. Not only are we familiar with the basic background on all those fields, but also we are supposed to be able to perform serious research on any of them at a given time.

My soon-to-be-converted Algebrist friend challenged me—not without a hint of smugness in his voice—to illustrate what was my last project at that time. This was one revolving around the idea of frames (think of it as redundant bases if you please), and needed proving a couple of inequalities involving sequences of functions in —spaces, which we attacked using a beautiful technique: Bellman functions. About ninety minutes later he conceded defeat in front of the board where the math was displayed. He promptly admitted that this was *no Fortran code*, and showed a newfound respect and reverence for the trade.

It doesn’t hurt either that the kind of problems that we attack are more likely to attract funding. And collaboration. And to be noticed in the press.

Alright, so some of you are sold already. What is the next step? I am assuming that at his point you *own* your Calculus, Analysis, Probability and Statistics, Linear Programming, Topology, Geometry, Physics and you are able to solve most known ODEs. From here, as with any other field, my recommendation is to slowly build a **Batman belt**: acquire and devour a sequence of books and scientific articles, until you are very familiar with their contents. When facing a new problem, you should be able to recall from your Batman belt what technique could work best, in which book(s) you could get some references, and how it has been used in the past for related problems.

Following these lines, I have included below an interesting collection with the absolutely essential books that, in my opinion, every Applied Mathematician should start studying: