<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Gracious Living</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>and the Two Meat Meal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Future by Paul VanKoughnett</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-future/#comment-347</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul VanKoughnett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=369#comment-347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think so -- presumably, I just liked your blog!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think so &#8212; presumably, I just liked your blog!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Future by Abhishek Parab</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-future/#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abhishek Parab]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=369#comment-345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Paul, I am Abhishek. I stumbled upon your blog and was pleasantly surprised to find the link to my blog here. Do I know you?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Paul, I am Abhishek. I stumbled upon your blog and was pleasantly surprised to find the link to my blog here. Do I know you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on tauism by Paul VanKoughnett</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/tauism/#comment-339</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul VanKoughnett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 22:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=290#comment-339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was like a year ago and presumably you&#039;ve already found an answer, but this was an interesting enough comment that I felt like I should respond to it anyway.  In terms of female mathematicians, you really can&#039;t do better than Emmy Noether.  She was a German professor in the early 20th century who worked at Goettingen with Hilbert and Klein.  For much of her early career, she was denied a title, and even pay, because she was a woman.  One of the foundational principles of modern physics is Noether&#039;s theorem, which says that physical conservation laws correspond to smooth symmetries of the space in which they occur -- thus, both trivialities such as the fact that physics works the same way no matter your position in space or time and more interesting statements like the conservation of energy and momentum occur as results of the quite general setup of a Lie group action on a manifold!  Together with David Hilbert, she also more or less created abstract algebra, a revolutionary idea that (in my opinion) defined the course of mathematics for the next century.  Though it now seems commonplace, at the time the idea of studying ideals in abstract rings in order to derive results about the concrete places where they appear, such as number theory and algebraic geometry, was unheard of, to say nothing of converting &#039;concrete&#039; results to &#039;abstract&#039; ones and then back into &#039;concrete&#039; ones in other parts of mathematics.  The Noetherian condition on a ring, which she invented and studied, is a technical and unintuitive condition that turns out to be precisely the right way of saying a ring is small enough to be usable (usually allowing you to work with finite sets of elements at a time, for example).  I believe she&#039;s also responsible for the &#039;modern&#039; point of view of representation theory, treating group representations as modules over the group ring.

In response to your actual question, I&#039;d actually guess that the construction of the real numbers might not be the best thing to talk about with 15-year-olds.  When I started this blog, I might have felt differently, but it&#039;s since become clear to me that a lot of things I felt like blogging about then may not have been truly interesting enough to be worth the effort.  The things that get people interested in math are not its technical constructions, tedious fact-checking, or eternal search for &#039;correct&#039; definitions -- these all have their place, but appreciating them requires to some extent thinking like a mathematician.  Instead, people are captivated by its surprises (every polynomial over the complex numbers has a root) and its metaphors (the complex numbers behave like a plane, which can be translated by addition and dilated and &lt;em&gt;rotated&lt;/em&gt; by multiplication).

I&#039;d advise instead showing your fifteen-year-olds &lt;a href=&quot;http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/countability/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cantor&#039;s proof that the real numbers are uncountable&lt;/a&gt;.  This is a beautiful argument with a lot going for it: they learn that we can talk about infinity rigorously, but that it doesn&#039;t work the way we might expect it to; that the very way things are written down can have surprising consequences; that sometimes we have to put things in weird places or orderings to study them correctly; and that the real numbers are a lot more complicated than we might give them credit for.  It&#039;s also a good example of a proof by contradiction (explain carefully that the proof doesn&#039;t give you a new real number to add to the list, but that it shows that &lt;em&gt;no such list can exist&lt;/em&gt;), and of a non-constructive proof (it shows that irrational numbers exist without actually constructing any; as a bonus, if you show that the algebraic numbers are countable, the same argument shows that transcendental numbers exist, but actually finding them is &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; harder than finding algebraic irrational numbers).  And as some additional cheap entertainment, you can throw in the gory details of Cantor&#039;s life, how he was blackballed by his own advisor for his controversial work, went in and out of insane asylums, etc.

Your book sounds interesting and I&#039;d love to read it when it comes out (has it already?).  I don&#039;t know about the other sciences, but math still seems to have a hard time attracting women, which is a true disservice to both math and the women who could be doing it.  I&#039;d be curious to hear if you have any ideas on how to fix this problem.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was like a year ago and presumably you&#8217;ve already found an answer, but this was an interesting enough comment that I felt like I should respond to it anyway.  In terms of female mathematicians, you really can&#8217;t do better than Emmy Noether.  She was a German professor in the early 20th century who worked at Goettingen with Hilbert and Klein.  For much of her early career, she was denied a title, and even pay, because she was a woman.  One of the foundational principles of modern physics is Noether&#8217;s theorem, which says that physical conservation laws correspond to smooth symmetries of the space in which they occur &#8212; thus, both trivialities such as the fact that physics works the same way no matter your position in space or time and more interesting statements like the conservation of energy and momentum occur as results of the quite general setup of a Lie group action on a manifold!  Together with David Hilbert, she also more or less created abstract algebra, a revolutionary idea that (in my opinion) defined the course of mathematics for the next century.  Though it now seems commonplace, at the time the idea of studying ideals in abstract rings in order to derive results about the concrete places where they appear, such as number theory and algebraic geometry, was unheard of, to say nothing of converting &#8216;concrete&#8217; results to &#8216;abstract&#8217; ones and then back into &#8216;concrete&#8217; ones in other parts of mathematics.  The Noetherian condition on a ring, which she invented and studied, is a technical and unintuitive condition that turns out to be precisely the right way of saying a ring is small enough to be usable (usually allowing you to work with finite sets of elements at a time, for example).  I believe she&#8217;s also responsible for the &#8216;modern&#8217; point of view of representation theory, treating group representations as modules over the group ring.</p>
<p>In response to your actual question, I&#8217;d actually guess that the construction of the real numbers might not be the best thing to talk about with 15-year-olds.  When I started this blog, I might have felt differently, but it&#8217;s since become clear to me that a lot of things I felt like blogging about then may not have been truly interesting enough to be worth the effort.  The things that get people interested in math are not its technical constructions, tedious fact-checking, or eternal search for &#8216;correct&#8217; definitions &#8212; these all have their place, but appreciating them requires to some extent thinking like a mathematician.  Instead, people are captivated by its surprises (every polynomial over the complex numbers has a root) and its metaphors (the complex numbers behave like a plane, which can be translated by addition and dilated and <em>rotated</em> by multiplication).</p>
<p>I&#8217;d advise instead showing your fifteen-year-olds <a href="http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/countability/" rel="nofollow">Cantor&#8217;s proof that the real numbers are uncountable</a>.  This is a beautiful argument with a lot going for it: they learn that we can talk about infinity rigorously, but that it doesn&#8217;t work the way we might expect it to; that the very way things are written down can have surprising consequences; that sometimes we have to put things in weird places or orderings to study them correctly; and that the real numbers are a lot more complicated than we might give them credit for.  It&#8217;s also a good example of a proof by contradiction (explain carefully that the proof doesn&#8217;t give you a new real number to add to the list, but that it shows that <em>no such list can exist</em>), and of a non-constructive proof (it shows that irrational numbers exist without actually constructing any; as a bonus, if you show that the algebraic numbers are countable, the same argument shows that transcendental numbers exist, but actually finding them is <em>much</em> harder than finding algebraic irrational numbers).  And as some additional cheap entertainment, you can throw in the gory details of Cantor&#8217;s life, how he was blackballed by his own advisor for his controversial work, went in and out of insane asylums, etc.</p>
<p>Your book sounds interesting and I&#8217;d love to read it when it comes out (has it already?).  I don&#8217;t know about the other sciences, but math still seems to have a hard time attracting women, which is a true disservice to both math and the women who could be doing it.  I&#8217;d be curious to hear if you have any ideas on how to fix this problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Classification Theorem for Finitely Generated Abelian Groups by orthodontic treatment</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-classification-theorem-for-finitely-generated-abelian-groups/#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[orthodontic treatment]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=336#comment-325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really like your blog.. very nice colors &amp; theme. Did you design this 
website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz 
respond as I&#039;m looking to create my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. cheers]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really like your blog.. very nice colors &amp; theme. Did you design this<br />
website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz<br />
respond as I&#8217;m looking to create my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on tauism by weirdo</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/tauism/#comment-320</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[weirdo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=290#comment-320</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really liked this. But I wouldn&#039;t denote 2\pi with \tau, but with an encircled \pi, it is, just a \pi with a mark: it would be obvious that it&#039;s a variation of the same concept. But which mark? A circle surrounding the \pi with put enphasis on the relation of \pi with circles. I&#039;m tempted to not use \pi again.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really liked this. But I wouldn&#8217;t denote 2\pi with \tau, but with an encircled \pi, it is, just a \pi with a mark: it would be obvious that it&#8217;s a variation of the same concept. But which mark? A circle surrounding the \pi with put enphasis on the relation of \pi with circles. I&#8217;m tempted to not use \pi again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Connectedness by DMG</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/connectedness/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DMG]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=157#comment-319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You say that connected components are clopen, which is not true in general. It is true that they are closed, which follows from the fact that the closure of a connected subset is also connected and the maximality of connected components. But for example consider the set of rational points in R (subspace topology), the connected components are points (because Q are dense), and they are not open!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say that connected components are clopen, which is not true in general. It is true that they are closed, which follows from the fact that the closure of a connected subset is also connected and the maximality of connected components. But for example consider the set of rational points in R (subspace topology), the connected components are points (because Q are dense), and they are not open!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Compactness and the Heine-Borel Theorem by beroal</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/compactness-and-the-heine-borel-theorem/#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[beroal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=254#comment-303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for the great post.
Now suppose that C is compact but not closed. Let p be a limit point of C that is not in C. … Thus, compact subspaces of \mathbb{R}^n are closed and ….
I believe that this argument does not need limit points. Use the fact that $A$ is closed iff $\operatorname{cl}(A)\subseteq A$ and a fact that $a\in \operatorname{cl}(A)$ iff every open neighborhood of $a$ meets $A$. Link in: Hu, Sze-Tsen. “Elements of general topology.” Corollary 2.5.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the great post.<br />
Now suppose that C is compact but not closed. Let p be a limit point of C that is not in C. … Thus, compact subspaces of \mathbb{R}^n are closed and ….<br />
I believe that this argument does not need limit points. Use the fact that $A$ is closed iff $\operatorname{cl}(A)\subseteq A$ and a fact that $a\in \operatorname{cl}(A)$ iff every open neighborhood of $a$ meets $A$. Link in: Hu, Sze-Tsen. “Elements of general topology.” Corollary 2.5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The game plan by maple ojos</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/hello-world/#comment-293</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[maple ojos]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=1#comment-293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[hi Paul,
i enjoy your site. will u post more material? i can&#039;t find any recent posts-hope your ok.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi Paul,<br />
i enjoy your site. will u post more material? i can&#8217;t find any recent posts-hope your ok.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Countability Axioms by Sachin Munshi</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/countability-axioms/#comment-284</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sachin Munshi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=321#comment-284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the standard bounded metric actually uses the min and not the max.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the standard bounded metric actually uses the min and not the max.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on tauism by C S Lakshmi</title>
		<link>http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/tauism/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[C S Lakshmi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetwomeatmeal.wordpress.com/?p=290#comment-281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a historian trying to write a book on women scientists to inspire High School graduates to take up science as a career. I have two great mathematicians to write about and have got stuck with real numbers and Dedekind cuts. How do I simplify these things for  fifteen-year-olds to inspire them to take up math? A tough job I am facing. Anyone willing to help?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a historian trying to write a book on women scientists to inspire High School graduates to take up science as a career. I have two great mathematicians to write about and have got stuck with real numbers and Dedekind cuts. How do I simplify these things for  fifteen-year-olds to inspire them to take up math? A tough job I am facing. Anyone willing to help?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
