京 东 价：
[定价：￥]
PLUS会员专享价
支　　持：
搭配赠品：
服务支持：
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
数学物理的几何方法（英文版）
加载中，请稍候...
商品介绍加载中...
扫一扫，精彩好书免费看
京东商城向您保证所售商品均为正品行货，京东自营商品开具机打发票或电子发票。
凭质保证书及京东商城发票，可享受全国联保服务（奢侈品、钟表除外；奢侈品、钟表由京东联系保修，享受法定三包售后服务），与您亲临商场选购的商品享受相同的质量保证。京东商城还为您提供具有竞争力的商品价格和，请您放心购买！
注：因厂家会在没有任何提前通知的情况下更改产品包装、产地或者一些附件，本司不能确保客户收到的货物与商城图片、产地、附件说明完全一致。只能确保为原厂正货！并且保证与当时市场上同样主流新品一致。若本商城没有及时更新，请大家谅解！
权利声明：京东上的所有商品信息、客户评价、商品咨询、网友讨论等内容，是京东重要的经营资源，未经许可，禁止非法转载使用。
注：本站商品信息均来自于合作方，其真实性、准确性和合法性由信息拥有者（合作方）负责。本站不提供任何保证，并不承担任何法律责任。
印刷版次不同，印刷时间和版次以实物为准。
价格说明：
京东价：京东价为商品的销售价，是您最终决定是否购买商品的依据。
划线价：商品展示的划横线价格为参考价，该价格可能是品牌专柜标价、商品吊牌价或由品牌供应商提供的正品零售价（如厂商指导价、建议零售价等）或该商品在京东平台上曾经展示过的销售价；由于地区、时间的差异性和市场行情波动，品牌专柜标价、商品吊牌价等可能会与您购物时展示的不一致，该价格仅供您参考。
折扣：如无特殊说明，折扣指销售商在原价、或划线价（如品牌专柜标价、商品吊牌价、厂商指导价、厂商建议零售价）等某一价格基础上计算出的优惠比例或优惠金额；如有疑问，您可在购买前联系销售商进行咨询。
异常问题：商品促销信息以商品详情页“促销”栏中的信息为准；商品的具体售价以订单结算页价格为准；如您发现活动商品售价或促销信息有异常，建议购买前先联系销售商咨询。
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
加载中，请稍候...
浏览了该商品的用户还浏览了
加载中，请稍候...
联系供应商
七日畅销榜
新书热卖榜
iframe(src='///ns.html?id=GTM-T947SH', height='0', width='0', style='display: visibility:')A Dialogue with Professor Ke-zheng Li:Why Study Algebraic Geometry--《Studies in College Mathematics》2011年04期
A Dialogue with Professor Ke-zheng Li:Why Study Algebraic Geometry
CHEN Yue(Department of mathematics,Shanghai Normal Univeristy,Shanghai 200234,PRC)
Based on an interview with Professor Ke-zheng Li of Capital Normal University,this paper recorded Professor Li's brief description of the early development of algebraic geometry in China,his detailed experience of studying algebraic geometry in America,and his accomplishment of teaching and research after return to China.This paper also contains Professor Li's viewpoints of the key importance of algebraic geometry method in solving the major number theory problems.
【Key Words】：
【CateGory Index】：
supports all the CNKI
only supports the PDF format.
【Co-citations】
Chinese Journal Full-text Database
ZHANG Lingping Department of Mathematics,Huaiyin Teachers' College,Huaiyin 223300;[J];Journal of Ningxia Teachers U2008-03
Liu Tai-lin
(Dept.of Basic Sciences,Shandong Finance Institute,Jinan 250014,China);[J];JOURNAL OF JILIN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY;1999-04
Wang Weichang(Depastment of Basic Courses,WTU, Wuhan 430063);[J];JOURNAL OF WUHAN TRANSPORTATION UNIVERSITY;1999-05
(Shandong Finance Institute,Jinan,250014);[J];JOURNAL OF JINZHOU TEACHERS COLLEGE (NATURAL SCIENCES EDITION);2000-02
YANG Jun,JIANG Jian-jun,HUO Jia-jia
(Mathematical College, Sichuan University,Chengdu 610064,China);[J];Journal of Sichuan University (Natural Science Edition);2002-02
XU Qing-hai
(Department of Mathematics,Quanzhou Normal College,Quanzhou 362000,China);[J];Journal of Liaocheng Teachers U2002-04
XU Qing-hai(Dept. of Math, Quanzhou Normal College, Fujian 362000, P.R.C.);[J];Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities(Natural Science Edition);2003-01
ZHOU Yun?(Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China);[J];Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of S2007-06
XU Ning(School of Mathematical Sciences, Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100049,China);[J];Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of S2008-05
DING Chang-Xin(Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100049,China);[J];Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of S2009-01
Similar Journals
(C)2006 Tsinghua Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co., Ltd.(Beijing)(TTKN) All rights reserved7 Reasons Why You Should Study Architecture | Architecture Student Chronicles
There is an important questions that needs to be asked. Why study Architecture in the first place? What are the merits of choosing Architecture as a career over other professions? And what could be the compromises and trade-offs an Architecture student might have to make to achieve success?
Here are the 7 reasons that could convince anyone to take up Architecture as a profession…
1. An Architect is a sort of an inventor. Like an inventor who goes about making and designing new gadgets, you go around designing new buildings. Architecture is a very satisfying profession You’ll get a tremendous sense of delight after your concepts on paper transform into real buildings. You’ll know the joy of creation in this field of Architecture…
2. A course in Architecture is a lot of fun. Unlike traditional colleges where you must slog yourself in study halls and libraries, reading and writing all the time, a course in Architecture gives you the liberty to use the right side of your brain, the creative part. You get a lot of opportunities to showcase your creativity and ingenuity while designing structures.
3. Architecture is a very high paying field. Once you get through the course and pass out with good grades, you’d be pursued by large firms looking for fresh talent and new ideas. And compared to most other fields,
4. It is easy to define Architecture but the word has far deeper meaning than it implies. While you study Architecture, you get to study various fields of human endeavor, including Art, History, Material Science, Physics, Engineering… anything and everything that can help improve the living environment of human beings. It is the most diverse subject you can find. And yet, this field attracts the most creative and romantic minds in the world.
5. The work of an Architect one of the most challenging and enjoyable imaginable. Every building is different. Every project is different. There is absolutely no monotony in life. The thrill and the challenge of work is exhilarating to say the least.
6. If you’re the kind of guy (or gal) who likes to work with his (or her) hands, then Architecture is the right profession for you.
In Architecture study course, you get to work with your hands. Its not just about reading and writing all the time, but you must have a hands-on approach on many assignments. Building scale models, making surveys, talking to people… its a very active field.
7. Architecture may sound like a 9 to 5 office job, but its not. Its a lot more than that. Even as a student of Architecture, you get to work on real-life problems of designing functional buildings. If you like to hit the road every now and then, you’re in for some luck. In this profession, you get to travel a lot. You have to put your feet on the ground, and visit construction sites.
Counter-Argument
Times Online in UK has published a very thought-provoking and interesting article about the perils of choosing Architecture. It is titled ““ A very interesting read indeed.
In that article, Tom Dyckhoff has laid down in detail the problems faced by architecture students after they graduate. Architecture is a high profile field. We see the symbols of architecture everywhere around us. It is a “cool” career choice. But there isn’t enough demand for Architects. Due to the current housing recession, salaries have dropped, and they are considerably lower than those in the Medical or Dental fields.
It is true that architecture students work very hard to get that “edge” over others. They work day and night, often with little sleep, just so they can design the best project portfolio. But it doesn’t really pay off. Life of an architecture student is hard.
Share this Post:
Related posts:
This entry was posted by
and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through .
You can , or
from your own site.
>>>> 7 Reasons Why You Should Study Architecture
Featured Posts
Subscribe via Email
| Fusion theme by
| There are 235 published posts
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.此版本中的新功能 &
? Fixed for iPod Touch
? Improved Pythagoras tree
? Fixed for iPod Touch
? Improved Pythagoras tree
尚无分享截图
Pythagorea: Geometry on Squared Paper 的评论&&
暂无点评，！
喜欢TA的人常去的小组
订阅Pythagorea: Geometry on Squared Paper的评论:Why study calculus? a brief history of math
Why Do We Study Calculus?
a brief look at some of the history of mathematics
an essay by
version of August 23, 2006
The question I am asked most often is, "why do we study this?"
(or its variant, "will this be on the exam?").
Indeed, it's not
immediately obvious how some of the stuff we're studying
will be of any use to the students. Though some of them
will eventually use calculus in their
work in physics, chemistry, or economics, almost none
of those people will ever need prove anything
about calculus.
They're willing to
trust the pure mathematicians whose
job it is to certify the reliability of the theorems.
Why, then, do we study epsilons and deltas, and
all these other abstract concepts of proofs?
Well, calculus is not a just vocational training course.
students should study calculus for the same reasons that they study
Darwin, Marx, Voltaire, or Dostoyevsky:
These ideas are a basic part
these ideas have shaped how we perceive the world and
how we perceive our place in the world. To understand how that is true
of calculus, we must put calculus into a hi we
must contrast the world before calculus with the world after calculus.
(Probably we should put more history into our calculus courses.
Indeed, there
is a growing movement among mathematics teachers to do precisely that.)
The earliest mathematics was perhaps the arithmetic of commerce:
If 1 cow is worth 3 goats, how much does 4 cows cost?
grew from the surveying of real estate.
A math was
useful and it grew.
The ancient Greeks did a great
deal of clever thinking, but
this led to
some errors.
For instance, Aristotle observed that a rock falls
faster than a feather, and concluded that heavier objects fall
faster than lighter objects.
Aristotle's views persisted for
centuries, until the discovery of air resistance.
The most dramatic part of the story of calculus
comes with astronomy.
People studied
and tried to predict
things that were out of human reach and
apparently beyond human control.
"Fear not this dark and cold,"
"warm times will come again.
The seasons are a cycle.
from the beginning of one planting season to the beginning of
the next planting season is almost 13 cycles of the moon --
almost 13 cycles of the blood of fertility."
The gods who lived
in the heavens were cruel and arbitrary -- too much rain or too
little rain could mean famine.
The earth was the center of the universe. Each day, the sun rose
in the east and set in the west.
Each night, the constellations
of stars rose in the east and set in the west.
The stars were
fixed in position, relative to each other, except for a handful
of "wanderers," or "planets".
The motions of these
planets were extremely erratic and complicated.
Astrologers kept careful records of the motions of
the planets, so as to predict their future motions and
(hopefully) their effects on humans.
In 1543 Copernicus published his observations that the
motions of the planets could be explained more simply by
assuming that the planets move around the sun, rather than
around the earth -- and that the earth moves around the
it is just another planet.
This makes the planets' orbits approximately
The church did not like this idea, which made earth
less important and detracted from the idea of humans as
God's central creation.
During the years , Brahe and his assistant Kepler made many
accurate observations of the planets.
Based on these observations, in
1596 Kepler published his refinement of Copernicus's ideas. Kepler
showed that the movements of the planets are described more accurately
by ellipses, rather than circles.
Kepler gave three "laws" that
described, very simply and accurately, many aspects of planetary
the orbits are ellipses, with the sun at one focus
the velocity of a planet varies in such a way that the
area swept out by the line between planet and sun is increasing
at a constant rate
the square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional
to the cube of the planet's average distance from the sun.
The few people who understood geometry could see that Kepler
had uncovered some very basic truths.
This bore out an earlier
statement of Plato:
"God eternally geometrizes."
In 1609 Galileo took a "spyglass" -- a popular toy of the time -- and
used it as a telescope to observe the heavens. He discovered many
celestial bodies that could not be seen with the naked eye.
of Jupiter clearly went around J this gave very clear and simple
evidence supporting Copernicus's idea
that not everything goes around the earth.
The church
punished Galileo, but his ideas, once released to the world,
could not be halted.
Galileo also began experiments to measure the effects of
his ideas on this subject would later influence
astronomy too.
He realized that Aristotle was wrong --
that heavier objects do not fall faster than light ones.
He established this by making
careful measurements of the
times that it took balls of
different sizes to roll down ramps.
There is a story that
Galileo dropped objects of different sizes off the Leaning Tower
of Pisa, but it is not clear that this really happened.
we can easily run a "thought-experiment" to see what would happen
in such a drop.
If we describe things in the right way, we can
figure out the results:
Drop 3 identical 10-pound w all three will
hit the ground simultaneously.
Now try it again, but first
connect two of the three weights with a short piece of
this has no effect, and the three weights still hit the
ground simultaneously.
Now try it again, but instead of thread,
the three weights will still hit the ground
simultaneously.
But if the superglue has dried, we see that we
no longer have three 10- rather, we have a 10-pound
weight and a 20-pound weight.
Some of the most rudimentary ideas of calculus had been around for
centuries, but it took Newton and Leibniz to put the ideas together.
Independently of each other, around the same time,
those two men
discovered the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which states that
integrals (areas) are the same thing as antiderivatives. Though Newton
and Leibniz generally share credit for "inventing" calculus, Newton
went much further in its applications.
A derivative is a rate of
change, and everything in the world changes as time passes, so
derivatives can be very useful.
In 1687 Newton published his
"three laws of motion," now known as "Newtonian mechanics"; these laws
became the basis of physics.
If no forces (not even gravity or friction)
are acting on an object, it will continue to move with constant
velocity -- i.e., constant speed and direction.
(In particular, if
it is sitting still, it will remain so.)
The force acting on an object is equal to its mass times
its acceleration.
The forces that two objects exert on each other must be
equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
To explain planetary motion, Newton's basic laws
must be combined with his law of gravitation:
the gravitational attraction between two
bodies is directly proportional to the product
of the masses of the two bodies and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton's laws
were simpler and more intuitive as Kepler's, but they yielded Kepler's
laws as corollaries, i.e., as logical consequences.
Newton's universe is sometimes described
as a "clockwork universe," predictable and perhaps even
deterministic.
We can predict how billiard balls will move
after a collision.
In principle we can predict everything else
a planet acts a little like a billiard
(Our everyday experiences are less predictable, because
they involve trillions of trillions of tiny little billiard balls
that we call "atoms".
But all the atoms in a planet
stay near each other due to gravity, and combine
to act much like o thus the planets
are more predictable.)
Suddenly the complicated movements of the heavens were revealed
as consequences of very simple mathematical principles.
humans new confidence in their ability to understand -- and
ultimately, to control -- the world around them.
No longer were
they mere subjects of incomprehensible forces.
The works of
Kepler and Newton changed not just astronomy, but the way that
people viewed their relation to the universe.
began, commonly known as the "Age of Enlightenment"; philosophers
such as Voltaire and Rousseau wrote about the power of reason
and the dignity of humans.
Surely this new viewpoint contributed to
portable accurate timepieces, developed over the next
couple of centuries, increasing the feasibility of overseas
navigation and hence overseas commerce
the steam engine, developed over the next century,
making possible
the industrial revolution
the overthrow of "divine-right" monarchies, in America (1776)
and France (1789).
Perhaps Newton's greatest discovery, however, was
this fact about knowledge in general, which is mentioned less often:
fact that a partial explanation can be useful and meaningful.
Newton's laws of motion did not fully explain gravity.
Newton described how much gravity there is, with mathematical
preciseness, but he did not explain what causes gravity.
there some sort of "invisible wires" connecting each two objects
in the universe and pulling them toward each other?
Apparently
How gravity works is understood a little better nowadays,
but Newton had no understanding of it whatsoever.
when Newton formulated his law of gravity, he was also implicitly
formulating a new principle of epistemology (i.e., of how we know
things): we do not need to have a complete explanation of
something, in order to have useful (predictive) information
That principle revolutionized science and technology.
That principle can be seen in the calculus itself.
Newton and
Leibniz knew how to correctly give the derivatives of most
common functions, but they did not have a precise definition of
"derivative"; they could not actually prove the theorems that
they were using.
Their descriptions were not explanations. They
explained a derivative as a quotient of two infinitesimals
(i.e., infinitely small but nonzero numbers).
This explanation
didn't really make much sense to mathema
but it was clear that the computational methods of Newton and
Leibniz were getting the right answers, regardless of their
explanations.
Over the next couple of hundred years, other
mathematicians -- particularly Weierstrass and Cauchy --
provided better explanations (epsilons and deltas) for those
same computational methods.
It may be interesting to note that, in 1960, logician Abraham Robinson
finally found a way to make sense of infinitesimals.
This led to a new
branch of mathematics, called nonstandard analysis.
devotees claim that it gives better intuition for calculus,
differential equations,
it yields the same kinds
of insights that Newton and Leibniz originally had in mind.
Ultimately,
the biggest difference between the infinitesimal approach and
the epsilon-delta approach is in what kind of language you use
to hide the quantifiers:
The numbers epsilon and delta are "ordinary-sized", in the sense that they are not infinitely small.
They are moderately small, e.g., numbers like one billionth.
We look at what happens when we vary these numbers and make them smaller.
In effect, these numbers are changing, so there is motion or action in our description.
We can make these numbers smaller than any ordinary positive number that has been chosen in advance.
The approach of Newton, Leibniz, and Robinson involves numbers that do not need to change, because the numbers are infinitesimals -- i.e., they are already smaller than any ordinary positive number.
But one of the modern ways to represent an infinitesimal is with a sequence of ordinary numbers that keep getting smaller and smaller as we go farther out in the sequence.
To a large extent, mathematics -- or any kind of abstract reasoning --
works by selectively suppressing information.
We choose a notation or terminology
that hides the information we're not currently concerned with, and focuses our attention
on the aspects that we currently want to vary and study.
The epsilon-delta approach
and the infinitesimal approach differ only slightly in how they carry out this suppression.
calculus book based on the infintesimal approach was published by Keisler in 1986.
However, it did not catch on.
I suspect the reason it didn't catch on was
simply because the ideas in it were too unfamiliar to most of the teachers
of calculus.
Actually, most of the unfamiliar ideas were rele
the new material that was really central to the book was quite small.
Yet another chapter is still unfolding in the
interplay between mathematics and astronomy:
working out what is the shape of the universe.
To understand
that question, let us first consider the shape of the planet.
On its surface, the earth looks mostly flat, with a few local
variations such as mountains.
But if you went off in one
direction, traveling in what seemed a straight line, sometimes
by foot and sometimes by boat, you'd eventually arrive
back where you started, because the earth is round.
Magellan confirmed this by sailing around the world,
and astronauts confirmed this with photographs in the
the radius of the earth is large (4000 miles), and so the
curvature of the two-dimensional surface is too slight to be
evident to a casual observer.
In an analogous fashion, our
entire universe, which we perceive as three-dimensional, may have
this question was raised a couple of hundred
years ago when Gauss and Riemann came to understand non-Euclidean
geometries.
If you take off in a rocketship and travel in what
seems a straight line, will you eventually return to where you
The curvature of the physical universe is too slight
to be detected by any instruments we have yet devised.
Astronomers hope to detect it, and deduce the shape of the
universe, with more powerful telescopes that
are being built even now.
Human understanding of the universe has gradually increased over the
centuries.
One of the most dramatic events was in the late 19th
century, when Georg Cantor "tamed" infinity and took it away from
the theologians, making it a secular concept with its own
arithmetic.
We may still have a use for theologians, since we do
not yet fully underst but infinity is
no longer a good metaphor for that which transcends our everyday
experience.
Cantor was studying the convergence of Fourier
series and was led to consider the relative sizes of certain
infinite subsets of the real line.
Earlier mathematicians had been
bewildered by the fact that an infinite set could have "the same
number of elements" as some proper subset.
For instance, there
is a one-to-one correspondence between the natural numbers
and the even natural numbers
But this did not stop Cantor.
He said that two sets "have the
same cardinality" if there exists a one-to-one correspondence
for instance, the two sets above have
the same cardinality.
He showed that it is possible to arrange the rational
numbers into a table (for simplicity, we'll consider just the
positive rational numbers):
1/11/21/31/4...
2/12/22/32/4...
3/13/23/33/4...
4/14/24/34/4...
...............
Following along successive diagonals, we obtain a list:
1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, 3/2, 4/1, 1/5, ...
This shows that the set of all ordered pairs of positive integers
countable -- i.e., it can be
same cardinality as the set of positive integers.
run through
the list, crossing out any fraction that is a repetition of a
previous fraction
(e.g., 2/2 is a repetition of 1/1).
This leaves a slightly
"shorter" (but still infinite)
1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 3/1, 1/4, 2/3, 3/2, 4/1, 1/5, ...
containing each positive rational number exactly once.
set of positive rational numbers is countable.
argument with a slightly more complicated diagram shows that the
set of all rational numbers is also countable.
However, by a different argument
(not given here),
Cantor showed that the
real numbers cannot be put into a list -- thus the
real numbers are uncountable.
Cantor showed that there are
even bigger sets (e.g., the set of all subsets of the reals); in
fact, there are infinitely many different infinities.
As proof techniques improved,
gradually mathematics became more
rigorous, more reliable, more certain.
Today our standards of rigor
are extremely high, and we perceive mathematics as a collection of
"immortal truths," arrived at by pure reason, not even dependent on
physical observations.
We have developed a mathematical language
which permits us to formulate each step in our reasoning with complete
then the conclusion is certain as well.
However, it must be admitted that modern mathematics
has become detached from the physical world.
As Einstein said,
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
For instance, use a pencil to draw a line segment on a piece of
paper, perhaps an inch long. Label one end of it "0" and the
other end of it "1," and label a few more points in between. The
line segment represents the interval [0,1], which (at least, in
our minds) has uncountably many members.
But in what sense does
that uncountable set exist?
There are only finitely many
graphite molecules marking the paper, and there are only finitely
many (or perhaps countably many) atoms in the entire physical
universe in which we live.
An uncountable set of points is easy
to imagine mathematically, but it does not exist anywhere in the
physical universe. Is it merely a figment of our imagination?
It may be our imagination, but "merely" is not the right word.
Our purely mental number system has proved useful for practical
purposes in the real world.
It has provided our best explanation
so far for numerical quantities. That explanation has made
possible radio, television, and many other technological
achievements --- even a journey from the earth to the moon and
back again.
Evidently we are d mathematics
cannot be dismissed as a mere dream.
The "Age of Enlightenment" may have reached its greatest heights
in the early 20th century, when Hilbert tried to put all of
mathematics on a firm and formal foundation.
That age may have
ended in the 1930's, when G&del showed that Hilbert's program
c G&del discovered that even the language of
mathematics has certain inherent limitations.
G&del proved that,
in a sense, some things cannot be proved.
Even a mathematician
must accept some things on faith or learn to live with uncertainty.
Some of the ideas developed in this essay are based on the book
Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, by Morris Kline. I
enjoyed reading that book very much, but I should mention that I
disagreed with its ending.
Kline suggests that G&del's
discovery has led to a general disillusionment with mathematics,
a disillusionment that has spread through our culture (just as
Newton's successes spread earlier).
I disagree with Kline's
pessimism.
Mathematics may have some limitations, but in our
human experience we seldom bump into those limitations. G&del's
theorem in no way invalidates Newton, Cantor, or the moon trip.
Mathematics remains a miraculous device for seeing the world more
This web page has been selected as one
of the best educational resources on the Web, and has received
the coveted "StudyWeb Excellence Award," from
For other web pages about Math History, see}