For those who aren’t regular readers: as a followup to this post, there are four posts detailing the basic four methods of proof, with intentions to detail some more advanced proof techniques in the future. You can find them on this blog’s primers page. Do you really want to get better at mathematics? Remember when you first learned how to program? I do. I spent two years experimenting with Java programs on my own in high school.

A common problem in machine learning is to take some kind of data and break it up into “clumps” that best reflect how the data is structured. A set of points which are all collectively close to each other should be in the same clump. A simple picture will clarify any vagueness in this: cluster-example Here the data consists of points in the plane.

The graph is among the most common data structures in computer science, and it’s unsurprising that a staggeringly large amount of time has been dedicated to developing algorithms on graphs. Indeed, many problems in areas ranging from sociology, linguistics, to chemistry and artificial intelligence can be translated into questions about graphs. It’s no stretch to say that graphs are truly ubiquitous.

Being part of the subject of algebraic topology, this post assumes the reader has read our previous primers on both topology and group theory. As a warning to the reader, it is more advanced than most of the math presented on this blog, and it is woefully incomplete. Nevertheless, the aim is to provide a high level picture of the field with a peek at the details.

It is a wonder that we have yet to officially write about probability theory on this blog. Probability theory underlies a huge portion of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and statistics, and a number of our future posts will rely on the ideas and terminology we lay out in this post.

The First Isomorphism Theorem The meat of our last primer was a proof that quotient groups are well-defined. One important result that helps us compute groups is a very easy consequence of this well-definition.

Neurons, as an Extension of the Perceptron Model In a previous post in this series we investigated the Perceptron model for determining whether some data was linearly separable. That is, given a data set where the points are labelled in one of two classes, we were interested in finding a hyperplane that separates the classes.

The study of groups is often one’s first foray into advanced mathematics. In the naivete of set theory one develops tools for describing basic objects, and through a first run at analysis one develops a certain dexterity for manipulating symbols and definitions. But it is not until the study of groups that one must step back and inspect the larger picture.

This post assumes familiarity with our primer on Kolmogorov complexity. We recommend the uninformed reader begin there. We will do our best to keep consistent notation across both posts. Kolmogorov Complexity as a Metric Over the past fifty years mathematicians have been piling up more and more theorems about Kolmogorov complexity, and for good reason.

Define the Ramsey number $ R(k,m)$ to be the minimum number $ n$ of vertices required of the complete graph $ K_n$ so that for any two-coloring (red, blue) of the edges of $ K_n$ one of two things will happen: There is a red $ k$-clique; that is, a complete subgraph of $ k$ vertices for which all edges are red. There is a blue $ m$-clique. It is known that these numbers are always finite, but it is very difficult to compute them exactly.

Last time we investigated the (very unintuitive) concept of a topological space as a set of “points” endowed with a description of which subsets are open. Now in order to actually arrive at a discussion of interesting and useful topological spaces, we need to be able to take simple topological spaces and build them up into more complex ones.