In 1862, Leo Tolstoy published “War and Peace,” an epic national novel of Russia that uses individual and singular moments in peace and war to explore human universals and timeless themes. So now, as I begin page 937 (out of 1,386), or Part 11, Chapter 1, I decide to bring Tolstoy’s thoughts on mathematics (circa 1862) to bear on the FCP crowd.
After the catastrophic and near pyrrhic Russian victory over Napoleon’s forces at the Battle of Borodino just outside Moscov (Tolstoy has it taking place in late August 1812), Tolstoy ruminates on the eternity that is the universe, and how humans are incapable (or nearly incapable) of dealing with infinite, but are very capable in dealing with small segments of quantities in an historical or mathematical way. To connect the analogy with the battle, or with humanity: “The progress of humanity…” that is, after literally tens of thousands of Russian and French soldiers are annihilated, “…arising from an innumerable multitude of individual wills, is continuous in motion.” Thousands have died. But hundreds of thousands continue living. Humanity pushes on, and on, and on. But understanding this grand push requires one to study the singular.
And on mathematics, Tolstoy says, “By taking smaller and smaller units of motion we merely approach the solution of the problem, but we never attain it. It is only by assuming an infinitely small magnitude, and a progression rising from it up to a tenth, and taking the sum of that geometrical progression, that we can arrive at the solution of the problem. A new branch of mathematics [again, this written in 1862], dealing with infinitely small quantities, gives now in other more complex problems of dynamics solutions of problems that seemed insoluble.”
(page 937 of Tolstoy, “War and Peace,” Constance Garnett translations, Modern Library, 2002 printing.)
So feel free to use that as the opener in you next mathematical conference paper (just footnote me as your pro-bono, self-appointed historical and literary consultant).
Posts
5 comments:
Did Tolstoy just hear of Newton (or Leibniz) in 1862? A bit late, but better late than never. And why focus on geometric series? Sounds like too much vodka to me.
If you want to have some fun, read Marx's rediscovery of Calculus 101. Of course, Pepe (or some random pinko alter-ego), this is "brilliant"!
Tecs, remember Tolstoy kept in mind who he was writing for, mostly a non-mathematical audience. So to even broach these Newtonian topics isn't bad. And I doubt any one of us could ever even think of matching, let alone coming close, to the humanity explored in Tolstoy's novels and short stories.
Russia would be plowed over again in the following century, when a bunch of ideologues decided they found a winner for Russia with Marxism. Tolstoy was no ideologue. Period.
No dispute there. Still, to the narrow point about Tolstoy's mathematical musings: sort of interesting he brings it up in that context. But nothing really interesting from a mathematical point of view, methinks. BTW, I read Anna Karenina a long time ago -- beautiful novel. I meant to read War and Peace, but got daunted, and quit. I regret it now, but I guess it's too late to read it now, with such a jaded mind. Gotta do it with a fresh mind.
As for Marx, he tries harder, and is much more pretentious in his try than Tolstoy. But all he does is he becomes risible with his pretensions, when he can't talk about Calculus 101 better than a random undergrad. And what's most risible, of course, is how gaga pinkos fall for that crap.
Yes, I'll gladly have to take up Anna Karenina in the near future. The next on the list, after W&P, is "The Devils" or "The Possessed" by Dosteovsky. Then "Oblomav," and after that "Life and Fate" by Vassily Grossman. It's turning into a literary year of Petersbourg and Moscov.
Post a Comment