Any Transgendered Mathematicians?

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Hi readers,

I am writing to see if anybody here happens to be a mathematician and/or know mathematicians who are transgendered, in particular those who are still in academia. Are you out there? To give you an idea of what I mean, I began graduate school studying automorphic forms and the Langlands program, but have decided to switch to PDEs and will most likely work on NLW as a thesis topic (not quite functorial, but surprisingly $C^\infty$ a.e.). If the previous sentence made sense to you, would you be willing to share with me how you view and/or experience trans-life in the mathematical, academic setting? I'm really curious to hear what you have to say.

Have a wonderful day.

Heather

[Guest ChloëC]

Hi Heather,

I received my undergraduate degree in Mathematics way back in 1979. At that time I was just trying to get a degree because I was about 10 years behind and I had started in the Sciences, so I had a lot of Math. I didn't specialize because I had only 3 semesters to finish, and I took what was available to complete the basic requirements (I minored in history, to give you an idea). And of course I've never used it much, DiffyQ, elliptical integrals, matrices, I took IS classes and eventually got enough for a minor in that, and have spent the last umpteen years as an computer applications developer (and consultant). Then I got a Masters in business.

But I tend to be very pragmatic (and literal) about things, and am always looking for the numerical side of life. I find enjoyment in dealing with finite concepts and reducing concepts down to specific and rational structures. Give me the numbers.

But that's my day job. I find when I let my other side (feminine) out, that I tend to put the above aside and let my mind wander about ideas and feelings. Sort of a duality as my rational side would look at it.

Complex people, aren't we?

Hugs

Chloë

ps we do have a real rocket scientist in our midst, a NASA employee (or former), but she doesn't get on as much any more. Now there is a real numbers person.

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Hi Chloe :-)

We are all beautiful people, each in our own way.

Heather

[Guest Colm]

I'm currently doing my undergraduate work in Maths -- mostly looking at Hopf algebras, symmetric group representations, and symmetric functions at the moment (PDEs were never really my thing, no offence). I'm mostly transitioned and stealth, so no one in my department knows, but I don't think they'd really care. I know I'm not really who you're looking to hear from, but I don't think it'd be all that different from other fields in academia wrt to trans-ness. One of the other mods is in academia, but not in maths -- if he stops in, he might be more helpful than I am because he's transitioned while in a doctoral program (I think).

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Hi Colm,

Thanks for trying to help :-) Within your response there seems to be an idea that may be valuable to cultivate. If what you had mentioned about the similarity of trans-life across all fields/departments of trans-ness is generally true (and even if not), then perhaps it is worthwhile to reach out to faculty, students, and all others who are involved with a university in any capacity. In particular, there may a valuable opportunity to share and discuss ideas with respect to on-campus trans-humanitarian activities that go beyond a classical gender studies group as well as bonding for people across different campuses. Hmmm... :-) There may be something here! Perhaps I will start another thread (but I'm quite happy to keep this one going). Anyways, I started asking for mathematicians because they may operate on similar wavelengths as I do, but there seems to be wisdom in talking to everyone in this human endeavor to someday bring people closer together. Thanks for the inspiration! Yay!

Have a wonderful day.

Heather

ps: if you are indeed a mathematician, I'd still like to hear from you :-)

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Heather, Chloe & Colm: (Cool name for a mathematics firm!)

Well, you gals are beyond my league, but I'm an admiring amateur, so kindly permit me to be lurk and admire your mathematical musings.

In 1973, the University of Chicago offered me an academic scholarship to come there as a major in theoretical physics. Our first week as freshman was orientation week. We spent all week taking placement tests. Somehow, I ended up in "mathematician's math classes" which used Tom Apostol's (Caltech) "Calculus" as our text due to its rigor and theoretical treatment. Sophomore year we used Rudin's "Analysis" which I thought blew, but many others worshipped it.

Even though I was a physics major, we had so much math, and because I was placed into "mathematician's track courses" (most other physics majors were in the next track down from that), I got a good, solid grounding in the subject. Actually, I had more math than physics and liked it much more than physics. I completed all the courses up to and including half-way through my senior year.

While I'm not in your league, I can probably follow most of what you discuss. It think it's just awesome that we have transsexual mathematicians here! Do you think your very unique perspective makes you a better mathematician?

Oh, by blind chance, my best friend at the U. of Chicago? His dad was the chairman of the department of mathematics ... then and now ... considered one of the top five graduate and undergraduate programs in the country. My buddy is now a mathematician. The other guy who was his really good friend (they were both a year ahead of me) is also a mathematician today. Dang, I came of age surrounded by mathematics. We visited at the chairman's house quite a bit. Heck, they took me out to restaurants occasionally. God, the memories.

Hey, when you talk mathematics, count me in, please. I'll just listen!

Proud of you three!

Lacey

Postscript:

Have you read "A Beautiful Mind" by Sylvia Nasar? Oh, you MUST! Wonderful (to mathematicians) book! It's the life story of John Forbes Nash, a pure mathematician of the first rank. Ms. Nasar is most erudite and truly knows the life of mathematicians and the life of academe. I simply cannot recommend this book highly enough!

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Are either of you familiar with that much unheralded but transcendentally gifted intuitivist, Srinavasa Ramanujan? OMG, this Indian mathematician was amazing. His mentor and champion, G.H. Hardy, wrote something REALLY cool to aspiring mathematicians like yourselves. Check it out sometime, if you have not already done so somewhere along the line:

http://web.njit.edu/~akansu/PAPERS/GHHardy-AMathematiciansApology.pdf

This marvelously succinct but protean little tome really tells it like it is. Sadly, it is my nemesis. You see, I'm a mathematician wannabe ... sigh. Ironically, mathematics is my weakest area intellectually (though I'm still quite strong in it), but I lack "that spark" to which Hardy alludes in his tome linked above.

If any of you ever win a Fields Medal, I'd like to go to the ceremony and cheer you on! Good luck to you all. OMG, sorry, Colm. I believe I messed up your gender reference in the previous post. Forgive me. A pox upon me for a lout!

Lacey

Will YOU be the one to solve The Reimann Hypothesis? Hope so!

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Number theory rocks. Gauss was majorly into it (and every-darned-thing else!). G.H. Hardy on Srinavasa Ramanujan (by a first-rate mathematician, about a first-rate mathematician for first-rate mathematicians). Here's a slammin' little discourse that's rife with intrigue and fun. A few pages are deliberately omitted, but it's still majorly awesome. Dig it!

http://books.google.com/books?id=ECnHLtiCiNsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hardy+and+ramanujan&source=bl&ots=hIH8mpaXuZ&sig=4GKnb9yxA6KXOrvPJC94ehv0yzE&hl=en&ei=yD1STejcCYK6sAOh-amXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=true

Check out the Matt Damon movie "Good Will Hunting" where the MIT Fields medalist likens Will Hunting's ability to that of Ramanujan.

Kudos! Lacey

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Dear Lacey, :-)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for mathematics. It is a wonderful subject and lends itself, quite generously, to romanticization. With regards to the question from your first post, I believe that being a better mathematician requires, ultimately, that one be a better mathematician. Namely, it is an honest discipline: one gets out whatever they put in. Professor Terence Tao gives a nice discussion of this topic on his blog.

Have a wonderful day. :-)

Heather

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Dear Lacey, :-)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for mathematics. It is a wonderful subject and lends itself, quite generously, to romanticization. With regards to the question from your first post, I believe that being a better mathematician requires, ultimately, that one be a better mathematician. Namely, it is an honest discipline: one gets out whatever they put in. Professor Terence Tao gives a nice discussion of this topic on his blog.

Have a wonderful day. :-)

Heather

Heather:

Awesome, hon! OMG, have you ever met Professor Terence Chi-Shen Tao? He is arguably the greatest living mathematician on Planet Earth. Fields Medal? Heck, he's won all there is to win in mathematics and was a blazing prodigy. I've followed his career for years. Amazing that you should mention him! Rock on, hon!

Only two people come to mind who could possibly hold a candle to Terence Tao and be considered near-peers of his: Lenhard Ng and Chris Hirata. Lenny was a prodigy of the first rank but has not had the illustrious success that Terence Toa has had. I'm not counting him out by any means. He's still quite young. Chris Hirata is a mathematical physicist who aced Caltech. He's one scary-smart mo' fo' and may do amazing things ... he already has!

Heather, YOU are the real mathematician along with the other posters on here. I'm a mere wannabe mathematician. Sure, I'm much better than most university math students, but I just don't have that spark of genius for mathematics. Wish I did! I love it anyway! Consider me a mathematics groupie. I just love being around it! Trouble is that one can't talk to anybody about it ... except for REAL mathematicians ... and I'm not in their league. Oh, well. I can and will continue to lurk on the mathematical fringes and enjoy the show. What a show it is! Best in town!

Much success to you, hon!

Lacey

The Nash Embedding Theorem: THAT'S mathematical machismo for ya ... rock on!

[Guest ChloëC]

Speaking of mathematics, there was a little book I read back around 1960 or so, while I was in a 'New Math' course in middle school (most the other classes had standard hard cover perfect bound textbooks, we first started with very soft perfect bound larger books, and then switched to individual pages that were held together by those clippy things that spread apart, because the books hadn't even been printed yet. That's how new our 'New Math' was. The first book I remember was on sets and sentances - the first axioms or laws we studied were communitative, associative and distributive - I felt really comfortable with all that because that's how I naturally dealt with numbers, breaking them down and then re-arranging to form patterns that I could recognize.

Anyway, the book is called 'Flatland' which has greatly affected my understandings of dimensions and especially of how we view the world and universe. Basically it's about a two dimensional world where the inhabitants deal with each other, depending on their shapes. Our 'hero' eventually visits Lineland where the inhabitants are points on a line and when he shows up and grows and lessens they are fabbergasted. Upon returning to Flatland, our hero experiences a sphere visiting flatland, where it starts out as a point, grows to a full circle and narrows again to a point as it slides through the plane of Flatland.

In a discussion with the sphere, where our hero is trying desparately to imagine a 3rd dimension, but having been to a 1 dimensional world, he begins to have the initial flashes of understanding, and then asks the ultimate question - are there dimensions beyond 3? The sphere gets real huffy and states basically, 'why should there be, we're obviously the perfect dimension'.

That moment of understanding by the Flatlander has stayed with me, as I keep asking - Just because I don't understand it, or can't quite see it, shouldn't there be more? And a flat out 'no' is not acceptable.

Everything about life tends to shout out, yes, there's more, lot's more, come and explore!

Hugs

Chloë

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

@ Chloe:

Thanks, girl!

"Flatland" ..., yes; I've heard of it! Never read it though. Surely, I must. Thanks for the heads up. God, I LOVE books like that! I truly appreciate the recommendation!

You've got a few years on me, hon; however, yeah, I remember "The New Math." Pretty trippy. I was taking it in 1965/1966 or thereabouts. Back then, young like we were, who knew about the various disciplines of mathematics? Surely, not me. Number theory. Topology. Algebras. Analysis. I've always though partial differential equations were a subset of analysis and took a whole course on PDEs back in The Day. Did well with it. I got off on the theory and rigor rather than the computational aspects of PDEs. Given my druthers, "I druther" mire myself in pure mathematics rather than applied, but both are way awesome.

I digress, as usual. Sorry, hon! Yeah, "Flatland" is a must-read book. Thanks for the tip. Think I'll get it from www.amazon.com in the near future.

Oh, did you ever go through Tom Apostol's Calculus One and Calculus Two? How about Walter Rudin's Analysis? These are/were theoretically-based tomes emphasizing mathematical rigor rather than computation. I only ask this because Professor Michael Spivak wrote a calculus book that is supposed to be the bomb, and I've yet to read it. Dang, wish I had the time to do so!

You can download Apostol and Rudin's books for free as PDF files right online. I did it a few years ago. These days, you can get online and delve into the mathematics libraries of nearly all of the top math programs worldwide. God, like nirvana, hon! So much to read, so little time ... sigh.

Okay, okay, I'll stop now. Jeesh! Sorry, I'm STILL a total nerd at heart.

Thanks, Chloe! My best to you.

Lacey

[Guest Mina89]

Statistics is the math of my subject

I analyze social data all night at work and in some classes at school. I'm so familiar with the SPSS alphanumeric codes that I've forgotten what many of them stand for.

Standard deviation is the hardest thing I regularly do, but I got an A in advanced Calculus in my Freshman year and promptly forgot everything.

BRB. Downloading GSS codebook.

-Valerie

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

@ Mina89:

Cool! Congrats on acing advanced calculus! Rock on!

Tell us more. This is way cool. Appreciate it.

[Guest ChloëC]

ok, one more funny thought (or 2, gawd this brings up memories)

I sort of sluffed off my later high school years. I went to a HS where there were 40 freshman math classes (yep, 1000 kids in my class). They could neatly classify every one of us. There was Arithmetic Fundamentals, General Math, Algebra R, Algebra S, and Honors Algebra. And those were divided into + and - variations. I was in the Algebra S track (or pre-Honors - Superior, I suspect, R for Regular), then Plane and Solid Geometry 2nd year (Regular math was only Plane), then Algebra-Trig 3rd year, then Algebra-Analytic Geometry 4th year. Honors got to Introductory Calc the last half of senior year.)

Anyway as I went through, I slowly lost interest in school in general - poor choices for my electives, mediocre teachers, except for a minimal few. Only my 1st year Math teacher in that track was really good. Anyway, I slowly slipped back so that 3rd year I was in Intermediate Algebra. I woke up about half way into the first quarter but it was too late to get into Alg-Trig, so the teacher realizing I was smarter than the rest, started letting me independently study from the College Alg book and do a little Trig. Probably a mistake as I now coasted my senior year. Anway in college, I hated Analytical Geometry which was taught by Mumbles Montgomery - not an ideal professor. I took Calc I from him too, and got bored with school. Enlisted, and about 2 years later got in gear and started up on Math again, took Calc I, II, III, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra at night school while working a day job. Got mostly A's and a B.

The Linear Algebra class was a blast. We started in the recommended text book, but the instuctor, an Air Force Captain with a MS in Math, couldn't make hide nor hair out of the book and we all independently bought Schaums' Outline and were using that, and midway, he switched to that too, because it was the Linear Algebra he understood. I still have 5 or 6 of the outline series.

Like I wrote earlier, I got caught up in the Computer craze starting in the 1970's, actually worked an IBM 80 column card punch machine in 1970, creating decks of data cards as well as a thermal typewriter console that created 5 level punch tape (and tons of chad that we would have fun with at 2AM). Got up to 80 words per minute on that. Got out of the whole thing for several years, then finishing college, again punching cards and submitting jobs to the data center, then finally my own terminal.

I always wondered if I should have tried to stay with Math. I love pattern recognition (in the Air Force, I was assigned as a Communications Analyst, looking at Ruski communications and deciphering it, mostly numbers, looking for patterns. And I enjoyed the movie, 'A Beautiful Mind', but have to read the book, now.

Hugs

Chloë

[Guest Mina89]

@Lacey

It sounds like there's more to tell than there really is. I mostly take what the researchers find and do what they want me to do with it. They have all these categories of social data on the same subjects like age, race, income, gender (binary ), etc. I might have to recode nominal or ordinal categories to combine them (e.g. combining Likert attitudes "strongly agree," "agree," and "somewhat agree" that poverty has social causes into a single new category called "agree") or calculate the significance of frequency differences between independent variable categories for some Ph.D. or other's thesis.

It was overwhelming, at first, but now it's routine. I'm much better at social theory writing and discussion editing, but they rarely let me do that. In fact, they rarely notice me unless they want a paper record fetched. I hate their filing system with a passion...

-Valerie

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Wahoo!

@ Valerie:

Valerie, that's awesome! Congrats, hon! Rock the house! Keep us posted on matters like this anytime. I, for one, will totally enjoy it. Thanks!

@ Chloe:

Girl, how cool is all of that? Very cool! My first encounter with a mainframe computer was with the IBM 1401. That was in 1969. Oooohhh, yes! How I remember the whole punch card and tape reader scene. Some of the keypunches we used were from the late-1950s. FORTRAN, COBOL, ALGOL, IBM AUTOCODER AND SPSS. Dang! The memories.

Very, very far out about your school experience. Mine was similar, but I'll refrain from describing it. I'm not trying to compete or engage in one-upsmanship. Suffice it to say that reminiscing like this is a stone-cold blast for older gals like us ... sigh. Back in The Day. Anybody got a time machine, man? Let's go back for a few years.

OMG, TO TRANSITION IN OUR TEENS!!! YESS!!! DREAM ON!!!

Chloe is old enough to remember in the 1960s when everthing was some kind of "-in" ... love-in, be-in, yada, yada, yada.

Doggone if we're not having a freaking math-in! Heck, it's been years, and I LOVE IT!!!

Shameless nerds, aren't we?

Woulda traded it all in to make out with the cheerleaders, man!

Wahoo! Lacey

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora,

I counted backward using the fingers on my hands 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, then I was left with five fingers on the other hand which makes 11...how come??? I'm still working on it have been for the last 50 odd years, I guess I'm not the sort of mathematician you're looking for ...

Metta Zenda

[Guest ChloëC]

No, no, Zenda, I have enjoyed that trick since I was a kid! Showed it to my kids. Ranks right up there with Hippopotomus's Running Amok. That's the kind of thing that to me makes numbers interesting - why does it do that? I mean, I know, but the conceptualization of numbers is fascinating. Like the tricks you can do with the number 9, such as a guess the number trick, where you have someone start with a secret number, go through arithmetic calculations, throw in 9 as a factor and eventually you both wind up with the exact same result.

Or especially the confusion about the so called number '666' You all do know that the symbol '6' was invented by the Arabs sometime around 500-800 AD and it took several hundred more years to be transmitted to the Europeans, so it is physically and logically and geographically and linguistly impossible that that symbol could possibly be found in any early Biblical writing. Yet, it's all now in our imagination. I mean there's some kind universal basic instinct going on here where that somehow resonates.

Way back in the 1960's on Chicago television, there was a local 1/2 hour program revolving around a ventroliquist who voiced a dummy of Bugs Bunny and showed Warner Bros. cartoons. I watched it for the cartoons, the schtick between cartoons was mostly lame, but with the space race heating up, he introduced a character who arrived in a rocket ship, and spoke a strange language, and his name was 'Numbers' the spaceman. Loved the concept.

Anyway, that's what makes numbers interesting and Zenda, anyone who considers things like that is a kindred spirit!

That makes you an adjunct numbers person, at the least! Welcome aboard.

Hugs

Chloë

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Hi Zenda :-)

No worries; there are three types of people in this world: those who can count and those who cannot. As Chloe mentioned above, feel free to make your contributions here :-) This thread is quickly taking on a life of its own.

Be well.

Heather

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Hi Lacey,

It was unclear from your wording whether or not you had noted that the underlined text in Post #9 was a link. For convenience, the reposted link to the discussion is here.

Heather

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Kia Ora,

I counted backward using the fingers on my hands 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, then I was left with five fingers on the other hand which makes 11...how come??? I'm still working on it have been for the last 50 odd years, I guess I'm not the sort of mathematician you're looking for ...

Metta Zenda

Metta, you are a MYSTIC, honey!

You neither need nor want to be a mathematician. You could talk circles around me with your knowledge of things both spiritual and mystic. Though you'd be way over my head, I'd listen with rapt attention.

Besides, you've got that killer smile! Next to that, what is something like The Riemann Hypothesis or the Nash Embedding Theorem? Nuthin!!!

You got it goin' on, girl. You don't need no mathematics.

(Hey, howdaya like me gramir an' spelin?) Yeeha!

Lacey

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

Hi Lacey,

It was unclear from your wording whether or not you had noted that the underlined text in Post #9 was a link. For convenience, the reposted link to the discussion is here.

Heather

@ Heather:

Hey, girl!

Yes, Ma'am! In fact, I DID realize that was a hotlink heretofore and checked it out with glee and gusto aplenty! You KNOW I could spend my whole life completely embroiled in such things and altogether apop with mathematics, philosophy, epistemology and the like ... not understand one singe iota of it ... and be the happiest girl in town!

Many thanks, hon! This is one rockin' thread you started here. Allegorcially-speaking, I stand "naked, stoned and stabbed" before the entire membership here at The Playground. I'm exposed. Before, they merely thought I was a geek. Now, they KNOW it ...thanks to THIS thread.

I'm grateful, hon!

On a Serious Note:

Heather, kudos to you, hon, and that's for real! I'm MAJORLY IMPRESSED that you are a mathematician and that the other girls (and guy) on here are aspiring to be such. I don't have the smarts to be one, but I'm an admirer of real mathematicians.

I gather from your initial post that your bailiwick is pure mathematics rather than applied. May your research be fruit. May you be happy. Rock on!

Peace Lacey

[Guest JazzySmurf]

Dear Lacey :-)

Your comment about reading the arcane reminds me of the time when the director of one of my high school math summer programs wrote, jokingly, in his suggested reading list: "Hartshorne: Algebraic Geometry - A light introduction to algebraic geometry; good bedtime reading." The latter statement actually turned out to be quite true: thinking very carefully about dense mathematics almost instantly puts a tired mind to sleep, just as how vipassana meditation in bed can be a powerful sleeping pill. At this writing at 10pm, already tired from a long day of work, either technique actually sounds like a great idea :-) Good night.

Heather

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

@ Heather:

Deeper than The Riemann Hypothesis?

Naturally, girl, you are well familiar with the notion that the glyphs and symbols of mathematics are but language developed to hopefully succinctly, precisely and concisely experience the ideas underlying the mathematics itself.

That being said, with your consent to the aforesaid assertion and assent to its idea both assumed and appreciated, shall we ponder the "truth and consequences" propounded and proffered forth in these treatises? Indeed, we can have an absolute blast contemplating this!

Here are three treatises. Here are three viewpoints. Wherein lies the truth?

Point - Treatise the First:

http://www.hermes-press.com/Perennial_Tradition/PTch6.htm

Rigor - Treatise the Second:

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/corpushermetica.pdf

Counterpoint - Treatise the Third:

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/corpushermetica.pdf

Now, ponder all of this in light of "The Book of Revelation" in the New Testament in The Bible.

What is true? What is false? Is this mathematics?

This is involved. This is deep. This is fun!

Some time whenever you have time on your hands, feel like allegorically contemplating the cosmic navel and feel like plunging into these essays, I'd be thrilled to know your thoughts on them.

And, no, girl, I'm not endeavoring to do any mental machismo here or any type of oneupsmanship here either. These kinds of things thrill me silly.

Mathematics, both applied and pure, are inquiry and enquiry. Into what? The natural? The supernatural? The physical? The metaphysical?

Epistemology par excellance ... THAT'S WHAT THIS IS!

Dang, what a thrill! Again, I'd be beside myself with joy to know what you think of these matters sometime. Like, nobody ever wants to talk about these kinds of things. To me, these are the most thrilling types of conversations.

Finito! I shall post no more upon this thread ... unless you ask me to. God, like I go ape-doo-doo on things like this. Dang, I've enjoyed this thread.

THANKS AGAIN FOR STARTING IT!

Lacey Lynne