jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean) (11/05/86)
>>Mathematics doesn't win wars >False How so ? I seem to recall that the French were soundly defeated in a little battle at Waterloo.They didn't do particularly well in Egypt or Russia either.The fact that they had arguably 8 of the 10 best mathematicians of the age didn't do them any good here. (Although these mathematicians did instigate a revolution in teaching in France's educational establishments,and abroad by way of textbooks).
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/08/86)
>>>Mathematics doesn't win wars >>False >How so ? How about the work of Alan Turing for starters? How about the use of Mathematics in Physics?
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/08/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <307@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean) writes: >>>Mathematics doesn't win wars >>False > >How so ? I seem to recall that the French were soundly defeated in a >little battle at Waterloo.They didn't do particularly well in >Egypt or Russia either.The fact that they had arguably 8 of the 10 >best mathematicians of the age didn't do them any good here. Uh, this is sci.math. So let's understand this dispute symbolically. ///(For all wars w) (mathematics did not win w) //False, ie, (There exists war w) (mathematics did win war w) /Huh? After all, (There exists war w) (mathematics did not win w) I see why jml calls himself the mad mathematician, if he likes to mix up his universal and existential quantifiers so freely. The canonical example of a witness for Tom Tedrick's existential quan- tifier is, of course, WWII. Cases could be made for many others. To keep as close to the spirit of sci.math as possible, let us remember Archimedes and the defense of Syra- cuse. Only by stupidly taking a holiday did the Greeks finally lose. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ejp@ausmelb.OZ (Esmond Pitt) (11/11/86)
In article <307@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean) writes: > > >>Mathematics doesn't win wars > > >False > > How so ? ... the French were soundly defeated [at Waterloo] > [despite having] 8 of the 10 best mathematicians of the age ... Odd logic from a mathematician (?). Formally, if W = wars, and W(M) = war was won by mathematics >>> There is no W such that W(M) >> Negation of above, i.e. there exists a W such that W(M) > There exists another W (Waterloo) such that not W(M). Irrelevant. Mathematics didn't win Waterloo. So what? Was anyone saying that the side with the best mathematicians _always_ wins? A counter-instance doesn't prove anything. If you want a confirming instance, what about scheduling area bombing with LP in WW2 (disregarding for the moment the debate over area bombing)? Turing and the lads at Bletchley are supposed to made some difference too. -- Esmond Pitt, ACSnet: ejp@ausmelb.oz Austec International Ltd, UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!ausmelb.oz!ejp 344 St Kilda Rd, ARPA: ejp%ausmelb.oz@SEISMO.CSS.GOV Melbourne, Victoria, 3004. AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 3 699 4511 D
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (11/17/86)
I have to agree. Mathematics doesn't win wars. People win wars. Ants win wars. (I suppose other things do to, but they don't come to mind.) But far more than in the time of Napolean people with better mathematics have an advantage over those without. Cryptography did not turn the tide in WWII, but it sure helped. The mathematics behind the a-bomb saved a lot of Japanese lives as well as the obvious American lives. (Ever think about how the world would have been different if the US had gone ahead with its plan to invade Japan? Probably over a million killed on each side, I have heard it estimated. That would have made for a very different world today.) Even without war math gives a real advantage over competitors. The we are at war with nobody right now but government is still vitally interested in mathematics. Isn't that how this whole discussion started? Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/18/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <2274@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >But far more than in the time of Napolean people with better >mathematics have an advantage over those without. I'd say it's the people with the brains that have an advantage. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind. > Cryptography did not >turn the tide in WWII, Nonsense. Cryptography *was* the tide, major battle after battle, from Britain to El Alemain to Ardennes II to Stalingrad to Kursk to Midway to Leyte Gulf. Read Hinsley et al for starts before spouting off like the above. > but it sure helped. It made all the difference. > The mathematics behind the >a-bomb saved a lot of Japanese lives as well as the obvious American >lives. More nonsense. The Japanese were all set to surrender, but were in an internal quandary as to how. Not even an attempted palace coup made a difference. > (Ever think about how the world would have been different if >the US had gone ahead with its plan to invade Japan? Yes, along with hundreds of other such questions, mostly suitable for net.sf-lovers. > Probably over a >million killed on each side, I have heard it estimated. That would >have made for a very different world today.) Perhaps Japan would be split. Perhaps Czechoslovakia would not be in the Warsaw Pact. Other than that, you've got me stumped. Not that I see a point in debating the issue. > Even without war math >gives a real advantage over competitors. Agreed. > The we are at war with nobody >right now ^^^?? (Tho? That?) That is debatable. > but government is still vitally interested in mathematics. Yes, but why? And does that give them the right to come crashing down from above? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
desj@brahms (David desJardins) (11/19/86)
In article <344@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >In article <2274@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >> Cryptography did not >>turn the tide in WWII, > >Nonsense. Cryptography *was* the tide, major battle after battle, from >Britain to El Alemain to Ardennes II to Stalingrad to Kursk to Midway to >Leyte Gulf. Read Hinsley et al for starts before spouting off like the >above. I agree cryptography and intelligence are of great importance, but I think it is ridiculous to claim that the Axis would have won the war if they had had better mathematicians (or had better used the ones they had). The odds were too heavily against them. Nobody is denying that crypto- graphy was of value, but can you seriously claim that it turned the tide of the war? The tide turned in June 1941 when Germany invaded Russia (if not sooner); from that point on they didn't have a chance. I don't see how you can attribute the Allied victory to cryptography rather than to our overwhelming advantage in manpower and production. Just as I don't see how you can attribute the early Axis victories, and German survival until 1945, to anything other than overwhelmingly superior tactics and leadership. In the Pacific cryptography played a greater role, but it still is unimaginable that we could lose that war. And don't try to accuse me of not having read on the subject. -- David desJardins P.S. Very sorry to post this to sci.math, but where does it go? Sci.crypt would be better I suppose, but we really need a sci.history group. Sigh. Anyway, please try to followup only to appropriate groups.
herman@marlin.UUCP (John W. Herman) (11/20/86)
>In article <344@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >>In article <2274@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >>> Cryptography did not >>>turn the tide in WWII, >> >>Nonsense. Cryptography *was* the tide, major battle after battle, from >>Britain to El Alemain to Ardennes II to Stalingrad to Kursk to Midway to >>Leyte Gulf. Read Hinsley et al for starts before spouting off like the >>above. > I agree cryptography and intelligence are of great importance, but I >think it is ridiculous to claim that the Axis would have won the war if >they had had better mathematicians (or had better used the ones they had). > > -- David desJardins Two comments come to mind, namely: 1. What does "winning the war" mean? Both Germany and Japan had the capability to continue to wage war. They became convinced that the war was not winnable. It is not always easy to determine the point at which a country is defeated. 2. The outcome of the war was in doubt until the submarine battle in the Atlantic was won. Intelligence and cryptography had a great deal to do with that turning point. Matters such as this are subject to a great deal of discussion because there is only one reality which we can examine. 'What happens if' is a subject which has appeared in many (mostly poorly done) Science Fiction novels.
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (11/20/86)
In article <354@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: >In article <344@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >>In article <2274@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >>> Cryptography did not >>>turn the tide in WWII, >> >>Nonsense. Cryptography *was* the tide, major battle after battle, from >>Britain to El Alemain to Ardennes II to Stalingrad to Kursk to Midway to >>Leyte Gulf. Read Hinsley et al for starts before spouting off like the >>above. > > I agree cryptography and intelligence are of great importance, but I >think it is ridiculous to claim that the Axis would have won the war if >they had had better mathematicians (or had better used the ones they had). >The odds were too heavily against them. Nobody is denying that crypto- >graphy was of value, but can you seriously claim that it turned the >tide of the war? The tide turned in June 1941 when Germany invaded >Russia (if not sooner); from that point on they didn't have a chance. If there's anything I've learned from reading about the war, it's that you cannot base any claims for who won/lost the war for any one reason. If Stalin had believed the ULTRA decodings provided to them by Britain, Russia wouldn't have been caught by surprise and the war would have ended sooner. If the US hadn't sold (under the table) a few old decrepid destroyers and some old airplanes in '40 and '41, Britain may not have survived the battle of the Atlantic. If ULTRA hadn't worked as well as it did, the Battle of Britain would have been lost. Or, there would have been more Coventrys. Or, without the unbelieveable courage of the RAF pilots... Or, if Germany hadn't declared war on the US in late December of 1941, the US would probably have been fighting only in the Pacific, and the European war would have lasted longer. Or, if Hitler had started operation "Sea Lion" he might have won. Or not (I've seen in depth analysis done by various strategic planners - from both AXIS and ALLIED commands - done in the 50's I think, that said that it wouldn't have worked after all). And so on, and so on. "ULTRA Goes to War" is an extremely interesting read for those interested in ENIGMA (ULTRA was the code name for the information retrieved from the ENIGMA intercepts) and the role it played in the war. By Lewin I think. Thank gawd the Poles managed to smuggle one to the English... -- Chris Lewis Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov Phone: (416)-474-1955
huds@ur-tut.UUCP (Andrew Hudson) (11/20/86)
> 'What happens if' is >a subject which has appeared in many (mostly poorly done) Science Fiction >novels. For an excellent treatment read Cyril Kornbluth's Two Dooms. Spoiler in one sentence follows: U.S. does not drop the bombs, attrition in Japan saps America, the Axis powers revitalize and do achieve a horrible world supremecy. A. Hudson
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (11/20/86)
In article <844@marlin.UUCP> herman@marlin.UUCP (John W. Herman) writes: I agree completely - only a few minor points... >1. What does "winning the war" mean? Both Germany and Japan had the >capability to continue to wage war. They became convinced that the >war was not winnable. It is not always easy to determine the point >at which a country is defeated. Japan could have fought on (considering how more atomic bombs the US had after Nagasaki - namely zero) for a while (a year or two). Germany? Hardly. When hostilities ended the AXIS controlled area consisted of Berlin (and a few inconsequential pockets)... And Berlin was having the shit pounded out of it - 20,000 Russian artillery pieces firing continuously for weeks... And, it also depends on *who* thinks the war was unwinnable. Senior German staff officers (Eg: Rommel) believed that the war was unwinnable since around 1942. Unfortunately, Hitler didn't - and Rommel died under suspicious circumstances... >2. The outcome of the war was in doubt until the submarine battle in >the Atlantic was won. That all depends on what you mean by "won". Late 1942 when the ship losses started to go down drastically? Or 1944 when the allies were able to almost completely destroy the submarine fleet? Coming from a different point of view, consider this: the outcome of the invasion of France was in no doubt whatsoever - the Germans would have lost, ... except, Guderian disobeyed *direct* orders from Hitler (by feigning radio problems) to stop his tanks just inside the border and wait for the infantry. If he had followed orders, the war would have run quite differently. Too bad ULTRA missed that one. >Intelligence and cryptography had a great deal to do with that turning point. ---- I agree, as long as you change that to "all turning points". Dere's tousands of 'em! :-) >Matters such as this are subject to a great deal of discussion because >there is only one reality which we can examine. 'What happens if' is >a subject which has appeared in many (mostly poorly done) Science Fiction >novels. Absolutely true! -- Chris Lewis Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov Phone: (416)-474-1955
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (11/21/86)
In article <866@ur-tut.UUCP> huds@ur-tut.UUCP (Andrew Hudson) writes: > >For an excellent treatment read Cyril Kornbluth's Two Dooms.... I believe I've read it, and several like it, and enjoyed them a lot. But it would have been an interesting trick - by the time the bombs were dropped (or not), there wasn't enough left of the AXIS to revitalize. Germany had been flat on its back for a couple of months. Then compare the navies, air forces and building capacity of Britain, the US, Canada and Australia (along with probably the Soviet Union and Free French running "prize" German ships. Eg: there was only one German aircraft carrier - the USSR got it at the end of the war along with a couple of complete mine-sweeper fleets. The Americans blew up most of their "prizes" in their later A- and H-bomb tests in the Pacific. In contrast, Canada didn't even keep the ships we built ourselves - most of them ended up in the Brooklyn Navy yards as scrap iron) to a blockaded Japan (as it effectively was by the time the bombs were dropped). The US wasn't the only nation fighting Japan in the Pacific - especially after Europe wasn't occupying all of the rest of the allies' attention... The Pacific was a foregone conclusion from the moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbour - as a Japanese admiral put it "I fear ... the wake of the sleeping giant" regardless of US losses at Pearl or the use of A-bombs. In all likelyhood, if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl, most of the Pacific would still be under Japanese control. In fact, if the US intelligence service had managed to tell Washington of the imminent attack on Pearl found from their breaking of the Japanese codes, or the Japanese embassy had decoded their messages faster there may not have been a war... nothing gets Americans more riled up than attacks without warning (and the lack of warning was un-intentional). The US could have lost *all* of their ships at Pearl and still won - only a little later. Japan could never have invaded the mainland - would have made the Eastern Front look like a cakewalk (for the Germans). -- Chris Lewis Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov Phone: (416)-474-1955
zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) (11/21/86)
In article <193@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Japan could have fought on (considering how more atomic bombs the US had >after Nagasaki - namely zero) for a while (a year or two). Nonsense. At the end of July there were five Fat Man cases and a plutonium for one of them, and three Little Boy cases and an uranium for almost two of them just at the bomber base on Tinian. Additional bomb metal was being shipped from the US. The shipments were stopped for obvious reasons on August 13th. zdenek P.S. It is not always intelligence and cryptography what determines the turning point. Sometimes it's simple arithmetic. zdenek@cs.columbia.edu or ...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek