This month's topics:

- Andrew Wiles' Abel Prize
- New patterns in the primes
- Who needs Math? (Cont.)
- Christopher Zeeman, 1925-2016

The announcement from the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters went out on March
15, 2016. Among American media,
*The New York Times* reprinted the short *Associated Press*
bulletin without comment. *NPR* did slightly
better on their website, repeating this nice detail from the Academy's text:

- In 1963, when he was a ten-year-old boy growing up in Cambridge, England, Wiles found a copy of a book on Fermat's Last Theorem in his local library. Wiles recalls that he was intrigued by the problem that he as a young boy could understand, and yet it had remained unsolved for three hundred years. "I knew from that moment that I would never let it go," he said. "I had to solve it."

Coverage in the British press was considerably more extensive (Sir Andrew is British, developed his proof at Princeton, and is now back at Oxford). Several of their reporters were able to speak with the awardee himself and to relay characteristic remarks.

- (quoted by Davide Castelvecchi,
*Nature*, March 15) "It was very, very intense. ... Unfortunately as human beings we succeed by trial and error. It's the people who overcome the setbacks who succeed." (Castelvecchi also sketches out the history of the solution, and the link to the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture). - (by Ian Sample,
*The Guardian*, March 15) "This problem captivated me. It was the most famous popular problem in mathematics, although I didn't know that at the time. What amazed me was that there were some unsolved problems that someone who was 10 years old could understand and even try. And I tried it throughout my teenage years. When I first went to college I thought I had a proof, but it turned out to be wrong." "There were two or three moments, and one particular moment right at the end when suddenly I understood how to think about the whole thing, and because you've put in all those years of slog, those moments show you the whole vista at once." "The proof didn't just solve the problem, which wouldn't have been so good for mathematics. The methods that solved it opened up a new way of attacking one of the big webs of conjectures of contemporary mathematics called the Langlands Program, which as a grand vision tries to unify different branches of mathematics. Its given us a new way to look at that." - (by Jacob Aron,
*The New Scientist*, March 15) "In the years since then I have encountered so many people who told me they have entered mathematics because of the publicity surrounding that, and the idea that you could spend your life on these exciting problems, that I've realised how valuable it actually it is." And on subsequent developments in the field: "I think it has gone better than I could have hoped. There are still lots and lots of challenges, but it has come to be an ever-expanding part of number theory." - (by Simon Singh,
*The Telegraph*, March 20) "I had this very rare privilege of being able to pursue in my adult life what had been my childhood dream. I know it's a rare privilege, but if you can tackle something in adult life that means that much to you, then it's more rewarding than anything imaginable."

Robert J. Lemke Oliver and Kannan Soundararajan posted their
"Unexpected Biases in the Distribution of Consecutive Primes"
on arXiv,
March 15, 2016. Even though this is an amazing result that
almost anyone can comprehend, it was only picked up in the
press (as far as I know) by Jacob
Aron in *The New Scientist* and by
David Larousserie
in *Le Monde*. Aron's piece (the print version was titled
"'Random' primes pair up on the sly") states the new findings
on these terms: "Soundararajan and Lemke Oliver noticed that primes ending in 1 are less likely to be followed by another ending in 1 than primes ending in 3, 7 or 9. That shouldn't happen if primes are truly random -- consecutive primes shouldn't care about their neighbour's final digit.
The pair found that in the first hundred million primes, a prime ending in 1 is followed by another ending in 1 just 18.5 per cent of the time. If they were random, you'd expect to see two primes ending in 1 next to each other 25 per cent of the time." He quotes Soundrarajan: "It was very weird. It's like some painting you are very familiar with, and then suddenly you realise there is a figure in the painting you've never seen before." Here are some more
statistics from the *arXiv* posting; these survey the first million
prime numbers, and record the number of times a prime congruent to 1 or
2 modulo 3 was followed (as the next prime in the list) by one or the
other congruence (aside from 3 itself, which was not counted, these are
the only possibilities)

first prime $\equiv 1$ | first prime $\equiv 2$ | |

next prime $\equiv 1$ | 215,873 | 283,957 |

next prime $\equiv 2$ | 283,957 | 216,213 |

showing "substantial deviations from the expectation that all four quantities
should be roughly 250,000," as the authors put it. They go on:
"The purpose of this paper is to develop a heuristic, based on the Hardy-Littlewood prime
$k$-tuples conjecture, which explains the biases seen above."

Larousserie spoke with Lemke Oliver, who told
him "When I first saw this difference I was in shock, but I was
confident because the simulation is easy to do." And that
the phenomenon may not have practical applications, even in coding,
but "it shows ways to seek other biases at the heart of the prime numbers
or in other sets."

Andrew Hacker is back on the *New York Times*
Sunday Opinion pages with
"The Wrong Way to Teach Math" (February 27, 2016),
adapted from his *The Math Myth and Other
STEM Delusions* (published on March 1).
He revisits the ideas from his 2012
"Is Algebra Necessary?" on the same pages, as well
as his Who Needs Advanced Math? Not Everybody
interview in "Education Life" (also in the *Times*, February 5)
and his February 26 interview, "The Case Against Mandating Math
for Students" in the *Chronicle of Higer Education*. Here are some of his points:

- "Most Americans have taken high school mathematics, including geometry and algebra, yet a national survey found that 82 percent of adults could not compute the cost of a carpet when told its dimensions and square-yard price." "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently tested adults in 24 countries on basic 'numeracy' skills. ... The United States ended an embarrassing 22nd, behind Estonia and Cyprus."
- "Is more mathematics the answer? In fact, what's needed is a different kind of proficiency, one that is hardly taught at all."
- "What citizens do need is to be comfortable reading graphs and charts and adept at calculating simple figures in their heads. Ours has become a quantitative century, and we must master its language. Decimals and ratios are now as crucial as nouns and verbs."
- "We teach arithmetic quite well in early grades, so that most people can do addition through division. We then send students straight to geometry and algebra, on a sequence ending with calculus. Some thrive throughout this progression, but too many are left behind."

Keith Devlin responds with
"Andrew Hacker and the Case for and Against Algebra"
in the *Huffington Post*, March 1, 2016. He gives several examples
in the articles and in the book (which he has reviewed
elsewhere) that document Hacker's lack of familiarity
with what is actually being taught, and a certain lack of basic
understanding of mathematics. But this is his main point:
"For a variety of reasons, the subject now taught in schools under the name of algebra is a travesty of the powerful way of thinking and problem solving developed in the Muslim world in the 8th and 9th Centuries, called 'algebra' today after the Arabic term *al-Jabr*. If Hacker had instead used his NYT connection to argue for a major make-over of 'school algebra' (as I think we should call the object of his criticisms), he would have garnered massive support from the pros, including me. As it is, his support came exclusively from those who, like Hacker himself, have no idea what algebra is or how significant it is in today's world."

So Devlin is telling us that Hacker is onto something, but
is just calling it by the wrong name: "it is a pity that, because he is so far removed from mathematics as it is actually practiced in today's world, Hacker misses the large target that I am pretty certain he is trying to hit--a target that deserves to be hit. Namely, the degree to which the mathematics taught in many of the nation's schools has drifted away from the real thing used every day by large numbers of people, to the point where much of what is taught is not only of little use, but can do real harm. Kids who are put off math in school will find their life choices significantly narrowed."

By Ian Stewart in

"In the early 1970s, Christopher came across some provocative ideas of the French mathematician René Thom, on a new way to think about mathematical models of reality. Among Thom's suggestions was a list of 'catastrophes élémentaires'-- a topological classification of sudden changes. This so appealed to Christopher's mathematical inclinations that he changed his research field from topology to what soon became known as catastrophe theory. He invented a 'catastrophe machine', [a model here] in which a circular disc on a pivot was attached to two elastic bands, one with a free end. As that end moved around, the disc would suddenly flip to a drastically different position, a vivid example of discontinuous behaviour resulting from a continuously changing cause. Catastrophe theory, renamed singularity theory, has now established itself as an important technique in many applied areas. One of Christopher's early proposals, a 'clock and wavefront' model demonstrating a key stage in the development of a vertebrate, was recently shown to be correct."

By Andrew Ranicki in