Irsee (Day 4 and 5)

Thursday began with my own talk, which I had spent hours over-preparing all week! I think it went well, and it was followed by talks in related topics by my student Jesse Lansdown and Ferdinand Ihringer. Overall, it was a very enjoyable list of talks, and in topics I’ve had a dabble in. Thursday evening saw the FinInG group spend a few hours becoming acquainted with Git and BitBucket.

Friday began with a marvellous talk by Kai-Uwe Schmidt … again, on a topic I was familiar with. I missed one of the sessions for another research session with Anurag Bishnoi and Ferdinand Ihringer, but the last session finished the conference off nicely with three nice talks by Gabor Korchámros, Daniele Bartoli, and Simeon Ball. We then had a conference dinner, comprising not only of food, but of impromptu piano performances by Giovanni Longobardi and Jan De Beule. Michel Lavrauw gave an interesting stat during his conference dinner speech: there were 73 attendees and 58 talks! So it was indeed a busy conference.

Irsee (Day 2 and 3)

I’ve been extremely busy at this conference, and so a summary of the past two days comes at once. On Tuesday, we had Dieter Jungnickel’s talk on Hamada’s Conjecture and related things. We then had “design-like” talks for most of the day. I did miss one of the sessions where I had some urgent work to do, but I very much enjoyed the talks that I did attend. In particular, Jim Davis’ talk was spectacular, on difference sets of groups of order 256. Tuesday evening was particularly special with Jan De Beule playing a mini-concert as bookends to an ICA medal presentation. Jan played a set of three Chopin numbers that I knew well, and finished with Beethoven’s Adagio Cantible (2nd movement). Yesterday (Wednesday), we had a short day, for the afternoon was free time. We had three talks: Joachim Rosenthal, Karen Meagher, and Leo Storme. All of these talks were interesting to me, hence why I’m so exhausted! After lunch, a bunch of us went for a long walk out into the local farmlands. On the way back from a small tea/wine/beer-house, it rained a bit, so I was feeling a little wet and wind-swept when we got back. In the evening, we (Michel Lavrauw, Jan De Beule, and I) had our FinInG-demo, which was a success, apart from some problems with the projector at the beginning. Many of the attendees came along, and I hope, we will have some new users of our finite geometry package soon.

Here is a photo from the walk:

Irsee (Day 1)

I am currently at the fifth Irsee conference on “Finite Geometry” which takes place in at the old monastery in the village of Irsee (Germany). The first day consisted mainly of talks on maximum distance rank codes, which is currently a hot topic in finite geometry. The plenary lecture on this topic, by Olga Polverino, was fantastic, and the contributed talks in the morning session continued the theme. One of the main themes was “John Sheekey” who could not attend, but was probably mentioned two-score times in the morning session. I even learnt of a new expression: the Sheekey connection. It has a ring to it! Some talks I expecially enjoyed were by Giuseppe Marino and Geertrui van de Voorde.

The afternoon session was on finite semifields, bent functions, and related objects. Then the late afternoon session was a bit more random, but I particularly enjoyed the talks by Sudhir Ghorpade and my close colleague Tomasz Popiel.

After a long of day of interesting talks and many many research meetings, I was exhausted. Four more days to go!


Long time since I (or any of us) last posted, but it would be good to get back into it again.

The winter months, especially June and July, are usually cold and rainy in Perth and this year is no exception.  So, like migratory birds heading for the sun, most of us head to the northern hemisphere for their summer conference season.

So I’m currently writing this from a student cafe at the University of Lisbon where a conference+workshop to celebrate Peter Cameron’s birthday is on its final day. But more of this particular conference later.

Continue reading “Conferences”

Forrest Fellowships

The Forrest Foundation are currently advertising their Forrest Fellowships which are 3 year postdocs at a university in Western Australia.  Of course, The University of Western Australia is one such university.

They are looking for `outstanding researchers of exceptional ability and resourcefulness, having the highest calibre of academic achievements and with the potential to make a difference in the world.’ All research disciplines are eligible to apply. Applicants need to be no more than 2 years post PhD graduation.

More details can be found here. Note that one of the selection criteria involves ability and commitment to mentoring. Applications close at the end of June.

Applicants will need a statement of support from the univeristy that we wish to be at. If you are interested in applying for one of these to join the CMSC then feel free to contact one of us.

Guest post: Why mathematicians do not solve the Open Access Problem?

The following is a guest post by Stephen Glasby.

In July 2012 Tim Gowers wrote A new open-access venture from Cambridge University Press. The idea of arXiv overlay journals has been around for over 4 years, and there are very powerful ideas to support them. Why then does the mathematical community seem reluctant to support them?

Let me begin with a some history and context.

It is hard to overstate the importance of Mathematics Reviews (MR) and Zentralblatt (Zbl). Although Zbl had been reviewing journal articles since 1931, antisemitic pressures at that time led to the establishment of MR in 1940 (the last printing of MR was 2012). The electronic database MathSciNet, established in 1996, has made the printed versions of both MR and Zbl obsolete. We all know that MathSciNet is not merely a list of reviews: it contains links to journal articles, authors, references, citations, and related reviews. MR employs about 100 people in An Arbor, Michigan, and these few people have transformed the way we do mathematics. Mathematics is fortunate to have both MathSciNet and the arXiv. The natural sciences, by contrast, do not have an equivalent of MathSciNet!

While MathSciNet could be further improved and extended, I will change tack and now focus on the Open Access Problem: that it is not free to publish/access/reuse research papers. This larger problem affects all of Mathematics. The Open Access Problem applies more generally to the sciences and medicine and it is described, with some solutions, in this broad context in the illustrated video. (Who owns your personal data is a very large issue.) Let us focus on mathematical Open Access problems and solutions, for mathematics has both the arXiv and MathSciNet. When we locate relevant research using MathSciNet, increasingly often, clicking on “article” to download the journal article shows that the article is “owned” by a publishing company, or a learned society, and downloading can cost US$40, or an annual subscription! This is a growing and lasting problem for mathematics, retarding both future research and proper referencing of past research.

One solution to the Open Access Problem, suggested by Tim Gowers and others, is to use arXiv overlay journals. Why is this practical solution not being implemented broadly? Such journals exist, but there are relatively few. I argue below that the solutions are easily implemented, and require essentially no additional effort, and have huge potential benefits. But they do require the mathematical establishment to embrace the change. Let us first look at problems and solutions before addressing the resistance to change.

There are many models for peer-reviewed Open Access publication, these have names such as Platinum, Gold, Diamond, and Green, but non-experts forget the definitions or use non-standard definitions. It seems better say whether articles are free to Publish, Access, Reuse, Typeset and Edited, etc. We will focus on journals that are free to Access (i.e. read and print), and free (or very cheap) to Publish and Reuse (i.e. link to, or republish, content). Clearly Typesetting and Editing are lesser problems for mathematics than the accessibility of past research.

Problem 0: A small fraction of new mathematical research is put on the arXiv before it is published, and this will remain the case for some time.

Solution: Establish journals that do publish on the arXiv, see Problem 2. The arXiv was established in 1991. It has 1.2M papers up to 2016, most are physics, and about 280,000 are in mathematics. MathSciNet lists 2.1M reviews from 1991-2016 so I estimate (very crudely) that about 1/7 of mathematical research papers are on the arXiv. The number of arXiv papers was doubling every 4 years, but this rate is slowing down. It is possible that in a decade the majority of math research papers will have preprint versions posted on the arXiv.

Problem 1: Many of the prestigious journals are owed by publishing companies, or learned societies, which make our research effectively inaccessible because of copyright, and cost of access. The cost of an average mathematics journal is US$1,700/yr and some papers have indefinite copyright. Subscription costs for some journals with shorter copyright periods can cost over US$8,000/yr (e.g. Elsevier’s Nonlinear Analysis).

Solution: Establish new journals that publish for “free” on the arXiv, see Problem 4. The research will be accessible and free (to read) in perpetuity. Moreover, it will be clear that the paper has been peer-reviewed, and MathSciNet can link to the refereed arXiv paper.

Problem 2: New journals have lower impact factors than expensive established journals, and academics must publish in high impact journals to be promoted, to obtain grants, etc.

Solution: If all mathematicians put the refereed and corrected version of their paper on the arXiv (even if it lacked the journal formatting) then this problem would be solved. As remarked above, this is not likely to happen soon. Another solution is to ask the editors of Journal X to resign en masse and establish a new journal called Journal EX (for Electronic Journal of X). The editors will review to the same standard as before so Journal EX must have the same academic standing as Journal X, see Problem 5.

Problem 3: Journal X has Editorial Management software, the new Journal EX would require similar software to be developed and maintained.

Solution: Free Editorial Management software already exists. Learned societies, or grants, or nominal “Publication Fees” could subsidize the cost of maintaining and further developing the software, see Problem 4.

Problem 4: There are unavoidable costs that must be born by the arXiv and MathSciNet. Who will pay for these?

Solution: There are many solutions here. The major costs would be refereeing and editing, but we perform these gratis, and distribution via the arXiv is close to free, so that leaves copy editing and maintaining MathSciNet databases. A growing number of universities have pledged to support fees for Open Access publication for articles written by their faculty, see this link. A nominal Publication Fee could be levied from author(s), or author(s) may be required to donate a nominal sum to a fund to maintain the arXiv, to keep MathSciNet subscriptions low, and to develop and maintain Editorial Management software, and maybe fund some copy editing. (The 2017 pricing for MathSciNet Consortia ranges from US$339.00 per institution to US$11,887.00: a fraction of library subscriptions costs for mathematics journals.)

Problem 5: Editors of high impact journals need not be concerned about egalitarianism and Open Access. Why should they resign en masse from the board of Journal X and form a new Open Access Journal EX?

The three main problems are: critical mass, will, and inertia. The work load of a editor is independent of whether s/he works for a journal that: exploits mathematical creativity, or one that fosters creativity (by rapid, free, accessible publications). I argue that editor intransigence is a major impediment to Open Access publication. I know of cases of individual editors whose libraries do not carry key journals because of cost, and yet these editors do not support Open Access. Why? Gowers suggested that a number of mathematicians have an emotional objection to Open Access publication.

A minority of mathematicians are editors for Open Access journals. Is this minority more concerned about the health of mathematical research than the majority? or are there cogent reasons for maintaining the status quo? I have tried to make new arguments for Open Access publishing in mathematics. A good source for further reading is Tim Gowers blog.

A sad day for blackboards at UWA

Over the next few months, the whole of the Mathematics building at UWA will be refurbished, including air-conditioning on the first floor, a re-design of the administration area, and an overhaul of the surrounding lecture theatres. Weatherburn LT, Blakers LT, and Maths Lecture Room 1, 2, 3 have had their blackboards ripped out, to be replaced with WHITEBOARDS (see the carnage below). I have already given my reservations about this exchange and lost the battle, and I am sure we will regret this move … alas.