Most technology is based on Mathematics. As Tony Crilly puts it in his book *‘50 mathematical ideas you really need to know’*, “there is no longer any pride left in announcing to have been no good at it when at school.” However, in the presence of Indian Institute of Science Assistant Professor Abhishek Banerjee, one can’t help but feel a bit mathematically overwhelmed. He is our Bangalore Global Icon #15 for inspiring us to look at Mathematics, not with fear and trepidation as some of us did in school, but with awe and wonder.

Before joining IISc in January 2014, Abhishek used to be a Maître de Conférences (Associé) at Collège de France in Paris. And prior to that for three years he was a post-doc at Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHÉS), Bures sur Yvette and a Zassenhaus Assistant Professor at Ohio State University. He received his PhD in 2009 from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

His research work is in the fields of Algebraic Geometry and Non-commutative Geometry. In the domain of Non-commutative Geometry, his main interest is in Hochschild and cyclic homology. In Algebraic Geometry, his main interest is in developing results for schemes over symmetric monoidal categories. Additionally, he studies bivariant Chow groups and also likes to dabble in K-theory and sometimes in arithmetic geometry.

One hears of different kinds of science – ancient Indian science and

Greek science. I wondered if in modern times, if we differ mathematically? Abhishek

says that modern mathematics is very international. “It is hard to identify any

particular subculture within mathematics based on geography. My

understanding is that at the college level, mathematics is taught in the same

way roughly everywhere; in India, in the US or in Europe.”

Here are excerpts from the interview:

*Being
a Non-Mathematician, and for a long time at that, I asked Abhishek how the
mathematical theories he was working on could help the world we live in.*

**AB:** My work is

mostly theoretical, in fields of mathematics known as 'non-commutative

geometry,' 'algebraic geometry,’ and 'category theory.' In terms of

applications, it is hard to know exactly. But sometimes, the applications are

not just more than we imagine, but more than we can imagine. For instance, non-commutative

geometry is one of the key tools used to understand the universe in terms of

what is called the ‘standard model.’ The standard model touches

everything from general relativity to the Higgs Boson and basic principles of

electromagnetic force.

Recently, I was invited to give a series of lectures to physicists at a

large meeting in IISER-Kolkata on Quantum Computing. I was rather

surprised to find out that category theory is of great interest to those

working on Quantum computing. As you know, quantum computing is one of

those technologies that is likely to change everything about our world.

Personally, I tend to think of mathematics more as a sport, such as

running a race. Stretching the mind just as an athlete would push their body,

searching for its limits.

*Although I suspect I know the answer, I still ask Abhishek about his
role model in Mathematics. After all Mathematics though spoken as one subject,
is a vast ocean – and one can have heroes in pure and applied Mathematics,
abstract and concrete, and even in the common man who can solve a Sudoku in a
minute.*

AB: That's easy. Srinivasa Ramanujan of course. Like I said, I think of

math more like a sport. And as with sport, we want to be like our heroes. At

one point, I really wanted to be a number theorist, which is the field that

Ramanujan worked in. But as I got more and more invested in the subject, I

realized there were other forms of mathematics that were better suited to my

temperament.

I wanted to become a number theorist when I was young. Eventually, my

research went another way. So I married a number theorist. She is a faculty

member at IISER Pune.

*From his ocean of research, I asked Abhishek to list his top three
research works out of a very long, mind-boggling list and their application in
layman terms.*

**AB:** As I said before, my work is rather theoretical, but I can try to explain some of the themes. I already spoke about noncommutative geometry. In algebraic geometry, we often try to understand lines, curves and surfaces. A point has zero dimension, a line has one dimension and a surface has two. If you take two straight lines, they meet at one point, unless they are parallel. If you take two planes, they will meet in a line, unless they are

parallel.

From a mathematical point, this is unpleasant. The fact that we have to

make an exception for parallel cases is ugly. In algebraic geometry, we find

ways to redefine what it means for lines to ‘meet’, so that two straight lines will

always meet in a point. Even the line will meet itself as in a single point.

A lot of questions in math begin like this. We identify something that

looks like an ugly exception and then we define something new and beautiful

that incorporates it into a single general rule. For example, we can add 10

given numbers or 100 given numbers. But how do you add infinitely many numbers

together?

*In a recent talk for CSP Abhishek spoke about a stereotypical Math
teacher whom all of us have encountered in our school days. So how do we get
children to love maths nonetheless?*

AB: The way mathematics is taught at the ground level, in school, needs

serious reform. Not just in India, but all over the world. By the time students

are in college, many have already internalized the idea that math is ‘difficult’.

This is a cumulative failure of parents, teachers and popular culture, which

work together to create this impression. And really sad, because math is in

many ways the easiest subject. It requires almost zero rote memorization.

There are so few rules that they would fit on the back of an envelope and never

any exceptions to those rules.

So the first thing would be to stop telling kids that math is ‘difficult,’

so that it does not turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy. Let children

judge for themselves. Give them questions involving numbers and challenge them

to find a solution. Once they have a solution, ask them if there's any other

way they could have solved the same problem.

Often times, the solutions to standard problems are presented as boring algorithms

to be memorized, starting with addition, carry overs and long division. This

should be avoided. Help kids figure out the place value system, not just in

terms of powers of 10, but powers of any number. Use the binary system to

explain powers of 2. When a kid understands how to take powers, ask them how

they would raise 2 to the power of pi. Would you multiply 2 to itself pi number

of times? What does that even mean? Don't be afraid to think laterally or

ask questions that may be beyond the level. It's okay to have some

questions unanswered, left for later as fodder for curiosity.

*So what drives Abhishek -the most complex of numbers or how they relate
to life? *

AB: I said that I often think of mathematics as a sport. I try to push

my mind constantly. Every day is an adventure. I fail constantly, but you have

to keep thinking harder and harder. A lot of mathematics is about seeking

fundamental patterns. Often times, I think I have a pattern but it turns out to

be a mirage. Remember that the person we can fool most easily is ourselves. So

first you think you have something and next moment you are disappointed. But

you think again, look for different fundamental properties and then maybe you

will find something. I would say what drives me is failure. No tonic is better

to keep going.

*The beauty of maths lies in truths that have universal and absolute
validity. Abhishek Banerjee gives the example of certain kinds of cicada, known
as magicicadas, which have a 13 year life cycle, i.e. they hatch en masse once
every 13 years.*

AB: “Now, why is that so clever? Notice that 13 is a prime number. In

nature, the life cycles of a predator will synchronize with prey to maximize

availability of food. If Magicicadas emerged say every 6 years, a predator

with a 2, 3, or 6 year life cycle would be able to feed on them. But the

number 13 makes it that much harder for predators. So we are all thinking

mathematically: even cicadas. If tomorrow we were to try to talk to an alien

species, how would we communicate? Hard to think of any language more universal

than Math.”

*In the competitive world we live in the ‘Two-person, zero-sum games’ are
very common. A game played by all of us, involving two sides, where one wins
and the other loses. Finding the cheapest route, sending coded secret messages,
mathematics is all pervasive. I ask Abhishek about his conversations with a
biologist on the meaning of life as understood through mathematics.*

One of my most interesting scientific interactions ever was with an

Israeli professor who was a biologist. We would meet for lunch every single day

and ask simple but perhaps unlikely questions. And try to find rational

answers. The first one we had was ‘why do we die?’ After a few days we agreed

that an organism that never dies would have to be able to survive without food,

water, be fire proof ... not even susceptible to being crushed by a rock. The complexity

that would require is simply unachievable in one single evolutionary

step.

Another question we had was - why are there two genders? Why not three

or five? We eventually settled on the conclusion that having sexual

reproduction by bringing together two genders is hard enough. Think about how complicated

cross pollination is with two genders already. Can you imagine how unlikely

pollination would be if a bee had to visit three different flowers of the same

species but of three different genders? As for genetic diversity, powers of 2

grow fast enough to produce healthy offspring with variety of traits. No need

to go for powers of 3 or more.

The first thing to realize is that things like these are scientific

questions that deserve rational answers. We wouldn't claim that our answers

above were the correct ones. As I said, this was some informal chatting between

us, purely for entertainment purposes. I think the important thing here is the

focus on rationalism.