Complete Pick positivity and unitary invariance

The characteristic function for a contraction is a classical complete unitary invariant devised by Sz.-Nagy and Foias. Just as a contraction is related to the Szego kernel k(S) (z, w) = (1 - z (w) over tilde)(-1) for |z|, |w| < 1, by means of (1/k(S))(T,T*) >= 0, we consider an arbitrary open connected domain Omega in C-n, a complete Pick kernel k on Omega and a tuple T = (T-1, ..., T-n) of commuting bounded operators on a complex separable Hilbert space H such that (1/k)(T,T*) >= 0. For a complete Pick kernel the 1/k functional calculus makes sense in a beautiful way. It turns out that the model theory works very well and a characteristic function can be associated with T. Moreover, the characteristic function is then a complete unitary invariant for a suitable class of tuples T.

Turing and animal coat patterns

The present article describes a beautiful contribution of Alan Turing to our understanding of how animal coat patterns form. The question that Turing posed was the following. A collection of identical cells (or processors for that matter), all running the exact same program, and all communicating with each other in the exact same way, should always be in the same state. Yet they produce nonhomogeneous periodic patterns, like those seen on animal coats. How does this happen? Turing gave an elegant explanation for this phenomenon, namely that differences between the cells due to small amounts of random noise can actually be amplified into structured periodic patterns. We attempt to describe his core conceptual contribution below.

Modelling of soldier fly halteres for gyroscopic oscillations

Nature has evolved a beautiful design for small-scale vibratory rategyro in the form of dipteran halteres that detect body rotations via Coriolis acceleration. In most Diptera, including soldier fly, Hermetia illucens, halteres are a pair of special organs, located in the space between the thorax and the abdomen. The halteres along with their connecting joint with the fly's body constitute a mechanism that is used for muscle-actuated oscillations of the halteres along the actuation direction. These oscillations lead to bending vibrations in the sensing direction (out of the haltere's actuation plane) upon any impressed rotation due to the resulting Coriolis force. This induced vibration is sensed by the sensory organs at the base of the haltere in order to determine the rate of rotation. In this study, we evaluate the boundary conditions and the stiffness of the anesthetized halteres along the actuation and the sensing direction. We take several cross-sectional SEM (scanning electron microscope) images of the soldier fly haltere and construct its three dimensional model to get the mass properties. Based on these measurements, we estimate the natural frequency along both actuation and sensing directions, propose a finite element model of the haltere's joint mechanism, and discuss the significance of the haltere's asymmetric cross-section. The estimated natural frequency along the actuation direction is within the range of the haltere's flapping frequency. However, the natural frequency along the sensing direction is roughly double the haltere's flapping frequency that provides a large bandwidth for sensing the rate of rotation to the soldier flies.

How should biologists engage with controversial mathematical theory?

Mathematics is beautiful and precise and often necessary to understand complex biological phenomena. And yet biologists cannot always hope to fully understand the mathematical foundations of the theory they are using or testing. How then should biologists behave when mathematicians themselves are in dispute? Using the on-going controversy over Hamilton's rule as an example, I argue that biologists should be free to treat mathematical theory with a healthy dose of agnosticism. In doing so biologists should equip themselves with a disclaimer that publicly admits that they cannot entirely attest to the veracity of the mathematics underlying the theory they are using or testing. The disclaimer will only help if it is accompanied by three responsibilities - stay bipartisan in a dispute among mathematicians, stay vigilant and help expose dissent among mathematicians, and make the biology larger than the mathematics. I must emphasize that my goal here is not to take sides in the on-going dispute over the mathematical validity of Hamilton's rule, indeed my goal is to argue that we should refrain from taking sides.