I agree; I just read the original recently. Of course the invisible man was an albino, so he was already pigmentless (or so the story goes) except for blood etc. These pigments he somehow replaced. A lot of the scientific explanation has to do with changing the refractive indices of his tissues to make them match those of air though. It seems the mouse still has some problems with refraction.
The proof I do in my classes uses the formula for summing a geometric series..
This is great. Hopefully in the near future we can address price fixing in everything else, like text-messages, internet service, cell phone service
What happened to trust busting?
As Nick Boston pointed out (http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf)
this is the worst news the human race has ever received.
The idea is that the Fermi Paradox must be the result of a Great Filter which stymies the creation of long lived intelligent races. The easier it is for life to evolve, the more likely it is that the Filter lies ahead of us, rather than behind.
Therefore microbes on Mars is bad bad news.
I'm not a programmer, I'm a mathematician, but I notice the same thing in my field.
To those who say there is not a tendency toward weirdness in mathematical disciplines, I suggest the following experiment. First go to the weekly math colloquium at a local research university. Then, go to the weekly philosophy colloquium and see if you can discern a difference in the people who come. I believe you will almost certainly find that the mathematicians are less attractive and charismatic. You could argue that philosophy simply selects for attractiveness and charisma, but I believe you will have similar findings if many different subjects are substituted for phil.
To those who say that the strangeness of programmers is somehow reducible to various qualities of "geeks", this is clearly begging the question, as any good geek should know. The topic for this thread is very similar to asking "why are geeks the way they are?" but phrased differently.
I have spent large amounts of time wondering why mathematicians are weird, ugly, uncharismatic and so forth. My answer is that they live largely in their own imaginations, and spend correspondingly less time in the "real world." Therefore, not surprisingly, their real world appearance, manners etc gives evidence of a lack of attention. Conversely people in other fields are not selected for an ability to concentrate deeply, spend more time in the here and now, and reap consequent benefits in hygiene, social skills, etc.
I can think of some very important mathematical works from the last century, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to read them:
1. Principia Mathematica, Russell & Whitehead
2. On Undecidable Propositions, Kurt Goedel
3. Classification Theory, Saharon Shelah
4. Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint, Milnor
I assume you are interested only in original documents, and not summaries or expositions. Unfortunately the technical and specialized nature of modern science is likely to make "accessible science" and "original science" mutually exclusive.
I very much second paiute's opinion (above).