1 00:00:22,995 --> 00:00:25,080 And inevitably, during that conversation 2 00:00:25,080 --> 00:00:28,750 one of these two phrases come up: 3 00:00:28,750 --> 00:00:32,195 A) "I was terrible at math, but it wasn't my fault. 4 00:00:32,195 --> 00:00:35,614 It's because the teacher was awful." (Laughter) 5 00:00:35,614 --> 00:00:38,582 Or B) "But what is math really for?" 6 00:00:38,582 --> 00:00:39,610 (Laughter) 7 00:00:39,610 --> 00:00:41,955 I'll now address Case B. 8 00:00:41,955 --> 00:00:43,510 (Laughter) 9 00:00:43,510 --> 00:00:48,354 When someone asks you what math is for, they're not asking you 10 00:00:48,354 --> 00:00:51,203 about applications of mathematical science. 11 00:00:51,203 --> 00:00:52,554 They're asking you, 12 00:00:52,554 --> 00:00:56,485 why did I have to study that bullshit I never used in my life again? (Laughter) 13 00:00:56,485 --> 00:00:58,924 That's what they're actually asking. 14 00:00:58,924 --> 00:01:03,124 So when mathematicians are asked what math is for, 15 00:01:03,124 --> 00:01:05,404 they tend to fall into two groups: 16 00:01:05,404 --> 00:01:10,739 54.51 percent of mathematicians will assume an attacking position, 17 00:01:11,609 --> 00:01:16,559 and 44.77 percent of mathematicians will take a defensive position. 18 00:01:16,559 --> 00:01:20,068 There's a strange 0.8 percent, among which I include myself. 19 00:01:20,068 --> 00:01:22,155 Who are the ones that attack? 20 00:01:22,155 --> 00:01:24,902 The attacking ones are mathematicians who would tell you 21 00:01:24,902 --> 00:01:26,849 this question makes no sense, 22 00:01:26,849 --> 00:01:29,597 because mathematics have a meaning all their own -- 23 00:01:29,597 --> 00:01:32,144 a beautiful edifice with its own logic -- 24 00:01:32,144 --> 00:01:34,011 and that there's no point 25 00:01:34,011 --> 00:01:36,558 in constantly searching for all possible applications. 26 00:01:36,558 --> 00:01:38,847 What's the use of poetry? What's the use of love? 27 00:01:38,847 --> 00:01:41,908 What's the use of life itself? What kind of question is that? 28 00:01:41,908 --> 00:01:43,529 (Laughter) 29 00:01:43,529 --> 00:01:47,296 Hardy, for instance, was a model of this type of attack. 30 00:01:47,296 --> 00:01:49,242 And those who stand in defense tell you, 31 00:01:49,242 --> 00:01:54,082 "Even if you don't realize it, friend, math is behind everything." 32 00:01:54,082 --> 00:01:55,340 (Laughter) 33 00:01:55,340 --> 00:01:57,218 Those guys, 34 00:01:57,218 --> 00:02:01,246 they always bring up bridges and computers. 35 00:02:01,246 --> 00:02:03,841 "If you don't know math, your bridge will collapse." 36 00:02:03,841 --> 00:02:05,286 (Laughter) 37 00:02:05,286 --> 00:02:08,523 It's true, computers are all about math. 38 00:02:08,523 --> 00:02:11,008 And now these guys have also started saying 39 00:02:11,013 --> 00:02:16,050 that behind information security and credit cards are prime numbers. 40 00:02:16,710 --> 00:02:20,379 These are the answers your math teacher would give you if you asked him. 41 00:02:20,379 --> 00:02:22,544 He's one of the defensive ones. 42 00:02:22,544 --> 00:02:24,384 Okay, but who's right then? 43 00:02:24,384 --> 00:02:26,990 Those who say that math doesn't need to have a purpose, 44 00:02:26,990 --> 00:02:29,849 or those who say that math is behind everything we do? 45 00:02:29,849 --> 00:02:31,520 Actually, both are right. 46 00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:33,183 But remember I told you 47 00:02:33,183 --> 00:02:36,726 I belong to that strange 0.8 percent claiming something else? 48 00:02:36,726 --> 00:02:39,929 So, go ahead, ask me what math is for. 49 00:02:39,929 --> 00:02:42,858 Audience: What is math for? 50 00:02:42,858 --> 00:02:47,673 Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay, 76.34 percent of you asked the question, 51 00:02:47,673 --> 00:02:50,600 23.41 percent didn't say anything, 52 00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:51,827 and the 0.8 percent -- 53 00:02:51,827 --> 00:02:54,675 I'm not sure what those guys are doing. 54 00:02:54,675 --> 00:02:58,175 Well, to my dear 76.31 percent -- 55 00:02:58,175 --> 00:03:02,815 it's true that math doesn't need to serve a purpose, 56 00:03:02,815 --> 00:03:05,685 it's true that it's a beautiful structure, a logical one, 57 00:03:05,685 --> 00:03:08,537 probably one of the greatest collective efforts 58 00:03:08,537 --> 00:03:10,633 ever achieved in human history. 59 00:03:10,633 --> 00:03:12,732 But it's also true that there, 60 00:03:12,732 --> 00:03:17,331 where scientists and technicians are looking for mathematical theories 61 00:03:17,331 --> 00:03:19,641 that allow them to advance, 62 00:03:19,641 --> 00:03:23,438 they're within the structure of math, which permeates everything. 63 00:03:23,438 --> 00:03:26,585 It's true that we have to go somewhat deeper, 64 00:03:26,585 --> 00:03:28,308 to see what's behind science. 65 00:03:28,308 --> 00:03:31,858 Science operates on intuition, creativity. 66 00:03:32,348 --> 00:03:35,772 Math controls intuition and tames creativity. 67 00:03:36,747 --> 00:03:38,937 Almost everyone who hasn't heard this before 68 00:03:38,937 --> 00:03:41,647 is surprised when they hear that if you take 69 00:03:41,647 --> 00:03:46,187 a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper, the size we normally use, 70 00:03:46,187 --> 00:03:49,505 and, if it were big enough, fold it 50 times, 71 00:03:49,505 --> 00:03:55,205 its thickness would extend almost the distance from the Earth to the sun. 72 00:03:55,600 --> 00:03:58,201 Your intuition tells you it's impossible. 73 00:03:58,201 --> 00:04:00,622 Do the math and you'll see it's right. 74 00:04:00,622 --> 00:04:03,135 That's what math is for. 75 00:04:03,135 --> 00:04:06,917 It's true that science, all types of science, only makes sense 76 00:04:06,917 --> 00:04:10,288 because it makes us better understand this beautiful world we live in. 77 00:04:10,288 --> 00:04:11,669 And in doing that, 78 00:04:11,669 --> 00:04:15,179 it helps us avoid the pitfalls of this painful world we live in. 79 00:04:15,179 --> 00:04:18,656 There are sciences that help us in this way quite directly. 80 00:04:18,656 --> 00:04:20,413 Oncological science, for example. 81 00:04:20,413 --> 00:04:23,905 And there are others we look at from afar, with envy sometimes, 82 00:04:23,905 --> 00:04:26,464 but knowing that we are what supports them. 83 00:04:26,464 --> 00:04:29,213 All the basic sciences support them, 84 00:04:29,213 --> 00:04:31,649 including math. 85 00:04:31,649 --> 00:04:35,366 All that makes science, science is the rigor of math. 86 00:04:35,366 --> 00:04:40,242 And that rigor factors in because its results are eternal. 87 00:04:40,242 --> 00:04:42,757 You probably said or were told at some point 88 00:04:42,757 --> 00:04:45,708 that diamonds are forever, right? 89 00:04:47,178 --> 00:04:49,392 That depends on your definition of forever! 90 00:04:49,392 --> 00:04:51,883 A theorem -- that really is forever. 91 00:04:51,883 --> 00:04:53,134 (Laughter) 92 00:04:53,134 --> 00:04:56,486 The Pythagorean theorem is still true 93 00:04:56,486 --> 00:04:59,601 even though Pythagoras is dead, I assure you it's true. (Laughter) 94 00:04:59,601 --> 00:05:00,946 Even if the world collapsed 95 00:05:00,946 --> 00:05:03,391 the Pythagorean theorem would still be true. 96 00:05:03,391 --> 00:05:07,452 Wherever any two triangle sides and a good hypotenuse get together 97 00:05:07,452 --> 00:05:08,673 (Laughter) 98 00:05:08,673 --> 00:05:11,534 the Pythagorean theorem goes all out. It works like crazy. 99 00:05:11,534 --> 00:05:14,355 (Applause) 100 00:05:18,535 --> 00:05:22,407 Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves to come up with theorems. 101 00:05:22,407 --> 00:05:24,143 Eternal truths. 102 00:05:24,143 --> 00:05:26,909 But it isn't always easy to know the difference between 103 00:05:26,909 --> 00:05:29,815 an eternal truth, or theorem, and a mere conjecture. 104 00:05:29,815 --> 00:05:32,829 You need proof. 105 00:05:32,829 --> 00:05:34,596 For example, 106 00:05:34,596 --> 00:05:39,423 let's say I have a big, enormous, infinite field. 107 00:05:39,423 --> 00:05:43,132 I want to cover it with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps. 108 00:05:43,132 --> 00:05:45,256 I could use squares, right? 109 00:05:45,256 --> 00:05:49,222 I could use triangles. Not circles, those leave little gaps. 110 00:05:49,777 --> 00:05:52,134 Which is the best shape to use? 111 00:05:52,134 --> 00:05:56,687 One that covers the same surface, but has a smaller border. 112 00:05:56,687 --> 00:06:01,396 In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria said the best is to use hexagons, 113 00:06:01,396 --> 00:06:03,243 just like bees do. 114 00:06:03,243 --> 00:06:04,990 But he didn't prove it. 115 00:06:04,990 --> 00:06:07,688 The guy said, "Hexagons, great! Let's go with hexagons!" 116 00:06:07,688 --> 00:06:10,656 He didn't prove it, it remained a conjecture. 117 00:06:10,656 --> 00:06:12,334 "Hexagons!" 118 00:06:12,334 --> 00:06:15,964 And the world, as you know, split into Pappists and anti-Pappists, 119 00:06:15,964 --> 00:06:21,253 until 1700 years later 120 00:06:21,253 --> 00:06:26,707 when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved 121 00:06:26,707 --> 00:06:31,641 that Pappus and the bees were right -- the best shape to use was the hexagon. 122 00:06:31,641 --> 00:06:34,123 And that became a theorem, the honeycomb theorem, 123 00:06:34,123 --> 00:06:36,183 that will be true forever and ever, 124 00:06:36,183 --> 00:06:39,224 for longer than any diamond you may have. (Laughter) 125 00:06:39,229 --> 00:06:42,033 But what happens if we go to three dimensions? 126 00:06:42,033 --> 00:06:45,944 If I want to fill the space with equal pieces, 127 00:06:46,464 --> 00:06:47,805 without leaving any gaps, 128 00:06:47,805 --> 00:06:49,638 I can use cubes, right? 129 00:06:49,638 --> 00:06:52,994 Not spheres, those leave little gaps. (Laughter) 130 00:06:52,994 --> 00:06:55,957 What is the best shape to use? 131 00:06:55,957 --> 00:07:00,017 Lord Kelvin, of the famous Kelvin degrees and all, 132 00:07:00,607 --> 00:07:06,121 said that the best was to use a truncated octahedron 133 00:07:07,791 --> 00:07:10,507 which, as you all know -- 134 00:07:10,507 --> 00:07:12,035 (Laughter) -- 135 00:07:12,035 --> 00:07:13,814 is this thing here! 136 00:07:13,814 --> 00:07:16,753 (Applause) 137 00:07:18,778 --> 00:07:20,225 Come on. 138 00:07:21,025 --> 00:07:23,862 Who doesn't have a truncated octahedron at home? (Laughter) 139 00:07:23,862 --> 00:07:25,089 Even a plastic one. 140 00:07:25,089 --> 00:07:27,846 "Honey, get the truncated octahedron, we're having guests." 141 00:07:27,846 --> 00:07:29,240 Everybody has one! (Laughter) 142 00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:31,614 But Kelvin didn't prove it. 143 00:07:31,614 --> 00:07:35,655 It remained a conjecture -- Kelvin's conjecture. 144 00:07:35,655 --> 00:07:41,177 The world, as you know, then split into Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists 145 00:07:41,177 --> 00:07:42,599 (Laughter) 146 00:07:42,599 --> 00:07:46,496 until a hundred or so years later, 147 00:07:49,203 --> 00:07:53,072 someone found a better structure. 148 00:07:53,917 --> 00:07:59,026 Weaire and Phelan found this little thing over here -- 149 00:07:59,026 --> 00:08:00,665 (Laughter) -- 150 00:08:00,665 --> 00:08:04,209 this structure to which they gave the very clever name 151 00:08:04,209 --> 00:08:06,375 "the Weaire-Phelan structure." 152 00:08:06,375 --> 00:08:08,911 (Laughter) 153 00:08:08,911 --> 00:08:11,568 It looks like a strange object, but it isn't so strange, 154 00:08:11,568 --> 00:08:13,239 it also exists in nature. 155 00:08:13,239 --> 00:08:15,844 It's very interesting that this structure, 156 00:08:15,844 --> 00:08:18,037 because of its geometric properties, 157 00:08:18,037 --> 00:08:23,229 was used to build the Aquatics Center for the Beijing Olympic Games. 158 00:08:23,969 --> 00:08:26,714 There, Michael Phelps won eight gold medals, 159 00:08:26,714 --> 00:08:29,875 and became the best swimmer of all time. 160 00:08:29,875 --> 00:08:33,616 Well, until someone better comes along, right? 161 00:08:33,616 --> 00:08:36,015 As may happen with the Weaire-Phelan structure. 162 00:08:36,015 --> 00:08:38,633 It's the best until something better shows up. 163 00:08:38,633 --> 00:08:43,225 But be careful, because this one really stands a chance 164 00:08:43,225 --> 00:08:48,205 that in a hundred or so years, or even if it's in 1700 years, 165 00:08:48,205 --> 00:08:53,603 that someone proves it's the best possible shape for the job. 166 00:08:53,978 --> 00:08:58,348 It will then become a theorem, a truth, forever and ever. 167 00:08:58,348 --> 00:09:01,302 For longer than any diamond. 168 00:09:01,837 --> 00:09:05,567 So, if you want to tell someone 169 00:09:06,777 --> 00:09:09,823 that you will love them forever 170 00:09:09,823 --> 00:09:11,890 you can give them a diamond. 171 00:09:11,890 --> 00:09:15,421 But if you want to tell them that you'll love them forever and ever, 172 00:09:15,421 --> 00:09:17,172 give them a theorem! 173 00:09:17,172 --> 00:09:18,263 (Laughter) 174 00:09:18,263 --> 00:09:20,853 But hang on a minute! 175 00:09:21,783 --> 00:09:23,183 You'll have to prove it, 176 00:09:23,183 --> 00:09:25,466 so your love doesn't remain 177 00:09:25,466 --> 00:09:27,299 a conjecture. 178 00:09:27,299 --> 00:09:30,543 (Applause)