WEBVTT

00:00:22.995 --> 00:00:25.080
And inevitably, during that conversation

00:00:25.080 --> 00:00:28.750
one of these two phrases come up:

00:00:28.750 --> 00:00:32.195
A) "I was terrible at math,
but it wasn't my fault.

00:00:32.195 --> 00:00:35.614
It's because the teacher
was awful." (Laughter)

00:00:35.614 --> 00:00:38.582
Or B) "But what is math really for?"

00:00:38.582 --> 00:00:39.610
(Laughter)

00:00:39.610 --> 00:00:41.955
I'll now address Case B.

00:00:41.955 --> 00:00:43.510
(Laughter)

00:00:43.510 --> 00:00:48.354
When someone asks you what math is for,
they're not asking you

00:00:48.354 --> 00:00:51.203
about applications
of mathematical science.

00:00:51.203 --> 00:00:52.554
They're asking you,

00:00:52.554 --> 00:00:56.485
why did I have to study that bullshit
I never used in my life again? (Laughter)

00:00:56.485 --> 00:00:58.924
That's what they're actually asking.

00:00:58.924 --> 00:01:03.124
So when mathematicians are asked
what math is for,

00:01:03.124 --> 00:01:05.404
they tend to fall into two groups:

00:01:05.404 --> 00:01:10.739
54.51 percent of mathematicians
will assume an attacking position,

00:01:11.609 --> 00:01:16.559
and 44.77 percent of mathematicians
will take a defensive position.

00:01:16.559 --> 00:01:20.068
There's a strange 0.8 percent,
among which I include myself.

00:01:20.068 --> 00:01:22.155
Who are the ones that attack?

00:01:22.155 --> 00:01:24.902
The attacking ones are mathematicians
who would tell you

00:01:24.902 --> 00:01:26.849
this question makes no sense,

00:01:26.849 --> 00:01:29.597
because mathematics
have a meaning all their own --

00:01:29.597 --> 00:01:32.144
a beautiful edifice with its own logic --

00:01:32.144 --> 00:01:34.011
and that there's no point

00:01:34.011 --> 00:01:36.558
in constantly searching
for all possible applications.

00:01:36.558 --> 00:01:38.847
What's the use of poetry?
What's the use of love?

00:01:38.847 --> 00:01:41.908
What's the use of life itself? 
What kind of question is that?

00:01:41.908 --> 00:01:43.529
(Laughter)

00:01:43.529 --> 00:01:47.296
Hardy, for instance, was a model
of this type of attack.

00:01:47.296 --> 00:01:49.242
And those who stand in defense tell you,

00:01:49.242 --> 00:01:54.082
"Even if you don't realize it, friend,
math is behind everything."

00:01:54.082 --> 00:01:55.340
(Laughter)

00:01:55.340 --> 00:01:57.218
Those guys,

00:01:57.218 --> 00:02:01.246
they always bring up
bridges and computers.

00:02:01.246 --> 00:02:03.841
"If you don't know math,
your bridge will collapse."

00:02:03.841 --> 00:02:05.286
(Laughter)

00:02:05.286 --> 00:02:08.523
It's true, computers are all about math.

00:02:08.523 --> 00:02:11.008
And now these guys
have also started saying

00:02:11.013 --> 00:02:16.050
that behind information security
and credit cards are prime numbers.

00:02:16.710 --> 00:02:20.379
These are the answers your math teacher
would give you if you asked him.

00:02:20.379 --> 00:02:22.544
He's one of the defensive ones.

00:02:22.544 --> 00:02:24.384
Okay, but who's right then?

00:02:24.384 --> 00:02:26.990
Those who say that math
doesn't need to have a purpose,

00:02:26.990 --> 00:02:29.849
or those who say that math
is behind everything we do?

00:02:29.849 --> 00:02:31.520
Actually, both are right.

00:02:31.520 --> 00:02:33.183
But remember I told you

00:02:33.183 --> 00:02:36.726
I belong to that strange 0.8 percent
claiming something else?

00:02:36.726 --> 00:02:39.929
So, go ahead, ask me what math is for.

00:02:39.929 --> 00:02:42.858
Audience: What is math for?

00:02:42.858 --> 00:02:47.673
Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay,
76.34 percent of you asked the question,

00:02:47.673 --> 00:02:50.600
23.41 percent didn't say anything,

00:02:50.600 --> 00:02:51.827
and the 0.8 percent --

00:02:51.827 --> 00:02:54.675
I'm not sure what those guys are doing.

00:02:54.675 --> 00:02:58.175
Well, to my dear 76.31 percent --

00:02:58.175 --> 00:03:02.815
it's true that math doesn't need
to serve a purpose,

00:03:02.815 --> 00:03:05.685
it's true that it's
a beautiful structure, a logical one,

00:03:05.685 --> 00:03:08.537
probably one
of the greatest collective efforts

00:03:08.537 --> 00:03:10.633
ever achieved in human history.

00:03:10.633 --> 00:03:12.732
But it's also true that there,

00:03:12.732 --> 00:03:17.331
where scientists and technicians
are looking for mathematical theories

00:03:17.331 --> 00:03:19.641
that allow them to advance,

00:03:19.641 --> 00:03:23.438
they're within the structure of math,
which permeates everything.

00:03:23.438 --> 00:03:26.585
It's true that we have to go
somewhat deeper,

00:03:26.585 --> 00:03:28.308
to see what's behind science.

00:03:28.308 --> 00:03:31.858
Science operates on intuition, creativity.

00:03:32.348 --> 00:03:35.772
Math controls intuition
and tames creativity.

00:03:36.747 --> 00:03:38.937
Almost everyone
who hasn't heard this before

00:03:38.937 --> 00:03:41.647
is surprised when they hear
that if you take

00:03:41.647 --> 00:03:46.187
a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper,
the size we normally use,

00:03:46.187 --> 00:03:49.505
and, if it were big enough,
fold it 50 times,

00:03:49.505 --> 00:03:55.205
its thickness would extend almost
the distance from the Earth to the sun.

00:03:55.600 --> 00:03:58.201
Your intuition tells you it's impossible.

00:03:58.201 --> 00:04:00.622
Do the math and you'll see it's right.

00:04:00.622 --> 00:04:03.135
That's what math is for.

00:04:03.135 --> 00:04:06.917
It's true that science, all types
of science, only makes sense

00:04:06.917 --> 00:04:10.288
because it makes us better understand
this beautiful world we live in.

00:04:10.288 --> 00:04:11.669
And in doing that,

00:04:11.669 --> 00:04:15.179
it helps us avoid the pitfalls
of this painful world we live in.

00:04:15.179 --> 00:04:18.656
There are sciences that help us
in this way quite directly.

00:04:18.656 --> 00:04:20.413
Oncological science, for example.

00:04:20.413 --> 00:04:23.905
And there are others we look at from afar,
with envy sometimes,

00:04:23.905 --> 00:04:26.464
but knowing that we are
what supports them.

00:04:26.464 --> 00:04:29.213
All the basic sciences
support them,

00:04:29.213 --> 00:04:31.649
including math.

00:04:31.649 --> 00:04:35.366
All that makes science, science
is the rigor of math.

00:04:35.366 --> 00:04:40.242
And that rigor factors in
because its results are eternal.

00:04:40.242 --> 00:04:42.757
You probably said or were told
at some point

00:04:42.757 --> 00:04:45.708
that diamonds are forever, right?

00:04:47.178 --> 00:04:49.392
That depends on
your definition of forever!

00:04:49.392 --> 00:04:51.883
A theorem -- that really is forever.

00:04:51.883 --> 00:04:53.134
(Laughter)

00:04:53.134 --> 00:04:56.486
The Pythagorean theorem is still true

00:04:56.486 --> 00:04:59.601
even though Pythagoras is dead,
I assure you it's true. (Laughter)

00:04:59.601 --> 00:05:00.946
Even if the world collapsed

00:05:00.946 --> 00:05:03.391
the Pythagorean theorem
would still be true.

00:05:03.391 --> 00:05:07.452
Wherever any two triangle sides
and a good hypotenuse get together

00:05:07.452 --> 00:05:08.673
(Laughter)

00:05:08.673 --> 00:05:11.534
the Pythagorean theorem goes all out.
It works like crazy.

00:05:11.534 --> 00:05:14.355
(Applause)

00:05:18.535 --> 00:05:22.407
Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves
to come up with theorems.

00:05:22.407 --> 00:05:24.143
Eternal truths.

00:05:24.143 --> 00:05:26.909
But it isn't always easy to know
the difference between

00:05:26.909 --> 00:05:29.815
an eternal truth, or theorem,
and a mere conjecture.

00:05:29.815 --> 00:05:32.829
You need proof.

00:05:32.829 --> 00:05:34.596
For example,

00:05:34.596 --> 00:05:39.423
let's say I have a big,
enormous, infinite field.

00:05:39.423 --> 00:05:43.132
I want to cover it with equal pieces,
without leaving any gaps.

00:05:43.132 --> 00:05:45.256
I could use squares, right?

00:05:45.256 --> 00:05:49.222
I could use triangles.
Not circles, those leave little gaps.

00:05:49.777 --> 00:05:52.134
Which is the best shape to use?

00:05:52.134 --> 00:05:56.687
One that covers the same surface,
but has a smaller border.

00:05:56.687 --> 00:06:01.396
In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria
said the best is to use hexagons,

00:06:01.396 --> 00:06:03.243
just like bees do.

00:06:03.243 --> 00:06:04.990
But he didn't prove it.

00:06:04.990 --> 00:06:07.688
The guy said, "Hexagons, great!
Let's go with hexagons!"

00:06:07.688 --> 00:06:10.656
He didn't prove it,
it remained a conjecture.

00:06:10.656 --> 00:06:12.334
"Hexagons!"

00:06:12.334 --> 00:06:15.964
And the world, as you know,
split into Pappists and anti-Pappists,

00:06:15.964 --> 00:06:21.253
until 1700 years later

00:06:21.253 --> 00:06:26.707
when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved

00:06:26.707 --> 00:06:31.641
that Pappus and the bees were right --
the best shape to use was the hexagon.

00:06:31.641 --> 00:06:34.123
And that became a theorem,
the honeycomb theorem,

00:06:34.123 --> 00:06:36.183
that will be true forever and ever,

00:06:36.183 --> 00:06:39.224
for longer than any diamond
you may have. (Laughter)

00:06:39.229 --> 00:06:42.033
But what happens if we go
to three dimensions?

00:06:42.033 --> 00:06:45.944
If I want to fill the space
with equal pieces,

00:06:46.464 --> 00:06:47.805
without leaving any gaps,

00:06:47.805 --> 00:06:49.638
I can use cubes, right?

00:06:49.638 --> 00:06:52.994
Not spheres, those leave little gaps.
(Laughter)

00:06:52.994 --> 00:06:55.957
What is the best shape to use?

00:06:55.957 --> 00:07:00.017
Lord Kelvin, of the famous
Kelvin degrees and all,

00:07:00.607 --> 00:07:06.121
said that the best was to use
a truncated octahedron

00:07:07.791 --> 00:07:10.507
which, as you all know --

00:07:10.507 --> 00:07:12.035
(Laughter) --

00:07:12.035 --> 00:07:13.814
is this thing here!

00:07:13.814 --> 00:07:16.753
(Applause)

00:07:18.778 --> 00:07:20.225
Come on.

00:07:21.025 --> 00:07:23.862
Who doesn't have a truncated
octahedron at home? (Laughter)

00:07:23.862 --> 00:07:25.089
Even a plastic one.

00:07:25.089 --> 00:07:27.846
"Honey, get the truncated octahedron,
we're having guests."

00:07:27.846 --> 00:07:29.240
Everybody has one!
(Laughter)

00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:31.614
But Kelvin didn't prove it.

00:07:31.614 --> 00:07:35.655
It remained a conjecture --
Kelvin's conjecture.

00:07:35.655 --> 00:07:41.177
The world, as you know, then split into
Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists

00:07:41.177 --> 00:07:42.599
(Laughter)

00:07:42.599 --> 00:07:46.496
until a hundred or so years later,

00:07:49.203 --> 00:07:53.072
someone found a better structure.

00:07:53.917 --> 00:07:59.026
Weaire and Phelan
found this little thing over here --

00:07:59.026 --> 00:08:00.665
(Laughter) --

00:08:00.665 --> 00:08:04.209
this structure to which they gave
the very clever name

00:08:04.209 --> 00:08:06.375
"the Weaire-Phelan structure."

00:08:06.375 --> 00:08:08.911
(Laughter)

00:08:08.911 --> 00:08:11.568
It looks like a strange object,
but it isn't so strange,

00:08:11.568 --> 00:08:13.239
it also exists in nature.

00:08:13.239 --> 00:08:15.844
It's very interesting that this structure,

00:08:15.844 --> 00:08:18.037
because of its geometric properties,

00:08:18.037 --> 00:08:23.229
was used to build the Aquatics Center
for the Beijing Olympic Games.

00:08:23.969 --> 00:08:26.714
There, Michael Phelps
won eight gold medals,

00:08:26.714 --> 00:08:29.875
and became the best swimmer of all time.

00:08:29.875 --> 00:08:33.616
Well, until someone better
comes along, right?

00:08:33.616 --> 00:08:36.015
As may happen
with the Weaire-Phelan structure.

00:08:36.015 --> 00:08:38.633
It's the best
until something better shows up.

00:08:38.633 --> 00:08:43.225
But be careful, because this one
really stands a chance

00:08:43.225 --> 00:08:48.205
that in a hundred or so years,
or even if it's in 1700 years,

00:08:48.205 --> 00:08:53.603
that someone proves
it's the best possible shape for the job.

00:08:53.978 --> 00:08:58.348
It will then become a theorem,
a truth, forever and ever.

00:08:58.348 --> 00:09:01.302
For longer than any diamond.

00:09:01.837 --> 00:09:05.567
So, if you want to tell someone

00:09:06.777 --> 00:09:09.823
that you will love them forever

00:09:09.823 --> 00:09:11.890
you can give them a diamond.

00:09:11.890 --> 00:09:15.421
But if you want to tell them
that you'll love them forever and ever,

00:09:15.421 --> 00:09:17.172
give them a theorem!

00:09:17.172 --> 00:09:18.263
(Laughter)

00:09:18.263 --> 00:09:20.853
But hang on a minute!

00:09:21.783 --> 00:09:23.183
You'll have to prove it,

00:09:23.183 --> 00:09:25.466
so your love doesn't remain

00:09:25.466 --> 00:09:27.299
a conjecture.

00:09:27.299 --> 00:09:30.543
(Applause)