1 00:00:19,995 --> 00:00:22,080 And inevitably, during that conversation 2 00:00:22,080 --> 00:00:25,750 one of these two phrases come up: 3 00:00:25,750 --> 00:00:29,195 A) "I was terrible at math, but it wasn't my fault. 4 00:00:29,195 --> 00:00:32,613 It's because the teacher was awful." (Laughter) 5 00:00:32,613 --> 00:00:35,582 Or B) "But what is math really for?" 6 00:00:35,582 --> 00:00:36,610 (Laughter) 7 00:00:36,610 --> 00:00:38,955 I'll now address Case B. 8 00:00:38,955 --> 00:00:40,510 (Laughter) 9 00:00:40,510 --> 00:00:45,354 When someone asks you what math is for, they're not asking you 10 00:00:45,354 --> 00:00:48,203 about applications of mathematical science. 11 00:00:48,203 --> 00:00:49,554 They're asking you, 12 00:00:49,554 --> 00:00:53,485 why did I have to study that bullshit I never used in my life again? (Laughter) 13 00:00:53,485 --> 00:00:55,924 That's what they're actually asking. 14 00:00:55,924 --> 00:01:00,124 So when mathematicians are asked what math is for, 15 00:01:00,124 --> 00:01:02,404 they tend to fall into two groups: 16 00:01:02,404 --> 00:01:07,739 54.51 percent of mathematicians will assume an attacking position, 17 00:01:08,609 --> 00:01:13,559 and 44.77 percent of mathematicians will take a defensive position. 18 00:01:13,559 --> 00:01:17,068 There's a strange 0.8 percent, among which I include myself. 19 00:01:17,068 --> 00:01:19,155 Who are the ones that attack? 20 00:01:19,155 --> 00:01:21,902 The attacking ones are mathematicians who would tell you 21 00:01:21,902 --> 00:01:23,849 this question makes no sense, 22 00:01:23,849 --> 00:01:26,597 because mathematics have a meaning all their own -- 23 00:01:26,597 --> 00:01:29,144 a beautiful edifice with its own logic -- 24 00:01:29,144 --> 00:01:31,011 and that there's no point 25 00:01:31,011 --> 00:01:33,558 in constantly searching for all possible applications. 26 00:01:33,558 --> 00:01:35,847 What's the use of poetry? What's the use of love? 27 00:01:35,847 --> 00:01:38,908 What's the use of life itself? What kind of question is that? 28 00:01:38,908 --> 00:01:40,529 (Laughter) 29 00:01:40,529 --> 00:01:44,296 Hardy, for instance, was a model of this type of attack. 30 00:01:44,296 --> 00:01:46,242 And those who stand in defense tell you, 31 00:01:46,242 --> 00:01:51,082 "Even if you don't realize it, friend, math is behind everything." 32 00:01:51,082 --> 00:01:52,340 (Laughter) 33 00:01:52,340 --> 00:01:54,218 Those guys, 34 00:01:54,218 --> 00:01:58,246 they always bring up bridges and computers. 35 00:01:58,246 --> 00:02:00,841 "If you don't know math, your bridge will collapse." 36 00:02:00,841 --> 00:02:02,286 (Laughter) 37 00:02:02,286 --> 00:02:05,523 It's true, computers are all about math. 38 00:02:05,523 --> 00:02:08,008 And now these guys have also started saying 39 00:02:08,013 --> 00:02:13,050 that behind information security and credit cards are prime numbers. 40 00:02:13,710 --> 00:02:17,379 These are the answers your math teacher would give you if you asked him. 41 00:02:17,379 --> 00:02:19,544 He's one of the defensive ones. 42 00:02:19,544 --> 00:02:21,384 Okay, but who's right then? 43 00:02:21,384 --> 00:02:23,990 Those who say that math doesn't need to have a purpose, 44 00:02:23,990 --> 00:02:26,849 or those who say that math is behind everything we do? 45 00:02:26,849 --> 00:02:28,520 Actually, both are right. 46 00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:30,183 But remember I told you 47 00:02:30,183 --> 00:02:33,726 I belong to that strange 0.8 percent claiming something else? 48 00:02:33,726 --> 00:02:36,929 So, go ahead, ask me what math is for. 49 00:02:36,929 --> 00:02:39,858 Audience: What is math for? 50 00:02:39,858 --> 00:02:44,673 Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay, 76.34 percent of you asked the question, 51 00:02:44,673 --> 00:02:47,600 23.41 percent didn't say anything, 52 00:02:47,600 --> 00:02:48,827 and the 0.8 percent -- 53 00:02:48,827 --> 00:02:51,675 I'm not sure what those guys are doing. 54 00:02:51,675 --> 00:02:55,175 Well, to my dear 76.31 percent -- 55 00:02:55,175 --> 00:02:59,815 it's true that math doesn't need to serve a purpose, 56 00:02:59,815 --> 00:03:02,685 it's true that it's a beautiful structure, a logical one, 57 00:03:02,685 --> 00:03:05,537 probably one of the greatest collective efforts 58 00:03:05,537 --> 00:03:07,633 ever achieved in human history. 59 00:03:07,633 --> 00:03:09,732 But it's also true that there, 60 00:03:09,732 --> 00:03:14,331 where scientists and technicians are looking for mathematical theories 61 00:03:14,331 --> 00:03:16,641 that allow them to advance, 62 00:03:16,641 --> 00:03:20,438 they're within the structure of math, which permeates everything. 63 00:03:20,438 --> 00:03:23,585 It's true that we have to go somewhat deeper, 64 00:03:23,585 --> 00:03:25,308 to see what's behind science. 65 00:03:25,308 --> 00:03:28,858 Science operates on intuition, creativity. 66 00:03:29,348 --> 00:03:32,772 Math controls intuition and tames creativity. 67 00:03:33,747 --> 00:03:35,937 Almost everyone who hasn't heard this before 68 00:03:35,937 --> 00:03:38,647 is surprised when they hear that if you take 69 00:03:38,647 --> 00:03:43,187 a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper, the size we normally use, 70 00:03:43,187 --> 00:03:46,505 and, if it were big enough, fold it 50 times, 71 00:03:46,505 --> 00:03:52,205 its thickness would extend almost the distance from the Earth to the sun. 72 00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:55,201 Your intuition tells you it's impossible. 73 00:03:55,201 --> 00:03:57,622 Do the math and you'll see it's right. 74 00:03:57,622 --> 00:04:00,135 That's what math is for. 75 00:04:00,135 --> 00:04:03,917 It's true that science, all types of science, only makes sense 76 00:04:03,917 --> 00:04:07,288 because it makes us better understand this beautiful world we live in. 77 00:04:07,288 --> 00:04:08,669 And in doing that, 78 00:04:08,669 --> 00:04:12,179 it helps us avoid the pitfalls of this painful world we live in. 79 00:04:12,179 --> 00:04:15,657 There are sciences that help us in this way quite directly. 80 00:04:15,657 --> 00:04:17,413 Oncological science, for example. 81 00:04:17,413 --> 00:04:20,904 And there are others we look at from afar, with envy sometimes, 82 00:04:20,904 --> 00:04:23,464 but knowing that we are what supports them. 83 00:04:23,464 --> 00:04:26,213 All the basic sciences support them, 84 00:04:26,213 --> 00:04:28,649 including math. 85 00:04:28,649 --> 00:04:32,366 All that makes science, science is the rigor of math. 86 00:04:32,366 --> 00:04:37,242 And that rigor factors in because its results are eternal. 87 00:04:37,242 --> 00:04:39,757 You probably said or were told at some point 88 00:04:39,757 --> 00:04:42,708 that diamonds are forever, right? 89 00:04:44,178 --> 00:04:46,392 That depends on your definition of forever! 90 00:04:46,392 --> 00:04:48,883 A theorem -- that really is forever. 91 00:04:48,883 --> 00:04:50,134 (Laughter) 92 00:04:50,134 --> 00:04:53,486 The Pythagorean theorem is still true 93 00:04:53,486 --> 00:04:56,601 even though Pythagoras is dead, I assure you it's true. (Laughter) 94 00:04:56,601 --> 00:04:57,946 Even if the world collapsed 95 00:04:57,946 --> 00:05:00,391 the Pythagorean theorem would still be true. 96 00:05:00,391 --> 00:05:04,452 Wherever any two triangle sides and a good hypotenuse get together 97 00:05:04,452 --> 00:05:05,673 (Laughter) 98 00:05:05,673 --> 00:05:08,534 the Pythagorean theorem goes all out. It works like crazy. 99 00:05:08,534 --> 00:05:11,355 (Applause) 100 00:05:15,535 --> 00:05:19,407 Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves to come up with theorems. 101 00:05:19,407 --> 00:05:21,143 Eternal truths. 102 00:05:21,143 --> 00:05:23,909 But it isn't always easy to know the difference between 103 00:05:23,909 --> 00:05:26,815 an eternal truth, or theorem, and a mere conjecture. 104 00:05:26,815 --> 00:05:29,829 You need proof. 105 00:05:29,829 --> 00:05:31,596 For example, 106 00:05:31,596 --> 00:05:36,423 let's say I have a big, enormous, infinite field. 107 00:05:36,423 --> 00:05:40,132 I want to cover it with equal pieces, without leaving any gaps. 108 00:05:40,132 --> 00:05:42,256 I could use squares, right? 109 00:05:42,256 --> 00:05:46,222 I could use triangles. Not circles, those leave little gaps. 110 00:05:46,777 --> 00:05:49,134 Which is the best shape to use? 111 00:05:49,134 --> 00:05:53,687 One that covers the same surface, but has a smaller border. 112 00:05:53,687 --> 00:05:58,396 In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria said the best is to use hexagons, 113 00:05:58,396 --> 00:06:00,243 just like bees do. 114 00:06:00,243 --> 00:06:01,990 But he didn't prove it. 115 00:06:01,990 --> 00:06:04,688 The guy said, "Hexagons, great! Let's go with hexagons!" 116 00:06:04,688 --> 00:06:07,656 He didn't prove it, it remained a conjecture. 117 00:06:07,656 --> 00:06:09,334 "Hexagons!" 118 00:06:09,334 --> 00:06:12,964 And the world, as you know, split into Pappists and anti-Pappists, 119 00:06:12,964 --> 00:06:18,253 until 1700 years later 120 00:06:18,253 --> 00:06:23,707 when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved 121 00:06:23,707 --> 00:06:28,641 that Pappus and the bees were right -- the best shape to use was the hexagon. 122 00:06:28,641 --> 00:06:31,123 And that became a theorem, the honeycomb theorem, 123 00:06:31,123 --> 00:06:33,183 that will be true forever and ever, 124 00:06:33,183 --> 00:06:36,224 for longer than any diamond you may have. (Laughter) 125 00:06:36,229 --> 00:06:39,033 But what happens if we go to three dimensions? 126 00:06:39,033 --> 00:06:42,944 If I want to fill the space with equal pieces, 127 00:06:43,464 --> 00:06:44,805 without leaving any gaps, 128 00:06:44,805 --> 00:06:46,638 I can use cubes, right? 129 00:06:46,638 --> 00:06:49,994 Not spheres, those leave little gaps. (Laughter) 130 00:06:49,994 --> 00:06:52,957 What is the best shape to use? 131 00:06:52,957 --> 00:06:57,017 Lord Kelvin, of the famous Kelvin degrees and all, 132 00:06:57,607 --> 00:07:03,121 said that the best was to use a truncated octahedron 133 00:07:04,791 --> 00:07:07,507 which, as you all know -- 134 00:07:07,507 --> 00:07:09,035 (Laughter) -- 135 00:07:09,035 --> 00:07:10,814 is this thing here! 136 00:07:10,814 --> 00:07:13,753 (Applause) 137 00:07:15,778 --> 00:07:17,225 Come on. 138 00:07:18,025 --> 00:07:20,862 Who doesn't have a truncated octahedron at home? (Laughter) 139 00:07:20,862 --> 00:07:22,089 Even a plastic one. 140 00:07:22,089 --> 00:07:24,846 "Honey, get the truncated octahedron, we're having guests." 141 00:07:24,846 --> 00:07:26,240 Everybody has one! (Laughter) 142 00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:28,614 But Kelvin didn't prove it. 143 00:07:28,614 --> 00:07:32,655 It remained a conjecture -- Kelvin's conjecture. 144 00:07:32,655 --> 00:07:38,177 The world, as you know, then split into Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists 145 00:07:38,177 --> 00:07:39,599 (Laughter) 146 00:07:39,599 --> 00:07:43,496 until a hundred or so years later, 147 00:07:46,203 --> 00:07:50,072 someone found a better structure. 148 00:07:50,917 --> 00:07:56,026 Weaire and Phelan found this little thing over here -- 149 00:07:56,026 --> 00:07:57,665 (Laughter) -- 150 00:07:57,665 --> 00:08:01,209 this structure to which they gave the very clever name 151 00:08:01,209 --> 00:08:03,375 "the Weaire-Phelan structure." 152 00:08:03,375 --> 00:08:05,911 (Laughter) 153 00:08:05,911 --> 00:08:08,568 It looks like a strange object, but it isn't so strange, 154 00:08:08,568 --> 00:08:10,239 it also exists in nature. 155 00:08:10,239 --> 00:08:12,844 It's very interesting that this structure, 156 00:08:12,844 --> 00:08:15,037 because of its geometric properties, 157 00:08:15,037 --> 00:08:20,229 was used to build the Aquatics Center for the Beijing Olympic Games. 158 00:08:20,969 --> 00:08:23,714 There, Michael Phelps won eight gold medals, 159 00:08:23,714 --> 00:08:26,875 and became the best swimmer of all time. 160 00:08:26,875 --> 00:08:30,616 Well, until someone better comes along, right? 161 00:08:30,616 --> 00:08:33,015 As may happen with the Weaire-Phelan structure. 162 00:08:33,015 --> 00:08:35,633 It's the best until something better shows up. 163 00:08:35,633 --> 00:08:40,225 But be careful, because this one really stands a chance 164 00:08:40,225 --> 00:08:45,205 that in a hundred or so years, or even if it's in 1700 years, 165 00:08:45,205 --> 00:08:50,603 that someone proves it's the best possible shape for the job. 166 00:08:50,978 --> 00:08:55,348 It will then become a theorem, a truth, forever and ever. 167 00:08:55,348 --> 00:08:58,302 For longer than any diamond. 168 00:08:58,837 --> 00:09:02,567 So, if you want to tell someone 169 00:09:03,777 --> 00:09:06,823 that you will love them forever 170 00:09:06,823 --> 00:09:08,890 you can give them a diamond. 171 00:09:08,890 --> 00:09:12,421 But if you want to tell them that you'll love them forever and ever, 172 00:09:12,421 --> 00:09:14,172 give them a theorem! 173 00:09:14,172 --> 00:09:15,263 (Laughter) 174 00:09:15,263 --> 00:09:17,853 But hang on a minute! 175 00:09:18,783 --> 00:09:20,183 You'll have to prove it, 176 00:09:20,183 --> 00:09:22,466 so your love doesn't remain 177 00:09:22,466 --> 00:09:24,299 a conjecture. 178 00:09:24,299 --> 00:09:27,543 (Applause)