< Return to Video

Math is forever

  • 0:01 - 0:06
    Imagine you're in a bar, or a club,
  • 0:07 - 0:10
    and you start talking to a woman,
  • 0:10 - 0:15
    and after a while this question comes up:
    "So, what do you do for work?"
  • 0:15 - 0:18
    And since you think
    your job is interesting, you say:
  • 0:18 - 0:20
    "I'm a mathematician."
  • 0:20 - 0:22
    (Laughter)
  • 0:22 - 0:27
    Then 33.51 percent of women,
  • 0:27 - 0:31
    in that moment, pretend
    to get an urgent call and leave.
  • 0:31 - 0:32
    (Laughter)
  • 0:32 - 0:36
    And 64.69 percent of women
  • 0:36 - 0:40
    desperately try to change the subject
    and leave.
  • 0:40 - 0:41
    (Laughter)
  • 0:41 - 0:45
    Another 0.8 percent, which are
    your cousin, your girlfriend and your mom,
  • 0:45 - 0:50
    know that you work in something weird
    but don't remember what it is. (Laughter)
  • 0:50 - 0:53
    And then there's one percent
    who remain engaged with the conversation.
  • 0:53 - 0:55
    And inevitably, during that conversation
  • 0:55 - 0:59
    one of these two phrases come up:
  • 0:59 - 1:02
    A) "I was terrible at math,
    but it wasn't my fault.
  • 1:02 - 1:06
    It's because the teacher
    was awful." (Laughter)
  • 1:06 - 1:09
    Or B) "But what is math really for?"
  • 1:09 - 1:10
    (Laughter)
  • 1:10 - 1:12
    I'll now address Case B.
  • 1:12 - 1:14
    (Laughter)
  • 1:14 - 1:18
    When someone asks you what math is for,
    they're not asking you
  • 1:18 - 1:21
    about applications
    of mathematical science.
  • 1:21 - 1:23
    They're asking you,
  • 1:23 - 1:26
    why did I have to study that bullshit
    I never used in my life again? (Laughter)
  • 1:26 - 1:29
    That's what they're actually asking.
  • 1:29 - 1:33
    So when mathematicians are asked
    what math is for,
  • 1:33 - 1:35
    they tend to fall into two groups:
  • 1:35 - 1:41
    54.51 percent of mathematicians
    will assume an attacking position,
  • 1:42 - 1:47
    and 44.77 percent of mathematicians
    will take a defensive position.
  • 1:47 - 1:50
    There's a strange 0.8 percent,
    among which I include myself.
  • 1:50 - 1:52
    Who are the ones that attack?
  • 1:52 - 1:55
    The attacking ones are mathematicians
    who would tell you
  • 1:55 - 1:57
    this question makes no sense,
  • 1:57 - 2:00
    because mathematics
    have a meaning all their own --
  • 2:00 - 2:02
    a beautiful edifice with its own logic --
  • 2:02 - 2:04
    and that there's no point
  • 2:04 - 2:07
    in constantly searching
    for all possible applications.
  • 2:07 - 2:09
    What's the use of poetry?
    What's the use of love?
  • 2:09 - 2:12
    What's the use of life itself?
    What kind of question is that?
  • 2:12 - 2:14
    (Laughter)
  • 2:14 - 2:17
    Hardy, for instance, was an exponent
    of this type of attack.
  • 2:17 - 2:19
    And those who stand in defense tell you:
  • 2:19 - 2:24
    "Even if you don't realize it, friend,
    math is behind everything."
  • 2:24 - 2:25
    (Laughter)
  • 2:25 - 2:27
    Those guys,
  • 2:27 - 2:31
    they always bring up
    bridges and computers.
  • 2:31 - 2:34
    "If you don't know math,
    your bridge will collapse."
  • 2:34 - 2:35
    (Laughter)
  • 2:35 - 2:39
    It's true, computers are all about math.
  • 2:39 - 2:41
    And now these guys
    have also started saying
  • 2:41 - 2:46
    that behind information security
    and credit cards are prime numbers.
  • 2:47 - 2:50
    These are the answers your math teacher
    would give you if you asked him.
  • 2:50 - 2:53
    He's one of the defensive ones.
  • 2:53 - 2:54
    Okay, but, who's right then?
  • 2:54 - 2:57
    Those who say that math
    doesn't need to have a purpose,
  • 2:57 - 3:00
    or those who say that math
    is behind everything we do?
  • 3:00 - 3:02
    Actually, both are right.
  • 3:02 - 3:03
    But remember I told you
  • 3:03 - 3:07
    I belong to that strange 0.8%
    claiming something else.
  • 3:07 - 3:10
    So, go ahead, ask me what math is for.
  • 3:10 - 3:13
    Audience: What is math for?
  • 3:13 - 3:17
    Okay, so 76.34% of you
    asked the question,
  • 3:18 - 3:21
    23.41% didn't say anything,
  • 3:21 - 3:22
    and the 0.8% ...
  • 3:22 - 3:25
    I'm not sure what those guys are doing.
  • 3:25 - 3:27
    Well, to my dear 76.31% --
  • 3:29 - 3:33
    it's true that math doesn't need
    to serve a purpose,
  • 3:33 - 3:36
    it's true that it's
    a beautiful structure, a logical one,
  • 3:36 - 3:39
    probably one
    of the greatest collective efforts
  • 3:39 - 3:41
    ever achieved in human history.
  • 3:41 - 3:43
    But it's also true that there,
  • 3:43 - 3:47
    where scientists and technicians
    are looking for mathematical theories
  • 3:47 - 3:50
    that allow them to advance,
  • 3:50 - 3:53
    they're within the structure of math,
    which permeates everything.
  • 3:53 - 3:57
    It's true that we have to go
    somewhat deeper,
  • 3:57 - 3:58
    to see what's behind science.
  • 3:58 - 4:02
    Science operates on intuition, creativity.
  • 4:02 - 4:06
    Math controls intuition
    and tames creativity.
  • 4:07 - 4:09
    Almost everyone
    who hasn't heard this before
  • 4:09 - 4:12
    is surprised when they hear
    that if you take
  • 4:12 - 4:16
    a 0.1 mm thick sheet of paper,
    the size we normally use,
  • 4:16 - 4:20
    and, if it were big enough,
    fold it 50 times,
  • 4:20 - 4:25
    the thickness of that pile would extend
    the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
  • 4:26 - 4:28
    Your intuition tells you it's impossible.
  • 4:28 - 4:31
    Do the math and you'll see it's right.
  • 4:31 - 4:33
    That's what math is for.
  • 4:33 - 4:37
    It's true that science, all types
    of science, only makes sense
  • 4:37 - 4:40
    because it makes us better understand
    this beautiful world we live in.
  • 4:40 - 4:42
    And in doing that,
  • 4:42 - 4:45
    it helps us avoid the pitfalls
    of this painful world we live in.
  • 4:45 - 4:49
    There are sciences that help us
    in this way quite directly.
  • 4:49 - 4:50
    Oncological science, for example.
  • 4:50 - 4:54
    And there are others we look at from afar,
    with envy sometimes,
  • 4:54 - 4:56
    but knowing that we are
    what supports them.
  • 4:56 - 4:59
    All the basic sciences
    support them,
  • 4:59 - 5:02
    including math.
  • 5:02 - 5:05
    All that makes science, science,
    is the rigor of math.
  • 5:05 - 5:10
    And that rigor factors in
    because its results are eternal.
  • 5:10 - 5:13
    You probably said or were told
    at some point,
  • 5:13 - 5:16
    that diamonds are forever, right?
  • 5:17 - 5:19
    That depends on
    your definition of "forever"!
  • 5:19 - 5:22
    A theorem -- that really is forever!
  • 5:22 - 5:23
    (Laughter)
  • 5:23 - 5:26
    The Pythagorean theorem is still true
  • 5:26 - 5:29
    even though Pythagoras is dead,
    I assure it's true. (Laughter)
  • 5:29 - 5:31
    Even if the world collapsed
  • 5:31 - 5:33
    the Pythagorean theorem
    would still be true.
  • 5:33 - 5:37
    Wherever any two triangle sides
    and a good hypotenuse get together
  • 5:37 - 5:39
    (Laughter)
  • 5:39 - 5:42
    the Pythagorean theorem goes all out.
    It works like crazy.
  • 5:42 - 5:44
    (Applause)
  • 5:49 - 5:52
    Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves
    to come up with theorems.
  • 5:52 - 5:54
    Eternal truths.
  • 5:54 - 5:57
    But it isn't always easy to know
    the difference between
  • 5:57 - 6:00
    an eternal truth, or theorem,
    and a mere conjecture.
  • 6:00 - 6:03
    You need proof.
  • 6:03 - 6:05
    For example:
  • 6:05 - 6:09
    Let's say I have a big,
    enormous, infinite field.
  • 6:09 - 6:13
    I want to cover it with equal pieces,
    without leaving any gaps.
  • 6:13 - 6:15
    I could use squares, right?
  • 6:15 - 6:19
    I could use triangles.
    Not circles, those leave little gaps.
  • 6:20 - 6:22
    Which is the best shape to use?
  • 6:22 - 6:27
    One that covers the same surface,
    but has a smaller border.
  • 6:27 - 6:31
    In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria
    said the best is to use hexagons,
  • 6:31 - 6:33
    just like bees do.
  • 6:33 - 6:35
    But he didn't prove it.
  • 6:35 - 6:38
    The guy said, "Hexagons, great!
    Let's go with hexagons!"
  • 6:38 - 6:41
    He didn't prove it,
    it remained a conjecture.
  • 6:41 - 6:42
    "Hexagons!"
  • 6:42 - 6:46
    And the world, as you know,
    split into Pappists and anti-Pappists,
  • 6:46 - 6:49
    until 1700 years later
  • 6:49 - 6:52
    -- 1700 years later --
  • 6:52 - 6:56
    when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved
  • 6:57 - 7:02
    that Pappus and the bees were right,
    the best shape to use was the hexagon.
  • 7:02 - 7:04
    And that became a theorem,
    the honeycomb theorem,
  • 7:04 - 7:06
    that will be true forever and ever,
  • 7:06 - 7:09
    for longer than any diamond
    you may have. (Laughter)
  • 7:09 - 7:12
    But what happens if we go to 3 dimensions?
  • 7:12 - 7:16
    If I want to fill the space,
    with equal pieces,
  • 7:16 - 7:18
    without leaving any gaps,
  • 7:18 - 7:20
    I can use cubes, right?
  • 7:20 - 7:23
    Not spheres, those leave little gaps.
    (Laughter)
  • 7:23 - 7:26
    What is the best shape to use?
  • 7:26 - 7:30
    Lord Kelvin, of the famous
    Kelvin degrees and all,
  • 7:31 - 7:34
    said that the best was to use
    a truncated octahedron
  • 7:37 - 7:38
    (Laughter)
  • 7:38 - 7:41
    which, as you all know,
  • 7:41 - 7:42
    (Laughter)
  • 7:42 - 7:44
    is this thing here!
  • 7:44 - 7:47
    (Applause)
  • 7:49 - 7:50
    Come on.
  • 7:51 - 7:54
    Who doesn't have a truncated
    octahedron at home? (Laughter)
  • 7:54 - 7:55
    Even a plastic one.
  • 7:55 - 7:58
    "Honey, get the truncated octahedron,
    we're having guests."
  • 7:58 - 7:59
    Everybody has one!
    (Laughter)
  • 7:59 - 8:02
    But Kelvin didn't prove it.
  • 8:02 - 8:06
    It remained a conjecture --
    Kelvin's conjecture.
  • 8:06 - 8:11
    The world, as you know, then split into
    Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists
  • 8:11 - 8:13
    (Laughter)
  • 8:13 - 8:16
    until a hundred or so years later,
  • 8:17 - 8:19
    -- a hundred or so years later --
  • 8:19 - 8:23
    someone found a better structure.
  • 8:24 - 8:29
    Weaire and Phelan
    found this little thing over here,
  • 8:29 - 8:31
    (Laughter)
  • 8:31 - 8:34
    this structure to which they gave
    the very clever name,
  • 8:34 - 8:36
    "the Weaire-Phelan structure".
  • 8:36 - 8:39
    (Laughter)
  • 8:39 - 8:42
    It looks like a strange object,
    but it isn't so strange,
  • 8:42 - 8:43
    it also exists in nature.
  • 8:43 - 8:46
    It's very interesting that this structure,
  • 8:46 - 8:48
    because of its geometric properties,
  • 8:48 - 8:53
    was used to build the Aquatics Center
    for the Beijing Olympic Games.
  • 8:54 - 8:57
    There, Michael Phelps
    won eight gold medals,
  • 8:57 - 9:00
    and became the best swimmer of all time.
  • 9:00 - 9:04
    Well, until someone better
    comes along, right?
  • 9:04 - 9:06
    As may happen
    with the Weaire-Phelan structure.
  • 9:06 - 9:09
    It's the best
    until something better shows up.
  • 9:09 - 9:13
    But be careful, because this one
    really stands a chance
  • 9:13 - 9:18
    that in a hundred or so years,
    or even if it's in 1700 years,
  • 9:18 - 9:24
    that someone proves
    it's the best possible shape for the job.
  • 9:24 - 9:28
    It will then become a theorem,
    a truth, forever and ever.
  • 9:28 - 9:31
    For longer than any diamond.
  • 9:32 - 9:36
    So, if you want to tell someone
  • 9:37 - 9:39
    that you will love them forever
  • 9:39 - 9:40
    (Laughter)
  • 9:40 - 9:42
    you can give them a diamond.
  • 9:42 - 9:45
    But if you want to tell them
    that you'll love them forever and ever,
  • 9:45 - 9:47
    give them a theorem!
  • 9:47 - 9:48
    (Laughter)
  • 9:48 - 9:51
    But hang on a minute!
  • 9:52 - 9:53
    You'll have to prove it,
  • 9:53 - 9:55
    so your love doesn't remain...
  • 9:55 - 9:57
    ...a conjecture.
  • 9:57 - 10:01
    (Applause)
Title:
Math is forever
Speaker:
Eduardo Saenz de Cabezon
Description:

Mathematician Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón answers a question that’s wracked the brains of bored students the world over: What is math for? With humor and charm, he shows the beauty of math as the backbone of science — and explains that theorems, not diamonds, are forever.

more » « less
Video Language:
Spanish
Team:
closed TED
Project:
TEDTalks
Duration:
10:14

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions