Math is forever
-
0:01 - 0:06Imagine you're in a bar, or a club,
-
0:07 - 0:10and you start talking to a woman,
-
0:10 - 0:15and after a while this question comes up:
"So, what do you do for work?" -
0:15 - 0:18And since you think
your job is interesting, you say: -
0:18 - 0:20"I'm a mathematician."
-
0:20 - 0:22(Laughter)
-
0:22 - 0:27Then 33.51 percent of women,
-
0:27 - 0:31in that moment, pretend
to get an urgent call and leave. -
0:31 - 0:32(Laughter)
-
0:32 - 0:36And 64.69 percent of women
-
0:36 - 0:40desperately try to change the subject
and leave. -
0:40 - 0:41(Laughter)
-
0:41 - 0:45Another 0.8 percent, which are
your cousin, your girlfriend and your mom, -
0:45 - 0:50know that you work in something weird
but don't remember what it is. (Laughter) -
0:50 - 0:53And then there's one percent
who remain engaged with the conversation. -
0:53 - 0:55And inevitably, during that conversation
-
0:55 - 0:59one of these two phrases come up:
-
0:59 - 1:02A) "I was terrible at math,
but it wasn't my fault. -
1:02 - 1:06It's because the teacher
was awful." (Laughter) -
1:06 - 1:09Or B) "But what is math really for?"
-
1:09 - 1:10(Laughter)
-
1:10 - 1:12I'll now address Case B.
-
1:12 - 1:14(Laughter)
-
1:14 - 1:18When someone asks you what math is for,
they're not asking you -
1:18 - 1:21about applications
of mathematical science. -
1:21 - 1:23They're asking you,
-
1:23 - 1:26why did I have to study that bullshit
I never used in my life again? (Laughter) -
1:26 - 1:29That's what they're actually asking.
-
1:29 - 1:33So when mathematicians are asked
what math is for, -
1:33 - 1:35they tend to fall into two groups:
-
1:35 - 1:4154.51 percent of mathematicians
will assume an attacking position, -
1:42 - 1:47and 44.77 percent of mathematicians
will take a defensive position. -
1:47 - 1:50There's a strange 0.8 percent,
among which I include myself. -
1:50 - 1:52Who are the ones that attack?
-
1:52 - 1:55The attacking ones are mathematicians
who would tell you -
1:55 - 1:57this question makes no sense,
-
1:57 - 2:00because mathematics
have a meaning all their own -- -
2:00 - 2:02a beautiful edifice with its own logic --
-
2:02 - 2:04and that there's no point
-
2:04 - 2:07in constantly searching
for all possible applications. -
2:07 - 2:09What's the use of poetry?
What's the use of love? -
2:09 - 2:12What's the use of life itself?
What kind of question is that? -
2:12 - 2:14(Laughter)
-
2:14 - 2:17Hardy, for instance, was a model
of this type of attack. -
2:17 - 2:19And 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 - 2:27Those guys,
-
2:27 - 2:31they 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 - 2:39It's true, computers are all about math.
-
2:39 - 2:41And now these guys
have also started saying -
2:41 - 2:46that behind information security
and credit cards are prime numbers. -
2:47 - 2:50These are the answers your math teacher
would give you if you asked him. -
2:50 - 2:53He's one of the defensive ones.
-
2:53 - 2:54Okay, but who's right then?
-
2:54 - 2:57Those who say that math
doesn't need to have a purpose, -
2:57 - 3:00or those who say that math
is behind everything we do? -
3:00 - 3:02Actually, both are right.
-
3:02 - 3:03But remember I told you
-
3:03 - 3:07I belong to that strange 0.8 percent
claiming something else? -
3:07 - 3:10So, go ahead, ask me what math is for.
-
3:10 - 3:13Audience: What is math for?
-
3:13 - 3:18Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón: Okay,
76.34 percent of you asked the question, -
3:18 - 3:2123.41 percent didn't say anything,
-
3:21 - 3:22and the 0.8 percent --
-
3:22 - 3:25I'm not sure what those guys are doing.
-
3:25 - 3:28Well, to my dear 76.31 percent --
-
3:28 - 3:33it's true that math doesn't need
to serve a purpose, -
3:33 - 3:36it's true that it's
a beautiful structure, a logical one, -
3:36 - 3:39probably one
of the greatest collective efforts -
3:39 - 3:41ever achieved in human history.
-
3:41 - 3:43But it's also true that there,
-
3:43 - 3:47where scientists and technicians
are looking for mathematical theories -
3:47 - 3:50that allow them to advance,
-
3:50 - 3:53they're within the structure of math,
which permeates everything. -
3:53 - 3:57It's true that we have to go
somewhat deeper, -
3:57 - 3:58to see what's behind science.
-
3:58 - 4:02Science operates on intuition, creativity.
-
4:02 - 4:06Math controls intuition
and tames creativity. -
4:07 - 4:09Almost everyone
who hasn't heard this before -
4:09 - 4:12is surprised when they hear
that if you take -
4:12 - 4:16a 0.1 millimeter thick sheet of paper,
the size we normally use, -
4:16 - 4:20and, if it were big enough,
fold it 50 times, -
4:20 - 4:25its thickness would extend almost
the distance from the Earth to the sun. -
4:26 - 4:28Your intuition tells you it's impossible.
-
4:28 - 4:31Do the math and you'll see it's right.
-
4:31 - 4:33That's what math is for.
-
4:33 - 4:37It's true that science, all types
of science, only makes sense -
4:37 - 4:40because it makes us better understand
this beautiful world we live in. -
4:40 - 4:42And in doing that,
-
4:42 - 4:45it helps us avoid the pitfalls
of this painful world we live in. -
4:45 - 4:49There are sciences that help us
in this way quite directly. -
4:49 - 4:50Oncological science, for example.
-
4:50 - 4:54And there are others we look at from afar,
with envy sometimes, -
4:54 - 4:56but knowing that we are
what supports them. -
4:56 - 4:59All the basic sciences
support them, -
4:59 - 5:02including math.
-
5:02 - 5:05All that makes science, science
is the rigor of math. -
5:05 - 5:10And that rigor factors in
because its results are eternal. -
5:10 - 5:13You probably said or were told
at some point -
5:13 - 5:16that diamonds are forever, right?
-
5:17 - 5:19That depends on
your definition of forever! -
5:19 - 5:22A theorem -- that really is forever.
-
5:22 - 5:23(Laughter)
-
5:23 - 5:26The Pythagorean theorem is still true
-
5:26 - 5:30even though Pythagoras is dead,
I assure you it's true. (Laughter) -
5:30 - 5:31Even if the world collapsed
-
5:31 - 5:33the Pythagorean theorem
would still be true. -
5:33 - 5:37Wherever any two triangle sides
and a good hypotenuse get together -
5:37 - 5:39(Laughter)
-
5:39 - 5:42the Pythagorean theorem goes all out.
It works like crazy. -
5:42 - 5:44(Applause)
-
5:49 - 5:52Well, we mathematicians devote ourselves
to come up with theorems. -
5:52 - 5:54Eternal truths.
-
5:54 - 5:57But it isn't always easy to know
the difference between -
5:57 - 6:00an eternal truth, or theorem,
and a mere conjecture. -
6:00 - 6:03You need proof.
-
6:03 - 6:05For example,
-
6:05 - 6:09let's say I have a big,
enormous, infinite field. -
6:09 - 6:13I want to cover it with equal pieces,
without leaving any gaps. -
6:13 - 6:15I could use squares, right?
-
6:15 - 6:19I could use triangles.
Not circles, those leave little gaps. -
6:20 - 6:22Which is the best shape to use?
-
6:22 - 6:27One that covers the same surface,
but has a smaller border. -
6:27 - 6:31In the year 300, Pappus of Alexandria
said the best is to use hexagons, -
6:31 - 6:33just like bees do.
-
6:33 - 6:35But he didn't prove it.
-
6:35 - 6:38The guy said, "Hexagons, great!
Let's go with hexagons!" -
6:38 - 6:41He didn't prove it,
it remained a conjecture. -
6:41 - 6:42"Hexagons!"
-
6:42 - 6:46And the world, as you know,
split into Pappists and anti-Pappists, -
6:46 - 6:51until 1700 years later
-
6:51 - 6:57when in 1999, Thomas Hales proved
-
6:57 - 7:02that Pappus and the bees were right --
the best shape to use was the hexagon. -
7:02 - 7:04And that became a theorem,
the honeycomb theorem, -
7:04 - 7:06that will be true forever and ever,
-
7:06 - 7:09for longer than any diamond
you may have. (Laughter) -
7:09 - 7:12But what happens if we go
to three dimensions? -
7:12 - 7:16If I want to fill the space
with equal pieces, -
7:16 - 7:18without leaving any gaps,
-
7:18 - 7:20I can use cubes, right?
-
7:20 - 7:23Not spheres, those leave little gaps.
(Laughter) -
7:23 - 7:26What is the best shape to use?
-
7:26 - 7:30Lord Kelvin, of the famous
Kelvin degrees and all, -
7:31 - 7:36said that the best was to use
a truncated octahedron -
7:38 - 7:41which, as you all know --
-
7:41 - 7:42(Laughter) --
-
7:42 - 7:44is this thing here!
-
7:44 - 7:47(Applause)
-
7:49 - 7:50Come on.
-
7:51 - 7:54Who doesn't have a truncated
octahedron at home? (Laughter) -
7:54 - 7:55Even a plastic one.
-
7:55 - 7:58"Honey, get the truncated octahedron,
we're having guests." -
7:58 - 7:59Everybody has one!
(Laughter) -
7:59 - 8:02But Kelvin didn't prove it.
-
8:02 - 8:06It remained a conjecture --
Kelvin's conjecture. -
8:06 - 8:11The world, as you know, then split into
Kelvinists and anti-Kelvinists -
8:11 - 8:13(Laughter)
-
8:13 - 8:16until a hundred or so years later,
-
8:19 - 8:23someone found a better structure.
-
8:24 - 8:29Weaire and Phelan
found this little thing over here -- -
8:29 - 8:31(Laughter) --
-
8:31 - 8:34this structure to which they gave
the very clever name -
8:34 - 8:36"the Weaire-Phelan structure."
-
8:36 - 8:39(Laughter)
-
8:39 - 8:42It looks like a strange object,
but it isn't so strange, -
8:42 - 8:43it also exists in nature.
-
8:43 - 8:46It's very interesting that this structure,
-
8:46 - 8:48because of its geometric properties,
-
8:48 - 8:53was used to build the Aquatics Center
for the Beijing Olympic Games. -
8:54 - 8:57There, Michael Phelps
won eight gold medals, -
8:57 - 9:00and became the best swimmer of all time.
-
9:00 - 9:04Well, until someone better
comes along, right? -
9:04 - 9:06As may happen
with the Weaire-Phelan structure. -
9:06 - 9:09It's the best
until something better shows up. -
9:09 - 9:13But be careful, because this one
really stands a chance -
9:13 - 9:18that in a hundred or so years,
or even if it's in 1700 years, -
9:18 - 9:24that someone proves
it's the best possible shape for the job. -
9:24 - 9:28It will then become a theorem,
a truth, forever and ever. -
9:28 - 9:31For longer than any diamond.
-
9:32 - 9:36So, if you want to tell someone
-
9:37 - 9:40that you will love them forever
-
9:40 - 9:42you can give them a diamond.
-
9:42 - 9:45But if you want to tell them
that you'll love them forever and ever, -
9:45 - 9:47give them a theorem!
-
9:47 - 9:48(Laughter)
-
9:48 - 9:51But hang on a minute!
-
9:52 - 9:53You'll have to prove it,
-
9:53 - 9:55so your love doesn't remain
-
9:55 - 9:57a conjecture.
-
9:57 - 10:01(Applause)
- Title:
- Math is forever
- Speaker:
- Eduardo Sáenz de Cabezón
- 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.
- Video Language:
- Spanish
- Team:
closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 10:14
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Helene Batt edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Las matemáticas son para siempre |