Free verse № 117622
Math Poem 3
Division it was that upheld him.
He divided one by one third
and found the answer three.
Then six by two, this too, three.
He tried it on seven, the log of eleven,
even the cube root of two to the eighth.
Everything he divided by a third of itself
yielded none other than three.
So he generalized and preached to the world
âx / x/3 = 3. Itâs true for You!
Let it be carved on my stone
and laughed at if ever disproved.â
Now his body lies deep in the ground.
His equation waves like a flag.
And all who pass say there lies a man
that nobody ever found wrong.
37 comments
Give them extra credit for singing under water, or cleaning the blackboard with their tongues, or keeping their fingernails clean, but please, never for writing poetry.
-9-
here's one I wrote a while ago
Math vs poetry
its radius is one-half the diameter
the area: r-squared, by pi
for years I was chained to a perfect circle
the Formulae kept me from asking, why?
ps both words are greek in origin (logos - 'word' or 'study'; math - from word meaning 'understanding'); why bother with two words if they mean the same thing?
Are you saying theorems aren't mathematical?
if you want to take the euclidean view, and say that ALL math is a priori and analytic (ie based fundamentally on logical axioms), then you should go back and live with Newton in the 17th century. Non-euclidean spaces, Einstein and a fellow named Kurt Godel have proven false the notion that logic and math are identical.
ok I'll stop ranting now, b/c it's way past the point of being helpful to the poem :)
Also, why are you suddenly waffling on about Goedel? If you're talking about the incompleteness theorem, you're buncombing up the wrong pair of stilts. That says there are some true statements that aren't theorems because they aren't provable. But '(x/x/3) = 3' is provable.
Again, it is mathematically uninteresting. On reading your defence of its simplicity, it became clear you have no idea about how mathematicians work. You say the protagonist's assertion that "for all x: x/(x/3)=3" has to be simple so as to eliminate any doubt. This is stupid for two reasons:
1. No mathematician doubts a theorem, because it is true by definition. The question is: how do we know if a mathematical assertion, e.g. "for all x: x/(x/3)=3", is a theorem? Answer: We obtain a proof of it (or a counter-example, if it is not a theorem). If we can find a proof of the assertion, how in Sodomy can you doubt it? It may be an incredibly complicated proof that only a genius would understand, but this is not true in most cases. It's also the case that a proof, if written out to a suitable degree of formalism, can be checked by a computer. It is therefore perfectly feasible for your dweeb to have come up with some interesting mathematics that was not open to doubt.
2. You shoot yourself in the bum because while the protagonist's assertion is a simple one, as a mathematician he has every reason at least to question it, since he has not obtained a proof. Note that showing an assertion holds for 1, 6, 7, log 7, and (2^(1/3))^(1/8) is not grounds for generalising to all x!
Canât you see that it is not my intention in this series of math poems to hold rigorous mathematical standards? I want the poems to be correct mathematically, but not rigorous. The protagonist in No. 3 is not satisfying the demands that someone like Pythagoras faced in proving his well-known theory, nor should he. Iâm trying to relate math to life, not math to philosophy or logic. And just in case youâre about to say that without logic, there is no math, let me add that much of the universe is running on chance to the chagrin of Einstein and others, and maybe the mind that made it that way likes the emotional tug of trying to outwit probability â âseven come elevenâ and all that. No. 4 in the mill.
Anyway, I'm not saying you should hold to rigorous mathematical standards. I don't see how that makes any sense in the context of a poeme. I was pointing out that your argument (c.f. "the mathematics had to be simple in order to be beyond doubt") was a silly one. There is a great deal of interesting, not-so-simple mathematics that is beyond doubt. Of course you could argue that the protagonist was an utter oaf, and therefore incapable of proving his conjecture. But then what? Does this poeme become a bold, sweeping statement about how oaves wander through life saying obvious things? You ought to be commended for your insight! Though in my experience, oaves mostly wander through life writing wallyish poetry about things they know very little about, and smelling of dung. Mostly.
"And just in case youâre about to say that without logic, there is no math, let me add that much of the universe is running on chance to the chagrin of Einstein and others, and maybe the mind that made it that way likes the emotional tug of trying to outwit probability"
I wasn't about to say "without logic there is no math", because any such statement would almost certainly be followed by an enormous amount of guff, no matter what anyone said about it. But I certainly would at least like to know what you mean by your implication that the uncertainty principle implies there is no logic. In answering, please say what you mean by "logic", "no", and "the emotional tug of trying to outwit probability."
I did not mean that the uncertainty principle implies there is no logic, only that it is the logic of probability. Gamblers and God may have similar propensities toward bending the odds by using slogans and hope and the notion that correct thinking affects the outcome. It gets back to the idea of being created in Godâs image. Maybe God works partly by nudging the outcome a tiny amount here and there, causing great change in strictly probabilistic outcome â chaos as it is â so tiny we could never catch Him at it.
A 9!
For me this poem portrays a chap who is happy to hold a rather simple formula which works. It is insignificant in the general scheme of things but to him it is just dandy.
In âMath Poem - Square Root of Minus Neverâ maybe theyâll replace it with âfractal.â I bet they canât wait for the next installment.
-0-
:-(
Log in to add a comment.