New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Magic of Math Lets You Have Your Pi and Eat It, Too

Math can be fun for readers of all h's

Before he ever took a formal algebra class, Arthur Benjamin got a lesson he never forgot. The future mathematician's father said, “Son, doing algebra is just like arithmetic, except you substitute letters for numbers. For example, 2x + 3x = 5x and 3y + 6y = 9y. You got it?” The young Arthur replied that he grasped the concept. After which his dad said, “Okay, then what is 5Q + 5Q?” Arthur replied “10Q.” And his father said, “You're welcome!”

That terrible, wonderful gag appears early in Benjamin's new book, The Magic of Math: Solving for x and Figuring Out Why. Benjamin is now a professor at the small and prestigious Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif. If your alma mater's name is Mudd, chances are you're a scientist, engineer or mathematician—the school specializes in those fields.

The occasional stabs at humor in Benjamin's book will leave the reader figuratively bloodied but unbowed and buoyed in the brainpan. Whether it's been decades since you last took algebra or you're currently dealing with the aches of solving for x, The Magic of Math is a good read. Even though it includes, gasp, equations.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For example (and don't bother to try to stop me if you've heard this one), consider a pizza pie to be a very short cylinder. The volume of a cylinder equals pi times the radius squared times the height. That is, V = pi r r h. And so, deep breath, for a pizza of radius z and height a, V = pi z z a. And if you think that exercise was too cheesy, you need a thicker crust.

“I want people not just to learn mathematics, I want people to love mathematics,” Benjamin told me when he visited New York City in September. “That's what Martin Gardner's writing did for me.” Gardner was the longtime writer of the famous Mathematical Games columns for Scientific American, inspiring many young Arthurs to describe their round tables as fulfilling the requirement that x

2 + y2 = r2. Before tests, these individuals might cram a lot. (Sorry, I've been inspired by Arthur's father to embrace the dark side of the forced jokes.)

One of my favorite parts of the book considers a rope tied to the bottoms of the two goalposts on opposite ends of an American football field, 120 yards away from each other. That's 100 yards plus the two 10-yard butt-slapping and dance areas—I mean the end zones. The taut rope is thus 360 feet long as it traverses the grass along the centerline of the field. Now imagine that the rope gains a measly little foot, so that it's now 361 feet long. At the 50-yard line, how high could you lift the rope, while leaving its ends on the ground at the goalposts?

Feel free to stop reading for a moment if you want to do the relatively simple calculation. (Or for any other reason—I am not the boss of you.)

By lifting the rope, you create an imaginary triangle with a base of 360 feet, an as yet unknown height of h feet, and two sides of 180.5 feet, half of the 361-foot-long rope. Now drop an imaginary plumb line from the top of the rope, and the big triangle can be divided into two smaller and equal right triangles, each with a hypotenuse of 180.5 feet and sides of 180 feet and h feet. Perform the primordial Pythagorean prestidigitation (the sum of the squares of the two sides of a right triangle equals the square of the hypotenuse), and you'll find that the one-foot-longer rope can be lifted high enough for even the most gigantic lineman to trundle under, more than 13 feet off the ground.

I'm fond of this example because the result just felt wrong to me. How could a single additional foot of slack have such a large effect? And yet the math is indisputable, as math tends to be. The Magic of Math thus reminds the reader that reality cares not how you feel about it. Which is why I recommend the book to anyone involved in making public policy. No amount of additional analysis, fact-finding commissions, committee hearings or white papers will change the height of that rope. 10Q. 10Q very much.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky
Scientific American Magazine Vol 314 Issue 1This article was published with the title “3x Equals an Omelet” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 314 No. 1 (), p. 76
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0116-76

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe