Mathematical Mondegreens

Can AI be creative? Maybe not, but it can be amusing

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


I transcribe every episode of My Favorite Theorem, the podcast I cohost with Kevin Knudson. It’s important for accessibility (and yes, I do judge you if you publish a podcast with no transcript, especially if you have a decent budget), but I’ve also found that a lot of hearing people prefer to read rather than listen to our podcast. Selfishly, having transcripts makes it possible to search text more easily in case I want to refer to something later.

A few months ago I started using otter.ai to help with my transcriptions. (This is not an Otter ad. It’s fine, but I think there are plenty of other companies that do similar work.) I upload the audio of the podcast, let the algorithm create a first draft of the transcript, and then listen to the podcast again and clean it up. Otter does a pretty decent job, but of course it is not perfect. It’s not too bad at everyday words, but its accuracy plummets on more technical terms or words from languages other than English, often to hilarious effect. In our episode with Jim Propp, it rendered "combinatorics" as "common at Oryx," "enumeration of tilings" as "immigration of Tyler," and "constant value theorem" as "Constantine of doom.” Amusing mondegreens like those make a somewhat tedious task a bit less of a slog for me.

On most episodes of My Favorite Theorem, we talk with one mathematician about their favorite theorem, but our most recent episode is a little different. You can listen to it here or at kpknudson.com, where the transcript also lives.


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.


Kevin and I went to the Joint Mathematics Meetings in January and interviewed a small subset of the 6,000 or so attendees and asked for their “flash favorite theorems,” super short descriptions of their favorite theorems. We put together an episode with 16 of these “flash favorite” theorems, and it’s a lot of fun, if I do say so myself.

Most My Favorite Theorem episodes don’t have too many distinct mondegreens. The same bits of jargon tend to get interpreted in only one or two different incorrect ways. But a collection of 16 different voices (18 if you count Kevin and me), along with the background noise of a huge meeting, really cranked up the misheard math.

For your amusement, some mathematical mondegreens, courtesy of Otter and our friends at the Joint Math Meetings.

Poor Al! If only someone would make it so the axioms of mathematics had no limitations at all, he’d be so much happier! Have you ever heard a mathematical mondegreen? Let me know on Twitter.

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