Perspicuity

Caption: "What are you trying to prove?"

I Don't Get It
References - None (yet)
Merchandise - None (yet)

Homage to Pierre de Fermat's old problem, which stated that xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ has no solutions for positive integers x, y, and z, if n is greater than 2. This became known as Fermat’s Last Theorem.

There are many solutions for n = 2, such as when x = 3, y = 4, and z = 5. Fermat said he had a proof that n could not be larger than 2, but neglected to write it down.

For 350 years no one could prove whether it was true or not. Finally in 1993, Andrew Wiles (with help from Richard Taylor) solved the problem. Fermat was right.

Last week, as a number of you may well remember, amidst the whirlwind of many current projects, I took Thursday and Friday off, and flew out to Rootsbury, Vermont in order to attend the annual Mathematical Awards for Metaphysically Motivated Individuals. Each year excitement and enthusiasm is radiated by everyone involved with the MAMMIs and this year proved no exception.

Many of the same faces seen last year and the years before were visible throughout the evening. But this should also be known as the year that some new figures appeared; at least ones that had not been seen for quite some time. One such individual was the Square, who placed third in the Prominent Geometric Figure category. Not since the ;50s, when he was blacklisted as a social deviant, had the Square shown his surface around these award ceremonies. As he accepted the prize, the Square kissed the trophette and sang, "MAMMI, How I Love Ya!" It was the Sphere, however, who won Most Prominent Geometric Figure. Apparently, the Circle and the Sphere shared many of the same qualifying characteristics; both shapely, well-rounded, and highly respected figures among the geometric circuits. But it was the Sphere who rolled away with the award, for as one judge put it, "She just has more dimension to her."

I think my little ditty (to the tune of "That’s Amoré") describes a moiré pattern quite well. As far as I know, this is the only joke that explains itself.

Here is another example (cf. Give Peas a Chance and Brush with Death) of finding someone else having done the same thing. A friend showed me a book, by humorist Spider Robinson, which contains tons of other variations on "That's Amoré;" all puns on amoré homonyms. At least one of them was one I had planned to do in the future. I guess I've been freed up from that one.

And if this wasn’t bad enough, Herman had to take a weekend job dividing lanes on the highway.

References
Merchandise

Last week, as a number of you may well remember, I took off Thursday and Friday, amidst the whirlwind of the many current projects and flew out to Rootsbury, Vermont in order to attend the annual Mathematical Awards for the Metaphysically Motivated Individuals. Each year excitement and enthusiasm is radiated by everyone involved with the MAMMIs and this year proved no exception.

Many of the same faces seen last year and the years before were seen throughout the evening. But this should also be known as the year that some new figures appeared, at least ones that had not been seen for quite some time. One such individual was the Square, who placed third in the Prominent Geometric Figure category. Not since the fifties, when he was labeled a social deviant, had the Square shown his surface around these award ceremonies. As he accepted the award, the Square kissed the trophette and sang, "MAMMI, How I Love Ya!" It was the Sphere, however, who won Most Prominent Geometric Figure. Apparently the Circle and the Sphere shared many of the same qualifying characteristics; both shapely, well-rounded, and highly respected figures among the geometric circuits. But it was the Sphere who rolled away with the award, for as one judge put it, "She just has more dimension to her."

(See "MAMMIs" Essay)

I came up with this idea and wrote almost the entire text during a run one day. It was a rainy Autumn morning in Richmond, Virginia in 1982. I have no idea why I remember that. I've had many suggestions on how to cram it with more math puns, but I think I'm through with it. Thanks anyway.

Post Script: You will notice that this is the same essay that I used for "Sneak Preview".

We (as humans) probably first used numbers in order to keep track of our sheep or count our coins. All we needed was 1, 2, 3, and so on. We now call these counting or natural numbers.

You can add and multiply counting numbers and the results will still be counting numbers. However, once you start doing subtraction, you find taking 7 away from 7 gives you zero, which is not a counting number. And if you take 5 away from 3 you get -2, which introduces the concept of negative numbers.