THE BEAUTY AND

“UNREASONABLE”
APPLICABILITY OF
MATHEMATICS
Asghar Qadir
Pakistan Academy of Sciences (PAS)
3 Constitution Avenue, G-5 Islamabad
GIKI 06 December 2023
Pure mathematics is,
in its way, the poetry
of logical ideas.
• Albert Einstein
Plan of Talk
1. Introduction (6)
2. What Mathematics is (2)
3. Beauty in Mathematics (9)
4. Counting Infinity (16)
5. The Continuum Hypothesis (4)
6. Gödel’s Theorem (4+2)
7. Elegant Applications of Mathematics (6)
8. “Unreasonable” Applicability of Mathematics ____ (9)__
Total (57+2)
1. Introduction -1

When I returned from England after my PhD, I

attended Conferences in which Mathematics would be
extolled with inane arguments and analogies, claiming,
for example, that Mathematics is used “everywhere”
and justify the claim by saying “When you go to a
1shop you have to use Mathematics”;
–– an obviously specious argument, as the Shopkeeper
1adds columns better than the Mathematician!
1. Introduction -2

Another was: Mathematics is the “Mother of the

Sciences”
–– as if she has her children (the Sciences) sitting at
1her feet, playing with their blocks and cars and guns.
Yet another is that Mathematics is the “Queen of the
Sciences”
–– as if she is holding her scepter and her courtiers, the
1Sciences, are standing around waiting for her favours.
1. Introduction -3

These flights into inanity do no credit to

Mathematics –– to the contrary, they do it great
disservice. To understand why I am so harsh in my
criticism of these platitudes, you need to follow
what Mathematics is, and not only what it isn’t.
Before going on to that, I need to debunk other
myths.
1. Introduction -4

I was invited to give a talk on “the importance of math

in everyday life”, or “the beauty of math found in things
around us”.
When they say, “everyday life”, or “around us” have
you ever wondered whose life, or around whom? Is it
the life of a NASA scientist, a student in GIKI, a
Pakistani farmer, or a hunter-gatherer in some jungle.
Their “everyday lives” could hardly be more different!
 1. Introduction -5

People often ask us, working in Basic Science, “What

good is it?” My answer is with the questions: “What good
is money? What good is Medicine; Engineering?
Entertainment? What good is anything?” One alleviates
poverty and so makes life easier, the next suffering and
hence makes life easier, the next the tools to make life
easier (make –ve. life less –ve.) –– the last provides
enjoyment (+ve. at last). All the others are equally good
for animals –– for humans, entertainment provides joy.
 1. Introduction -6

The most lasting enjoyment comes from understanding ––

Basic Science.
For that matter, what good is education?
The usual answer: “to enhance earning capacity” is a
myth –– and a pernicious one at that.
Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari (or for that matter Al Capone,
in his time) made fortunes with little education, while Marie
Curie and I never did –– despite much more education.
Education broadens the mind!
1. Introduction -7

Mathematics appears to be a whole class of

topics and not a single, indivisible entity.
Does “Mathematics” exist or is it just a
collection of “mathematical subjects”?
What, precisely, is Mathematics?
–– That “precisely” is the answer.
What Mathematics is -1

Having talked of what Mathematics (and Education

for that matter) are not, we need to go on to what it is.
Mathematics is a class of languages built for precision.
In poetry, or with puns, the great thing is the many
meanings associated with very few words –– it appeals
to the emotions.
In Mathematics a “word” means one and only one
thing, excluding emotions –– it is precise!
What Mathematics is -2

Whenever and wherever precision is required,

Mathematics will be applied. Even lawyers need it —
though ours seem to prefer using their fists or hands;
they need it for clear and precise arguments.
Obviously, scientists and engineers and economists
need to use it to make their analyses precise.
Thus, it is a toolbox of most adaptable tools.
But then how can there be beauty without emotions?
Beauty in Mathematics -1

Let us see an example of Mathematics that is used

more or less “everywhere” –– Pythagoras’ theorem.
You may remember the geometric proof by
constructing a lot of confusing squares over every side
of the triangle, or the algebraic proof by ratios.
Here is a really elegant geometrical proof found in a
Muslim manuscript of the 9th century.
It gives the next slide and then simply says: Look!
Proof of Pythagoras’ Theorem
(a + b)2 = c2 + 4x½ ab (a + b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab
b a
a c 1
c a2 1 ab
3 b 2
b c 2
c 3 ab
ab b2
4 2 a 4
a b
Beauty in Mathematics -3

Just “look”.
Is that beautiful or what!
Is there any ambiguity? Is there lack of precision?
But is it not beautiful?
It is useful, but who cares? It leaves one with a
feeling of awe and elation, not because it is confusing
but because it is so crystal clear.
Beauty in Mathematics -4

The problem, generally, is that Mathematics requires

a lot of background to be able to appreciate its beauty.
However, here is a simple one to see. One can find
infinitely many integer solutions for the Pythagorean
theorem: e.g., 32 + 42 = 52; or 52 + 122 = 132; etc.
How about for a3 + b3 = c3?
–– There are none!
How come?
Beauty in Mathematics -5

Maybe it would work for some higher power? Maybe

for even powers? Maybe for prime powers? Maybe …?
The French jurist, Pierre de Fermat (1607—1665) was
an amateur mathematician and put forward various
mathematical riddles as challenges to professional
mathematicians, for each of which he had a proof that
he would reveal if everybody gave up.
–––– I imagine him gloating afterwards.
Beauty in Mathematics -6

He wrote all the proofs in the margins of his law

books. He put the problem of the proof of the non-
existence of integer solutions of
an + bn = cn ,
to be solved by the mathematicians, and in his margin
1he wrote that he had a proof, but it was too long for
1that margin. The implication being that it would have
1fitted into a page or two.
Beauty in Mathematics -7

All the other problems got resolved or the proofs

seen. This was the last one left
–––– Fermat’s last theorem.
Many tried, but none succeeded. Someone
suggested to the great mathematician of the day,
Carl Friedrich Gauss, to tackle it. He said that he
would not “waste time on it”. As per Aesop’s fable
–––– The fox said, “the grapes are sour”.
Beauty in Mathematics -8

Finally, in 1993, the English mathematician, Andrew

Wiles, using work of mathematicians over the globe,
finally proved Fermat’s last theorem in over 300 pages!
There was a lacuna pointed out by a referee and he
worked on filling it with the helpful criticism of the
referee, and completed it in 1995 –– with many more
pages added in.
People recalling Fermat’s claim still look for a simple
proof.
Beauty in Mathematics -9

Here is an even easier one to state. You know

what prime numbers are; numbers with no factors
to them. Every number can be uniquely written as
a product of prime numbers.
Goldbach conjectured that every even number
can be written (not uniquely) as the sum of two
prime numbers. It is checked but there is no proof
for it.
Counting Infinity -1

When I was three my father used to sit me on his knee

facing him and we would rock and count beads aloud
(with no real beads around). When we got to 10, with
great excitement we would say “bundle”. When we got
to 10 bundles it was a “bundla”! Soon I was counting
them in my head and realized that with new names
there was no limit to how far I could go in counting.
That was exciting!
Counting Infinity -2

But is there no end? How can we know that?

Just go on counting? But you will stop some time
and then there will be no more counting.
You cannot count infinity
–– can you?
Well, how many prime numbers are there?
Counting Infinity -3

 Again, there are infinitely many.

Euler’s argument is to multiply the consecutive
sequence of primes up to anywhere and add one. Then
the new number cannot be divided by any of those
primes and hence it is a new, much larger, prime. Thus,
2, 3, 5 being successive primes, 2x3x5+1=31 is prime.
How is that for a beautiful argument?
(Actually, there is a complication.)
Counting Infinity -4

 More rigorously, let P = p1 p2 p3 … pn and q = P+1.

Now, either q is prime, in which case we have the
larger prime, or it is divisible by some p in the list. Then
p divides (P+1) and P, which implies that it divides the
difference between the two. Since it cannot divide 1, q
must be prime.
This additional proof is not due to Euclid, who did not
know algebra. That was introduced by Al Khwarizmi.
Counting Infinity -5

So then, there must be fewer prime numbers than

there are numbers. Right? After all, primes are few and
far between among all the natural (counting) numbers.
However, to every counting number n, there will be a
prime number N, which is the product of all successive
prime numbers up to the nth one +1. Hence there are
just as many!
We have counted infinity.
Counting Infinity -6

The natural (counting) numbers are denoted by ℕ. The

number of elements in a set A is denoted by |A |,
called the cardinal number, which can be infinite. If
we denote the set of prime numbers by ℙ, we
proved that |ℙ | = |ℕ |.
Fractions are called rational numbers (from ratios),
denoted by ℚ.
Surely |ℚ | > |ℕ |…. isn’t it?
Counting Infinity -7

After all, ℚ consists of

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, …
2/3, 2/5, 2/7, 2/9, …
3/4, 3/5, 3/7, 3/8, …
4/5, 4/7, 4/9, 4/11,…
……………………..
And this is only the fractions less than one!
Counting Infinity -8

Well, ℚ is “contained in” |ℕ Xℕ | = {(p,q)| p, q ε ℕ }.

ℕ Xℕ = (1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) ….. ∞
(2,1) (2,2) (2,3) (2,4) ….. ∞
(3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (3,4) ….. ∞
(4,1) (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) ….. ∞
. . . .
.. ….. .
.
. . . . .…..... ∞
Counting Infinity -9

Well, ℚ is “contained in” |ℕ Xℕ | = {(p,q)| p, q ε ℕ }.

ℕ Xℕ = (1,1)1 (1,2)2 (1,3)4 (1,4)7 ….. ∞
(2,1)3 (2,2)5 (2,3)8 (2,4) ….. ∞
(3,1)6 (3,2)9 (3,3) (3,4) ….. ∞
(4,1)10 (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) ….. ∞
. . . .
.. ….. .
.
. . . . .…...… ∞
Counting Infinity -10

For every (p,q) we can find an n. Notice that in the 1st

diagonal row there is one element, in the 2nd two, in the
3rd three, etc. Thus, for a given n we can construct a
unique (p,q), so we can count ℕ Xℕ . Hence we can
count ℚ.
Sets that can be counted are called ––––
surprise, surprise
–––– countable!
Counting Infinity -11

Then, are there any uncountable sets? Are we not just

saying that “infinity is infinity is infinity”? Well, there
are irrational numbers, like √2.
When the Pythagorean Society discovered irrational
numbers, they made every member of the Society
swear an oath of secrecy, never to divulge this
mathematical truth, as otherwise people would lose
faith in Mathematics and go crazy.
Counting Infinity -12

The set of all numbers on a line is called the real

numbers, ℝ. For example , √2 can be identified on the
line by using a compass, a protractor and ruler. Mark
out a unit segment on the line and a unit perpendicular
to it. Now, use the compass to bring the √2 on to ℝ.
√2 1

o 1 √2 ℝ
Counting Infinity -13

Are there more points

in a longer line segment than a
shorter one?
As there is a one-to-one
correspondence between
the two line-segments,
there are as many points
in both.
Counting Infinity -14

So, getting back to our question, can we count the set

of real numbers or not?
Cantor’s argument: Suppose we can. Then certainly
be can count the points in the interval [0,1). Let us
denote them by decimal fractions and let aij be digits,
i.e., numbers between 0 and 9. Then there must be
some one-to-one correspondence between [0,1) and ℕ.
Counting Infinity -15

1 ↔ 0.a11a12a13…a1m …
2 ↔ 0.a21a22a23…a2m …
. ↔ …………
. ↔ …………
n ↔ 0.an1an2an3…anm …
. ↔ …………
. ↔ …………
Counting Infinity -16

Now define bij to be digits such that bij ≠ aij. Construct

the number 0.b11b22b33…bnn… .
This number does not correspond to 1 as the 1st digit is
different, to 2 as the 2nd is different, to 3 as the 3rd is
different, …, to n as the nth is different, and so on.
Hence there are more numbers in [0,1) than in ℕ, and so
many more numbers in ℝ than in ℕ –– it is uncountable.
Cantor died crazy.
The Continuum Hypothesis -1

Denote by ‫ﬡ‬o the cardinal number (or number of

elements in the set) of ℕ and by ℭ the cardinal number
of ℝ.
Clearly ℭ > ‫ﬡ‬o as there are more points in ℝ than
numbers in ℕ.
The question arises whether there is any cardinal
number between ‫ﬡ‬o and ℭ.
No one could answer the question!
The Continuum Hypothesis -2

If there is no answer to an important question, the

mathematician simply puts forward a conjecture or a
hypothesis that an answer that seems reasonable is
correct, and proceeds on.
In this spirit, the continuum hypothesis was proposed,
that there is no transfinite number between ‫ﬡ‬o and ℭ.
One needed a proof of this hypothesis.
The Continuum Hypothesis -3

Are there other transfinite numbers?

Well, we can construct the power set (being the set of
all subsets of the given set) of any set. Using the
theory of ordered sets it can be shown that there cannot
exist a one-to-one correspondence between the power
set, ℘(A), and the original set A,
|℘(A)| = 2 > |A|.
|A|
The Continuum Hypothesis -4

|ℕ |
Hence |℘(ℕ )| = 2 := ‫ > ﬡ‬1‫ﬡ‬o ;
|℘(ℕ )|
|℘(℘(ℕ ))| = 2 := 1‫ > ﬡ‬2‫… ; ﬡ‬
Thus, the continuum hypothesis is:
ℭ = 1 ‫ﬡ‬.
The problem was that no one could prove
it.
Gödel’s Theorem -1

In 1931 Kurt Gödel (1906 – 1978) proved the

most terrible, negative, disastrous theorem. The
Pythagorean Society would have proscribed it
immediately.
The great thing (or according to some the worst
thing) about Mathematics is that to every
question there is a definite answer.
Gödel’s Theorem -2

Right?
WR ON G!
Terribly, horribly,
disastrously, impossibly,
wrong!
Gödel’s Theorem -3

Gödel’s Theorem: For any finite set of

axioms stated in an arithmetical language,
there will always be a statement that
cannot be derived from that finite set.
Mathematics is necessarily incomplete.
The continuum hypothesis can be chosen to
be true or false!?*&@# ??
Kurt Gödel died crazy!
Gödel’s Theorem -4

Worse followed. Alan Turing proved that every

mathematical problem could be solved in steps
by a computer. Even for an infinite number of
steps, it would be countable.
Thus, the set of all computable numbers would
be countable, and so there must be real numbers
that cannot be stated exactly!
Alan Turing died crazy!
 Some Questions -1

Are all numbers other than the natural numbers unnatural?

Are all numbers that are not rational, irrational or crazy?
Are those numbers that are not real, unreal, or
complicated.
Dr. K.F. Yusuf, a VC of QAU opposed my going to a School
on Complex Analysis, “Because”, she said, “Pakistan does
not need Complex Analysis, it needs — (wait for it)
— Simple Analysis.”
(Her field was Pakistan Studies, and she was used to doing Bhutto-style,
simple-minded analysis.)
 Some Questions -2

Here is an equation that has been touted as the most

beautiful equation:

e = -1
ιπ
transcendentalimaginarygeometrical = negative integer
Elegant Applications of Mathematics -1

Though people tried to explain phenomena by

linear differential equations (LDEs), most
required nonlinear ones (NDEs).
NODEs can have fewer constants than the
order of the ODE.
Sophus Lie managed to set up criteria to be
able to determine when a scalar 2nd order NODE
can be converted to a linear one.
Elegant Applications of Mathematics -2

The requirement was that it be at most cubically

semi-linear, and the coefficient functions satisfy
four 1st order conditions involving two arbitrary
functions, that are checked, not solved.
Tresse reduced the constraints to two 2nd order
ones without arbitrary functions.
One then has the problem of finding out how to
transform the NDE and then actually solving it.
Elegant Applications of Mathematics -3

The generalization of the flat space straight line

is called a geodesic. Its ODE is a vector 2nd order
NODE that is quadratically semi-linear.
On projection down one dimension the system
becomes cubically semi-linear.
Using this for projecting down from 2 to 1 gives
a cubically semi-linear ODE with the Christoffel
symbols giving the coefficients. They satisfy the
Tresse constraints.
Elegant Applications of Mathematics -4

The metric tensor can be constructed using the

Christoffel symbols as the coefficients of the NDE
[E. Fredericks, F.M. Mahomed, E. Momoniat and A. Qadir, Comp. Phys. Commun. 179
.
(2008) 438—442]

In the coordinates in which it is linear, the metric

tensor is Cartesian, and the transformation to it
can be obtained [A. H. Bokhari and A. Qadir, ZAMP 36 (1985) 184—188].
Hence the linearizable NODE can be fed into the
computer to obtain the general solution! It was
extended to higher dimensions [FMM-AQ, JNMP 16 (2009) 283].
 Elegant Applications of Mathematics -5

Relativity unified space and time to a spacetime, but

it is often useful to split it back. This process is
called spacelike foliation of the spacetime.
Can one foliate a given spacetime into a sequence
of flat 3-d spaces? This entails solving 6 NPDEs of 2nd
order for 6 functions of 3 variables.
Einstein pointed out that freely falling observers
see flat space about them.
Hence, the geodesics are straight lines!
 Elegant Applications of Mathematics -6

Solving the timelike geodesic equation in the given

coordinates, we obtain the 3 vectors orthogonal to the
line at each point [AQ-A.A. Siddiqui, IJMPD 15 (2006) 1419—1440].
Putting them together we get the flat spacelike
hypersurfaces by only solving the geodesic equation.
So, we also know the criterion for the existence of a
flat foliation, that there exist a free-fall-frame, i.e., a
non-accelerated frame, and obtain the flat foliation
without solving 6 NPDEs for 6 functions of 3 variables!
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -1

The Particle Physicist who used Group Theory, Eugene

Wigner, talked of the “unreasonable effectiveness of
Mathematics in Science”.
But is it “unreasonable”? Or is this one more instance of
extolling Mathematics by specious arguments?
If you have a car and need to loosen or tighten the bolts
in the engine, you will make a spanner that fits the bolts.
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -2

Is it unreasonable that the spanner fits right for the car?
But perhaps Wigner was remarking on it fitting all cars.
However, when you manufacture cars, you want them to
be easily maintainable by available tools.
Then, don’t we make our theories such that our tools can
be easily used on them?
Yes, we do!
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -3

The proof is that when problems arose that were beyond

the existing mathematical tools new ones were invented.
A novel problem came to the attention of Pascal and
Fermat. Gambling seems to depend on luck. Pascal and
Fermat tried to take the luck out and formulate a strategy
to win more often than they would lose.
This is what developed into Probability Theory.
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -4

There had been many problems of explaining the

behaviour of matter, where Newton’s laws did not seem to
be usable. After the advent of probability theory, Maxwell
was able to explain the behaviour of gases seen by Boyle
and Charles, and Boltzmann and later Planck and Einstein,
could use it to explain more of the behaviour of matter and
radiation.
Was the applicability of Probability Theory unreasonable?
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -5

Gauss was tasked with conducting surveys on large areas

of the Earth. He needed to use Geometry, but Euclid’s
geometry was restricted to plane surfaces.
There was spherical trigonometry, but it was not versatile
enough for surveying. He needed more general results.
Since there were none, but Differential Calculus had
been developed, he invented Differential Geometry.
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -6

There had been many other attempts at developing “non-

Euclidean Geometry” that had not been fruitful. However,
Riemann generalized it to higher dimensions.
Einstein needed to use curved spaces for his extension of
his restricted theory of motion to arbitrary motion and
after trying others, found that Riemann’s worked well.
What is unreasonable about the applicability of
Differential Geometry?
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -7

Adam Smith had developed Economics as the study of

competition for limited resources. All subsequent work in
Economics assumed the model of competition.
But society had developed, and it required cooperation.
The big economists, like Keynes, could not conceive how
it could have evolved.
Johann von Neumann, and later John Nash, developed
Game Theory to explain how it could.
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -8

The whole point had been to explain how societies

could evolve with competition and collaboration.
It had been originally used for Economics, but it
was applied equally well for evolution of biological
species and for societies of animals and humans.
Can that be called “unreasonable”?
 “Unreasonable” Applicability of
Mathematics -9

When nonlinearity became imperative to study complex

systems, mathematical tools were developed for it.
How unreasonable is it that the tools we make can be used
for the things we construct, or that the things we construct
can be made with the tools we make?
How unreasonable is it that the Mathematics we construct is
useful for our Science or that our Science uses it?
Is it unreasonable? Is it?