Math Parables 3: The Fable of the Fearsome √2

Math Parables 3: The Fable of the Fearsome √2

Permit me to inform you The Fable of the Fearsome √2, a proud irrational quantity with an unsettlingly sinister story behind it.

Be happy to share this story with the little youngsters whom you tuck in. Please observe that that is, like all respectable fairytale, the stuff of legend. Moreover, as is a storyteller’s prerogative, I’ve taken a couple of minor liberties—principally with respect to vocabulary—in retelling the legend.

As soon as upon a time there lived a thinker named Pythagoras. He was a really intelligent thinker, a lot in order that he’s often remembered as a mathematician.

He’s well-known—even at the moment, although he was born lengthy, way back in the sixth century BC—for giving us a helpful and necessary spell . . . excuse me, device . . . in arithmetic referred to as the Pythagorean Theorem. I’m positive you’ve heard of it: It is a unbelievable technique for doing superb issues with triangles. Principally, the Pythagorean Theorem tells us that for any self-respecting and well-trained proper triangle, the sum of the sides squared equals the hypotenuse squared.

Pythagoras was not solely an necessary and well-known man, he was fairly well-liked. As a matter of reality, he had a following of individuals who believed in what he taught and appreciated to hold round with him. Consequently, he based his personal faculty of thought, based mostly upon the concept that each one “reality” is mathematical and that numbers not solely have summary, mystical significance and distinctive attributes, however that they’re “rational.”1

In different phrases, for Pythagoras numbers have been to be affordable creatures, and make sense to individuals (in mathematical phrases, this meant that they needed to be respectable entire numbers or fractions, for goodness’ sake). It was extraordinarily necessary to Pythagoras, and to those that adopted him (referred to as Pythagoreans), that folks be clear of their considering, and that actuality—as articulated by way of summary quantity—was comprehensible by way of human purpose.

All went properly for some time, with the Pythagoreans having an exquisite time learning and exploring the well-structured and well-behaved world ruled by rational numbers. However at some point this pleased state of affairs was destroyed by the discovery made by a (little question well-intending) Pythagorean named Hippasus.

He made a horrible discovery. This horrible occasion occurred whereas a bunch of Pythagoreans have been out crusing at sea, in all probability partaking in mathematical musings. The unlucky Hippasus was—or so some say—merely working by way of that well-known Pythagorean Theorem, utilizing the concept that in case you take a look at the triangle in the easiest method, treating the size of every of its sides as equal to at least one unit every, then all of the sudden you encounter one thing not simply unsettling, however in a approach horrifically nonsensical (particularly for the Pythagoreans who put a lot inventory in being affordable).

If you do that, you uncover a measurement for the hypotenuse that doesn’t make sense. The phrase typically used is “incommensurable,”2 which means it doesn’t take part in the similar commonplace of reasonableness that smart numbers participate in; it isn’t simply an outlier, it’s an illegitimate, ill-behaved impostor!

The poor quantity on this case can be *gasp* “irrational”! And alas, that fearsome quantity was √2. It’s neither an entire quantity nor a fraction. In different phrases, it may well’t be written as the relationship, or ratio, between two integers.

Though the historic Pythagoreans wouldn’t have checked out it this manner (they didn’t have an idea of decimal numbers), we now view an irrational quantity as a decimal that’s non-repeating and goes on infinitely, and may solely be represented by a messy description that appears like this:

√2 is roughly equal to 99 divided by 70, or about 1.4142857 . . .

For those who discover this a considerably troublesome notion, and you may as well agree that that is an ugly and upsetting factor to take a look at even for us (particularly if we’re anticipated to make use of it to reach at a solution and not using a calculator), simply think about how the Pythagoreans felt!

Properly, the fearsome √2 threatened to show the whole lot the Pythagoreans believed in the wrong way up. The entire concept of a neatly pigeon-holed and affordable universe was being undermined. So, legend has it that this upset the Pythagoreans a lot that they turned enraged and tossed poor Hippasus overboard.

And he drowned. The Finish.

Now, both poor Hippasus was too intelligent for his personal good, or he adopted the lead of arithmetic to its inevitable conclusions, which shockingly didn’t uphold Pythagoras’s lofty, human-centered concepts of sensibleness, or—as I think—each. (Don’t overlook Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which factors to the floor of arithmetic as “extra-logical.”)

However no matter the case, right here you will have many parts of a superb parable: a utopian world, populated by smart males, ruled by affordable mathematical entities, all of a sudden threatened by some type of malicious being of clearly alien origin. To guard the world as the Pythagoreans knew it, this horrible darkness needed to be squelched! Isn’t it unlucky that in the course of, a homicide occurred.

Or was it an execution?

Hippasus definitely wouldn’t be the solely individual ever killed for expressing an inconvenient fact . . . proper? I’m pretty sure all of us can assume of a number of different outstanding examples of this in literature, philosophy, theology, and historical past.

Was his dying justified or not? Did poor Hippasus pay the worth for opening the portal to some sort of main revelation, or did he let unfastened forces from some “dark side” (a sacrifice then being required of the one for the profit of the many)? Or was there one thing inherently tyrannical about Pythagoras, who insisted on censorship of the information? And did this tyranny subsequently prolong to the human assemble and articulation of “rationality”?

One might take into consideration this story rather a lot, and are available to varied conclusions, some of which might be contradictory. For instance, one may ask such questions as: “What does the existence of incommensurability tell us about reality and/or our ability to grasp it?”three “Is incommensurability malicious or is it an invitation to keep chasing after the truth (as Kepler did, when for years he sought the answer to a mere eight-minute discrepancy in the astronomical appearances and ended up discovering that orbits were elliptical rather than circular)?” “Are the thoughts of men actually reasonable, or are we always just approximating ‘true’ reason (whatever that is)?” “Why did Hipassus suffer the ultimate punishment?” and “What is justice and who has the right to carry it out?” “How much truth can people bear?” (Keep in mind Arnauld’s level that educating math is itself a method to develop the precision of considering that permits the asking and answering of such questions in a productive means.)

The surfacing of such questions—as soon as we’ve been given permission to ask them in math and science—testifies to the energy of parable and story as a educating software. Certainly, that this could happen inside these fields of thought demonstrates that these areas will not be merely inviolate bastions of “hard facts,” however might be as nice a spur to asking and answering the profoundest questions on life and the universe as works of literary, visible, or musical artwork. For my part, that is one of the biggest causes arithmetic was one of the elements of the “Liberal Arts.”

So, subsequent time somebody asks you why, as a classical educator, you insist on educating your college students fairytales, poetry, and literature, as an alternative of primarily specializing in “STEM subjects”—with the assumption behind the query being “What good will that do?” and “What can students use that for?”—ask them, in flip, to elucidate how arithmetic, with its plethora of imaginary, irrational, hyperreal, and surreal “numbers” is any “better.”

In the event that they reply alongside the strains that STEM topics are “better” as a result of college students make more cash in these areas, or that it’s solely via such topics that our society can “get ahead,” then you’ve gotten a superb alternative to interact in a dialog about the telos of schooling itself—a dialogue each classical educator ought to enjoyment of having. (In the event you’d wish to discover an instance of such dialog, I extremely advocate Peter Kreeft’s ebook, The Greatest Issues in Life.)

Please don’t mistake my lighthearted tone in these articles, or my criticisms of some views shared by vocal STEM advocates, for a dismissal of STEM topics. There’s nice worth in learning STEM topics (that’s exactly my level), however it’s not as a result of they’re much less mysterious, ambiguous, or artistic than what we name the “arts”; it’s as a result of they’re absolutely the equal companions of these arts in all these methods.

Once you research math together with your college students, invite them to not be tempted to only “use” it, however encourage them to ponder its language, the tales it tells, and the unfamiliar beings like π (who masquerades as an previous acquainted pal however who’s, don’t overlook, “transcendental”) which might be to be discovered inside it. Don’t gloss over the fact and let the standard-fare textbooks sweep these fables beneath the rug!

Search and discover higher textbooks and different assets (similar to The Pleasure of Arithmetic by Theoni Pappas) that may show you how to pull out the unusual entities that populate the world of math. Then stare upon them, speak about them, monitor their unusual behaviors and their histories, and contemplate their implications. For the telos of studying arithmetic is, as with all realm of human creativity, to be given the capability and expertise to take care of the transcendent such that we understand it when it crosses the chasms of info, information, and understanding to succeed in us. All true classical educators ought to search that telos. And classical Christian educators know Who the Transcendent is.four

In the event you do that, you’ll assist college students see math by means of new eyes. You’ll obtain a number of issues, amongst them displaying your college students the marvel of it; decreasing their worry and maybe even loathing of math; and aiding them in perceiving how math is artistic, fascinating, and downright enjoyable—even when they by no means routinely “get” the “right” solutions on this world of hyper-sur-reality and by no means turn into engineers or physicists. You possibly can facilitate an understanding about how math is certainly related to their twenty-first-century existence. Something which, parable-like, attracts us nearer to considering the deepest questions, and lifts us to the brink of Transcendence, is—and all the time will probably be—related in the most vital approach.5


  1. Root: ratio => a rational quantity may be written as the ratio of two integers. The Greeks, nevertheless, solely perceive this ratio in the context of pure or counting numbers.
  2. An incommensurable quantity actually means “having no common standard of measurement.” That’s, there isn’t any widespread divisor between it and the different quantity with which it’s being in contrast.
  3. “Scientific inquiry rides on a thruway paved mostly by irrational numbers.” Ernest Zebrowski, A Historical past of the Circle (1999), p. 11.
  4. Arithmetic, as an unbiased system, doesn’t cross the chasm to the Transcendent. Logic, as an unbiased system, doesn’t cross the chasm to the Transcendent. The “five ways” of Aquinas, as an unbiased system of rational proofs, don’t cross the chasm to the Transcendent. Pure theology, as an unbiased system, doesn’t cross the chasm to the Transcendent. The chasm is crossed by the Transcendent coming to us, certainly, coming in us in a really private means. (Learn the Greek in John 1:14; the Greek phrase ἐν ought to be translated “in,” not “among.” Cf. the Greek textual content of Galatians 1:15-16.) The Incarnation, the Logos of God who’s the Son of the Father, is the chasm crossed. The Incarnation is the Creator redeeming the brokenness of mankind by reorienting our thoughts, reframing it, in order that we take into consideration Creation rightly, in order that we take into consideration arithmetic rightly, in order that we take into consideration logic rightly, in order that we take into consideration the “five ways” rightly, in order that we take into consideration pure theology rightly.
  5. Arithmetic does take us to the brink by its account of the macro- and micro-cosmos. At these two factors, scientists cry, “Why this singularity?” “What is the ground of the intelligibility of the cosmos and our mathematical report on the cosmos?” At these factors, the Gospel of the singularity of the Incarnation breathes redeeming life into these questions. The “Why” and “What” are answered by “Who.” It’s in the reply to those root questions that the Gospel not solely speaks to people, however to tradition, therapeutic the rift in it brought on by the radical secularization of the previous 200-300 years, the heritage of the Enlightenment.

(perform(d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); = id;
js.src = “//”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
(doc, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));