Fifteen days ago, one of the readers of these humble reviews left us in the comments some statements that we have heard many times. In a beginning of thought, as in other occasions, we respond in the same place in which it was done. However, meditating a little more slowly, he considered that it might be interesting to dedicate an entire article to these phrases, since there are many people who, according to their statements, think the same, and sincerely believe that they are wrong. You know, comments like 'since I left school I haven't used mathematics' or 'mathematics is useless to me'. The lines that follow are not intended to convince anyone. However, I think they are necessary assessments as a couple that we reflect minimally about the inaccuracy of the 'urban legends' (I would say, now that anglicism is in fashion, 'fakes') of the type expressed. I understand that they are described politely, and without malicious intent, and that is why I think it is our duty (that of mathematicians, scientists, teachers or technicians) to try to clarify them, or at least give the reasons for our disagreement. As, furthermore, I am going to try to provide concrete examples, I think it fits perfectly with disclosure, which is the final meaning of these reflections that we bring here weekly. I will call all those who have studied and completed a university career in that discipline mathematicians; currently bachelor's degree in mathematics, previously bachelor's degree in mathematics. It is a too broad definition, I know, because there will be those who consider mathematicians only those who do research in mathematics, not those who dedicate themselves exclusively to teaching, outreach, etc. Indeed, the former are the ones that have more legitimacy to apply that number, because they try to advance the matter with their work. But since I am going to speak in terms of the training received, it is in this sense that I am venturing to make the indicated extension. What philosopher do you know who has not in some way cultivated logic or mathematics? To begin somewhere, he comments that I don't think many mathematicians can be found who do not claim philosophy and the history of philosophy as an essential discipline in the curriculum of any citizen with higher education, of whatever type. And I will argue it with a question: What philosopher do you know who has not cultivated logic or mathematics in some way? Is it necessary to make a list of non-mathematical philosophers? Háganla will find a significantly lower number than the set of all philosophers. And the reason is clear: mathematics contemplates not only technical aspects based on calculations (that is only a part, a subset that we would say with terms of our subject, and a subset of cardinal values less than the complete space), but also pursue the Explanation and demonstration of any issue, using the languages and reasoning that are most appropriate to the nature of the problem. Mathematics not only seek concrete resolution, as they teach us in our school life, but are above all thought, analysis, development of techniques; After those techniques are found, the explicit part of the resolution will be sold, which will no longer be the most mechanical part of the final solution. As I say, this is only the final part, the technical part, the least important in reality, because the essential thing is to deduce, to find the how. There you have a 'portrait' of what is considered the 'first philosopher', Thales of Miletus, who, as you may know, is also famous for a theorem that has allowed all of humanity to do things like measure distances from inaccessible places. You couldn't even get dirty from home Even if it's a truism, since we open our eyes every morning, we are using mathematics. We can plant the game called 'Don't do what you need somehow math to be able to do'. Of course, they will wake up when their body tells them to, because the alarm clock would be prohibited. Forget about tablets, mobile phones, computers, televisions, microwaves, stoves, heaters, washing machines, etc., any device that has the slightest integrated circuit that, as you know, is obeying a specific mathematical algorithm. For the same reason, you will not be able to use the light switch, so if your home is indoors, find a good candle with a candle holder included to be able to handle it comfortably, because a flashlight, like no other. You will have to have some good buckets of water to pour down the toilet because we cannot flush the chain or open a tap either since the design of the pipes, their operation, needs some calculations and measurements that someone made to make it work. Of course, have tree leaves ready to clean yourself save the part, since any type of paper has measures and dimensions that you cannot use, not to mention the porches of elements of your composition (this affects your pills and medicines nor can he drink). Why is the toilet paper roll cylindrical and not prismatic, spherical, etc.? Ah, sorry, we can not use mathematical terms. Mathematics not only seek concrete resolution, but are above all thought, analysis, development of techniques. In the same way, we should be completely naked in the street, because the shape of the clothes is not just any. They have had to make it according to a specific size, and it is made up of shapes with suitable dimensions. Neither should coins, bills (Have you ever wondered why we use the numbers 1, 2 and 5 and their multiples, as the face value of money? Why not 1, 3, 7, for example, or other values?), credit cards or any other type (you know, because of the barcodes, the PIN and others), nor will they pay attention to the bus frequencies and other means of transportation (GPSs are based on a sphere intersection theorem). He discovers that the numbers do not exist. And if you know them, you don't know their order (How good 'The Book of Sand' by Jorge Luis Borges, by the way! manuscript, because fonts are currently designed with mathematical functions and specific interpolation methods; remember the rules of this game, don't use anything with math on it). they must walk wherever they go, but not by the shortest path, because on what basis is it decided which is the shortest? Also, what does 'shorter' mean? Obviously we will not be able to eat anything that is not obtained by means in which some mathematics is used, so, to fast that is very healthy, and let's go to the field, to pick some wild fruit, because I am afraid that we will not be able to catch anything in which a garden is delimited, a form of irrigation, an arrangement of seeds, etc. In the image, designer of the letter 'a' in Helvetica font, with Bezier curves. To apply this method, in addition to points through which the final representation passes (nodes), there are precise control points that indicate the slope of each curve. Sciences vs. Humanities For obvious reasons, we cannot know everything about everything in an exhaustive way. Human knowledge is so broad that we need to specialize. However, having culture, knowing the most basic of everything, is quite advisable and enriching. I don't know at what moment in history someone decided to make the separation between science and humanities, or who would be the lucid 'genius', but of course he committed one of the greatest follies that ever existed and will continue to exist. The human being is a set of many facets, and is indivisible. It needs and uses all kinds of knowledge. It is not 'of letters', nor 'of sciences'. It is both. The popular excuse of 'I'm a writer' is a hymn to simplicity, absurdity, incompetence. If I find myself in a gathering in which they talk about 'Life is a dream', how would I be left saying «I don't think, because I'm a science»? Or if he answers, "That Quevedo movie is great." It is not valid as an argument. It is more intelligent and prudent to remain silent, or to accept ignorance, than to say nonsense. We mathematicians, scientists, would never expect everyone to solve differential equations, or adjust oxidation-reduction reactions (among other things, because if not, we would be superfluous). But being able to, as the language book by Lázaro Carreter that we studied said, “be able to change register”, with the intention of being able to hear and converse fluently with both a sociology professor and a cleaning employee. And of course without pedantry or thinking for a second that some occupations are pluses or worse than others. They are all equally worthy because they are all absolutely necessary. Personally, I belong to a book club, I keep up with the new movies, I keep more or less informed of the daily news (another thing that interests me), and I'm a mathematician. And the conversations with my classmates are sometimes specific to mathematics and many others are about 'humanities' topics. Neither mathematicians, nor anyone dedicated to 'the sciences' despise the 'humanities'. Quite the contrary. Of course, 'becoming a person', which the reader who motivated these lines indicated, is not exclusive to any discipline or to anyone in particular. Rather, it is the patrimony of all the knowledge that we have been evolving, for better or worse, throughout our stay on this planet, which, by the way, by the way it leads, will end before the Sun becomes red giant star This last comment reminds me of two new wonderful reflections from the sixties of the last century, I don't know if they are science fiction anymore, of which there are also seven film versions: 'Planet of the Apes', by Pierre Boulle, and ' Make Room, Make Room!' by Harry Harrison, both with some mathematical content as well. Because, as I say, everything is interrelated and the sciences and the humanities are not different realities. Examples abound in all kinds of works, also in what we consider classical literature and authors, present and past. Will we ever be able to stop listening to anyone say 'I'm a science person' and/or vice versa? How long they trust me, no doubt, dear readers. Alfonso Jesús Población Sáez is a professor at the University of Valladolid and a member of the Dissemination Commission of the Royal Spanish Mathematical Society (RSME).
