I got sick of being hemmed in by one colour, or was plain bored, so here I am back at my first-of-all pick. Dots. I am going dotty, yes.
So anyway, back to the fingerwagging. Um. The best Maths teacher I ever had, bar none, was Ms Koh back at ye olde secondary. She knew what she was going on about and took no fluff from anyone, which was perfect for someone as determinedly addlepated (now there’s a good adjective) as I was (am? am!). She took me to my As for my O Levels, man. What then happened without her for my A Levels is just another sad story.
She had this line she used to practise on us quite a bit: “Maths is beautiful, girls.” Well, all right … The young ‘un that I was would muse to myself, though not with the following articulation: I’m sure it’s true but I can’t for the life of me see how it is, past the symmetry of equations and so on. (By the way, I can’t pronounce the word “maths” properly. Could be due to a wee overbite. All right, too much information.)
So, years down the road, here’s a Guardian article that quotes a guy explaining how beauty in mathematics is “not visual but a conceptual elegance”. Ah. The guy in question has a mysterious website featuring this.
My still-beating heart likes the formula for romance the best, something about entanglement — it shows (don’t ask me how and whether it’s for real) how “two sub-atomic particles can be ‘linked in a very deep and fundamental way even though they may be separated by the width of the universe’. … True love in an equation.” Wouldn’t it be nice if it were true.