Big Poppa, or Big Daddy?

For purposes of this discussion, however, I will try not to get pulled into the ocean of Nicolas Cage adulation, and will instead try to focus on the mathematical content in his 2009 film, Knowing.  This turns out to be a fairly simple task, as you will soon see.

In Knowing, Cage stars as John Koestler, a professor of astrophysics at MIT (already, the potential for mathematics is promising).  He is a widower with a young son, named Caleb, who goes to a nearby elementary school.  Near the beginning of the film, Caleb’s school holds a celebration in honor of its fiftieth birthday, and as part of the festivities they unearth a time capsule that was buried 50 years prior.  The time capsule is filled with drawings from former students, but Caleb gets a little short-changed: instead of receiving paper with a drawing, his paper just has a long sequence of numbers.

As might be expected by the presence of a long list of numbers, Knowing is less concerned with math than it is with numerology.  Don’t let John Koestler’s profession fool you – aside from one scene in the classroom where you can spot Maxwell’s equations if you know where to look, there is very little in the way of mathematics in this film.  But the more important question to ask is whether this is a bad thing.

While the lack of mathematics may make the trailer seem a bit disingenuous, Knowing is aptly named in the sense that it knows the film’s conceit has nothing to do with mathematics.  Unlike a film such as Pi, which attempts to pass off numerological voodoo as actual mathematics, Knowing is very much aware that Koestler’s analysis of the numbers from the time capsule does not constitute research in mathematics.  At one point his colleague even points this out to him, saying “Whoa. Just step back. Have another look at it! Systems that find meaning in numbers are a dime a dozen. Why? Because people see what they want to see.”

Another difference between this film and Pi is that here, the pattern of the numbers is discovered fairly early on, and it becomes quite predictable.  There is less mystery in the numbers themselves than there is in how a schoolgirl 50 years ago came to write the numbers down.  Thankfully, the answer to the latter question is resolved as well (spoiler alert: it all has to do with angel aliens).

Does this film pertain to mathematics?  Not really.  But nor does it aspire to be.  In that sense, then, I would certainly consider this a better film than Pi.  Should they remake Pi with Nicolas Cage, however, all bets are off.

Unfortunately, it seems there are those who wish to disturb my slumber.

Dan Vergano over at USA Today recently wrote a brief article which highlighted the fact that this year there are a whopping 2 “square days,” one of which is today, 4/01/2009. The day is called a square day because if you read the date as a number, the number turns out to be square. In this case, 4,012,009 = 2003 * 2003.

The article attempts to be relevant by making a tenuous link between this sort of mathematical wizardry and the latest film excursion into numerology – Nicolas Cage’s most recent triumph, Knowing. Mr. Vergano was also kind enough to link to my article on Square Root Day, although based on the tone of his article, I’m not sure he appreciated the point I was trying to make. Perhaps he intended to address my concerns, but in the process of writing he got lost in Nic Cage’s eyes. Lord knows it can happen to the best of us.

What's that, Mr. Cage? Sorry, I got a little distracted.

So, Mr. Vergano, if you’re reading this, I beg of you: use your powers for good. With a readership as large as I’m assuming yours must be, you have a venue to help dispel stereotypes about people who study mathematics. Of course, those stereotypes include, but are not limited to, the idea that mathematicians spend their days looking for significance in arbitrary dates.

To his credit, Mr. Vergano does point out the insignificance of these types of diversions. But if there isn’t any significance, what’s the point in writing about it? Does this happen in other fields besides mathematics?

I get that advances in math may not seem as sexy to the lay person as certain advances in the sciences, and sometimes the ideas can be difficult to communicate. But there are opportunities for those willing to look. Here’s one: why not write an article celebrating the contributions of Mikhail Gromov, recent recipient of the Abel prize? This, it seems to me, would be a much more worthy topic for a writer with such exposure.

I don’t think I’m alone in this, either. A look at the comments to Mr. Vergano’s article reveals many others who fail to see the importance of today as a square day.

Perhaps one day the USA Today blog will discuss some real mathematics. And on that day, I shall declare a legitimate math holiday. Until then, I will remain here and nervously await Pi Day 2010.