Museum of Mathematics, NYC

October 6, 2011 8:25 PM

Museum of Mathematics. To open in 2012 on 26th St.

Although a commenter mentions it here in tiny print, and this cool post links to it in another context (doodle games), I don't see it otherwise. If not on Metafilter, where exactly are we supposed to find out about these things? (A: On the street.)

posted by skbw (32 comments total)

Awesome! I am looking forward to visiting it.

The map link will go to a random E 26th St that might be close to you. When I click it, the link goes to 11 E 26th St, Tacoma, WA.
posted by grouse at 8:51 PM on October 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I say that's a feature, not a bug, with the map.
posted by skbw at 9:07 PM on October 6, 2011

(A: On the street.)

If only you could hear about this sort of thing on the street. Then we wouldn't need a Museum of Mathematics.
posted by madcaptenor at 9:44 PM on October 6, 2011

Yeah, this is what happens when you learn about math on the street.
posted by not_on_display at 10:00 PM on October 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

This has some high-profile underwriters like Google, and grew out of program called Math Midway, according to this NY1 story.

New Yorker. NYDN. Johns Hopkins Alumni Mag. Gelf.
posted by dhartung at 10:04 PM on October 6, 2011

[I fixed the map url]
posted by taz at 11:18 PM on October 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is 26th street significant with the 2012? Is this some sort of math trick? THERE HAS TO BE DEEPER MEANING
posted by joelf at 11:29 PM on October 6, 2011

National Cryptologic Museum, 8290 Colony Seven Road
posted by stbalbach at 11:32 PM on October 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

But the trouble with the National Cryptologic is that I need more math to get much out of it.
posted by skbw at 12:01 AM on October 7, 2011

On the street is actually exactly where I heard about it. Walked right by where it will be, signed up for their newsletter when I got home.
posted by Hactar at 4:17 AM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

To open in 2012 on 26th St.

That's right near me, here, in the...TRI-STATE AREA
posted by DU at 4:21 AM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is 26th street significant with the 2012? Is this some sort of math trick?

26 is the only positive number to be directly between a square and a cube (25 and 27, in this case.)
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:39 AM on October 7, 2011

Since I live between 15th and 16th Street, this will be very convenient to me, here in DC.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:49 AM on October 7, 2011

This is all you need to know about math.
posted by Fizz at 7:25 AM on October 7, 2011

26 is the only positive number to be directly between a square and a cube (25 and 27, in this case.)

I used to really like this fact. Then I turned 27.
posted by madcaptenor at 7:57 AM on October 7, 2011

26 is the only positive number to be directly between a square and a cube (25 and 27, in this case.)

I have a truly marvelous proof of this, but my free time at work today is too small to contain it.
posted by DU at 8:06 AM on October 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

Conveniently close to the Museum of Sex!

In all seriousness, though... I am super excited to hear about this.
posted by Jonathan Harford at 8:40 AM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

George Hart gave a talk at a conference I went to last year, and he talked about what he wanted to do with the Museum of Math near the end. I'm really excited to see that it's actually going to happen!
posted by teferi at 8:41 AM on October 7, 2011

I have a truly marvelous proof of this, but my free time at work today is too small to contain it.

madcaptenor's last metatheorem: every Metafilter thread about math will contain someone claiming to have a "truly marvelous proof" of something.
posted by madcaptenor at 8:55 AM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do you have a proof for that, madcaptenor?
posted by grouse at 9:02 AM on October 7, 2011

First reaction: being excited about visiting next time I was in Manhattan. Then I checked the website. Second reaction: is this aimed only at children?
posted by Zed at 9:55 AM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Science museums tend to be aimed at children, so I'm not surprised that the math museum is the same way. I am, however, disappointed. But what can I do? Start a new, more awesome, math museum for grownups?
posted by madcaptenor at 10:05 AM on October 7, 2011

Someone will come along in the late 24th century and prove my theorem.
posted by madcaptenor at 10:06 AM on October 7, 2011

Start a new, more awesome, math museum for grownups?

Yes, please!
posted by Zed at 10:28 AM on October 7, 2011

I do fear it will be aimed _more_ at children than otherwise (early adopters), but that's what donor events are for, so we can all use our vast wealth to tell them what the donors want. But take hope--it's not like it's called the Children's Museum of Math or anything. After all, AMNH is aimed at children on balance, but is still a serious place.
posted by skbw at 11:41 AM on October 7, 2011

Yes, please!

Would you like to give me money to do so?
posted by madcaptenor at 12:04 PM on October 7, 2011

Sure -- start a Museum of Math aimed at grown-ups in the Bay Area and there's a shiny new C-note in it for you. (Sadly, that's the outer limit of my munifecence.)
posted by Zed at 12:19 PM on October 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

George Hart, one of the founders, previously (2002).
posted by skbw at 3:21 PM on October 8, 2011

26 is the only positive number to be directly between a square and a cube (25 and 27, in this case.)

My coworkers and I spent some time on this yesterday and didn't get very far other than proving there are an infinite number of numbers that are both squares and cubes. Which makes the claims that there's only one near-miss by distance 2 all the stranger. Yet my program to find counterexamples is up to 10¹³ and hasn't found one.

tl;dr: [citation needed]
posted by DU at 5:53 AM on October 13, 2011

Ah, here's a citation.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on October 13, 2011

DU: I kind of think of it like Fermat's last theorem. There are infinitely many cubes, but there are few enough numbers that are sums of two cubes that it's not all that surprising that none of them turn out to be cubes. (In this sense there are more squares than cubes, because there are more squares than cubes below any fixed number N.)
posted by madcaptenor at 8:46 AM on October 13, 2011

Did you mean sum of two cubes? Or sum of two squares?

I actually can't make your statement work either way. On the one hand, I don't know why you'd be summing two cubes.

On the other, I have some expressions here that are the sums of two squares. But there are infinitely many squares that are the sums of two other squares (see: Pythagoras) and "infinitely many" seems like kind of a lot. Possibly low density, though, which may be your point.
posted by DU at 9:11 AM on October 13, 2011