a mathematician's apology

A Mathematician’s Apology
G.H. Hardy
At the bottom of the staircase in the BYU testing center you gaze at the television screen flashing strips of brown and blue student ID numbers and the respected test scores. When you see your score you feel like a carved pumpkin: gutted, empty, and lamely sitting on someone’s front porch. In the staircase you hear bound-pause-bound-pause; the person is skipping steps in their rush to see their score. In no time at all you there is a beeping click of as the boy next to you squeals while he texts his score to his mom. You on the other hand are fumbling with both hands to pull open the door. An arm gently moves away both of yours as it pushes the door open freely. Then he asks you, “What did you get?” What kind of question is that? You debate between snapping at him “what is it to you?” and crying on his shoulder. Fortunately, your pause is just long enough for him to get the idea. “I’m sorry,” he says shaking his head slightly as he breaths down your neck while you walk under his arm.
This is the type of sorry G. H. Hardy exemplifies in A Mathematician’s Apology. It is the type of apology that someone only says when they do not have a proper response for your stupidity. It is important to understand that Hardy published A Mathematicians Apology during World War II and what is more stupid or lowly than war. Hardy wrote A Mathematicians Apology to separate himself from the war efforts by classifying pure mathematics as a useless art.

Historical Context
After years of pending warfare A Mathematician’s Apology was first published in 1940. Some common World War II propaganda depicts the mood that surrounded Hardy’s publication. Men were expected to join the military, and women and children were expected to support the soldiers. One poster reads “Our Carelessness, Their Secret Weapon,” another is of a women cleaning machinery and it says, “The Girl He left Behind is Still Behind Him.” It was important to know your part in the war efforts and your neighbor’s. Hardy was no exception. In a time of warfare there does not seem to be any use for a pure mathematician like Hardy, but then again Hardy is the one who defined a pure mathematician.
History books do not blame the artist during a war for the devastation but rather for the inspiration. In Robert Henkes forward to World War II in American Art he writes, “as a war artist-correspondent during World War II, I had as my mission to document or paint the war as I saw, felt, and reacted to it.” Art has a tendency to get away with titles such as depiction or inspiration even during war. Scientific advancements on the other hand seem more related to warfare. Books like Martin Van Creveld Technology and War or Ernest Volkman’s Science Goes to War: the Ultimate Weapon, From Greek Fire to Star Wars these two books are just a few examples of how closely technology is associated with war. In A Mathematician’s Apology Hardy recognizes that, “the first and the most obvious is that the effect of science on war is merely to magnify its horror,” (Hardy 141) but Hardy did not consider himself a scientist. He wanted to be remembered as an inspirational artist and not a destroying scientist.
Hardy labels pure mathematics as an art. He writes, “A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns... the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colors or the words, but fit together in a harmonious way.” (Hardy 85) In short math is an art. He explains that unlike music which can stimulate passionate and volumes of emotion, mathematics cannot. Because most people are so afraid of the subject he believes that they would not even dare to find pleasure in it, and those who do only find the incomparable satisfaction of proving a theorem. (Hardy 88)
It is important to understand that Hardy is addressing pure mathematics under the conditions that he defines, and he does not want it to be confused with any science or useful study. He purposes the question directly in A Mathematician’s Apology, “Is mathematics ‘useful’, directly useful, as other sciences such as chemistry and physiology are?” and answers it just as clearly, “I shall ultimately say No,” (Hardy 75) There is a great amount of explanations dedicated to emphasize that mathematics is useless in a practical sense. One example used is geometry. If a figure on the chalk board is proportionate it has no effect on the proof, because a mathematician is not dealing with reality but numbers. In this sense pure mathematics is useless because the discovery of numbers and symbols cannot increases the standard of living and or happiness of men. (Hardy 119) An engineer can only use mathematics if there is an object associated with the numbers. Hardy says such professions as electrician or physician use ‘school’ math and, “he has hardly any understanding of ‘real’ mathematics.” (Hardy 137) To Hardy the instant mathematics is associated with an object or ‘thing’ it becomes a separate subject, and he emphasizes his profession is more creative and profound.
Hardy’s climax is how pure mathematics cannot be used in warfare. In the chapter before his summary and after pages of explanations showing that pure mathematics is a harmless art dealing with imaginary substances. After meticulously separating mathematics from trivial mathematics there is no logical way the culprit behind the gunnery, war craft engineers, and battle strategist could be a pure mathematician, but the scientists. Hardy concludes that, “Real mathematics has no effects on war. No one has yet discovered any warlike purpose to be served the theory of numbers,” (Hardy 140) After he stresses how pure trivial mathematics is the type of math used in warfare Hardy has his summary. The climax of A Mathematician’s Apology builds up to the separation of pure mathematics from anything war like or barbaric in human nature and not a soft spoken, “I’m sorry.”
A Mathematician’s Apology helped me to realize what pure mathematics is, but I imagine Hardy as a stuck up coward. It was eye opening to realize how mathematics can be beautiful, and I had never thought that pure mathematics and applied mathematics as different subjects. That is the section of the book that I enjoyed, but Hardy’s attempt to separate his subject from humanity is almost embarrassing. I can see how Hardy felt superior to the engineer, because if math had to be layered his pure mathematics would be on the top. It is the advances in pure mathematics though that enable applied the engineer to make faster guns, better bullets, and nuclear weapons. Hardy seemed so consumed in separating himself from such lowly things as war, death, and destruction that he failed to see his influence on them. This is probably why his apology reminded me of the way people say sorry when they find out you failed a test and they passed, or you lost your scholarship and they got a full ride. It is the, I’m-sorry-but-I-am-sure-glad-that-my-life-has-no-resemblance-to-yours that I hear in A Mathematician’s Apology. In all fairness though I guess that even scientist are people, and Hardy just like any sensible person would not want to be even remotely related to something as low as warfare.



Work Cited Page
Hardy, G. H. A Mathematician’s Apology. Cambridge University: United Kingdom, 2006.
World War II in Britain: World War II Posters and Prints from All Posters. 2003. Interesting.com
Henkes, Robert. World War II in American Art. British Library. 2001
Creveld, Martin. Technology and War: from 2000 B.C. to the present. Simon and Schuster. 1991
Volkman, Ernest. Science goes to war: the search for the ultimate weapon, from Greek fire to Star Wars. Wiley. 2002