Bob Grumman Christmas Poem

I think this is Bob's best work and I always like to post it around Christmas.

Homage to Bob by Karl Kempton

Rest In Peace - Bob Grumman 02-02-1941 / 04-03-2015

Bob Grumman on the right me on the left - @ Museum Of Modern Art - New York City - July 2010

 It is with deep sadness that I must report the passing of Bob Grumman. The world of mathematical poetry just got lonelier. I remember in the mid 1990’s getting an email from Bob expressing how happy he was to have found me, another mathematical poet who shared a similar vision to his. Furthermore I was happy to have learned of his existence as well. Until then I had thought that I was the only one doing it. I was happy to find out that others had some interest in it as well. First of all I have to say that other than myself, there is no other mathematical poet in the English language that has had as much passion for our brand of mathematical poetry. – Yes there have been others who dabbled here and there and made a handful of math poems – and I must mention Karl Kempton and Scott Helmes who have made serious contributions to mathematical visual poetry, but only Bob and I consistently expressed a passion for using mathematical equations as a structure for poetic expression. Bob seemed to be entertained by arguing with people about the validity of mathematical poetry BEING poetry. Personally, I have tried to avoid that particular argument and have been happy believing that mathematical poetry is its own genre and needs not to be called poetry. Yet it really makes no difference to me. I must also mention that while Bob and I both took ownership in this form of expression, we had many differences of opinion … sometimes our differences were painful and I felt as though I was stuck in the land of mathematical poetry (a deserted island) with a hard headed competitively driven egomaniac. It is true that in the past I have felt this way. - But now that the reality has hit that he is gone, I feel alone on this Island – and it saddens me. The worst part for the muse of mathematical poetry is that neither of us has inspired anyone else to do it. She had better find another one to do it - obviously neither Bob nor I have done a good job in spreading the word. (not that we haven’t tried) – It’s been over 200 years since the first mathematical poem that I know of was published and the genre lay dormant for all those years until the 1970’s before it sprouted up again. Bob has been integral in trying to keep mathematical poetry alive in this incarnation. He will truly be missed.

 Kaz Maslanka 04-03-2015

Mathemaku No. 1

I like this poem even though I struggle with the mapping part - but I must say that I love the mathematical metaphor. I think Bob did a great job on the idea of a couple being one.

Is Mathematical Poetry A Subset of Visual Poetry?

This is some of the comments to one of Geof Huth’s blog post reviewing Bob Grumman’s new book, really a chapbook, entitled A Preliminary Taxonomy of Poetry

Geof said, “Mathematical poems add mathematical features that visualize the poetry, so I consider them visual poems, and to have a category for flowchart poetry assumes that process symbols are textual and thus not visual. I'd argue, again, that they are not orthodox text, so these poems are also visual poems.

Also, Bob's definition remains indefensible: "poetry that uses mathematical symbols that actually carry out mathematical operations." These mathematical operations are not actual; they are apparent. That is a big different. Duck cannot be divided by yellow in any mathematical way, though it could in a metaphoric way that has nothing to do with math directly.”

Kaz said:
Gee Geof,
I am going to have to take exception to both of you on a couple of things. First I will start with you and the top paragraph. Unfortunately I have never seen a definition of Visual Poetry that everyone agrees upon. Yet I will have to say that I like what I understand to be Karl Kempton and Karl Young’s definition of: “Visual Poetry is a Poetry that has to be seen” This is such a simple yet powerful definition that seems to me to be true in every case of vizpo that I have seen. With that being said, There are what I would consider pure mathematical poems whereby they can be understood by reading them alone. An example would be, “Love is equal to the limit of 1 over ‘x’ as ‘x’ approaches zero”. This mathematical poem can be understood perfectly without seeing it therefore it would not be visual poetry.
In the next paragraph above Bob states that, " These mathematical operations are not actual; they are apparent. That is a big different.”
I will argue that these operations are actual and they work the same as any equation in applied mathematics. The ‘variable’ or we can say ‘concept’ or ‘word’ in any mathematical poem can be substituted with a number that represents the value of the variable/concept/word/term. The ‘word’ can be substituted with a multitude of numbers just like in the equation ‘x’ equals ‘y’ squared whereby x can equal anything and y will equal whatever x is squared. The thing to focus on is that the words have value or magnitude and they have mathematical relationship to each other. This means the words in a mathematical poem can be substituted with a number and the words or concepts along with their mathematical syntax within the equation provides the units or “unit meaning”. To make this clear let’s look at the equation from physics d=vt or distance is equal to the velocity multiplied by time. If you look at velocity you get units of miles per hour. If you look at time you get the units hours and when you divide the unit ‘miles per hour’ by ‘hour’ you simple get the unit ‘miles’. And ‘miles’ is the unit for distance. Notice we did not talk a bit about numbers, yet, those variables can all be replaced with numbers and it is important to note, the units will remain. Mathematical poetry is the same however the units are created within the poem itself. Unfortunately all the mathematical poets I know are not addressing this issue and thus are missing the boat by thinking that mathematical poems don’t do math.
In your next example where Duck is divided by yellow you say that you cannot divide it in any mathematical way. This is not true you can divide it, however, it is pretty much meaningless gibberish at worse and a wild metaphor at best. The bottom line is that Duck divided by yellow is not anymore incoherent than much of Gertrude Stein’s work.

Endwar (Andrew Russ) wrote:
On mathematical poetry and mathematics: I’m not sure I agree completely with anyone here. It seems to me that in a mathematical poem one sees a mathematical operation with words (usually) operating in a metaphorical way (thus the poetry enters). That said, the mathematical operations involved are usually well-defined for numbers, but not for various words and concepts. “3+1=2” is something everyone (is taught to) agrees on in a literal way, and it follows from the definitions of each number and the signs “+” and “=”. The statement "candy cane + child = happiness" is also probably pretty generally understood, but not with the same level of definiteness (or definition, as per the previous sentence) as the numerical example earlier. You could write "candy cane + child = obesity", which would probably also be understood, but because of the metaphorical nature of the math, you can’t conclude (via the law of substitution) that “happiness = obesity” (though some may point out the phrase “fat, dumb, and happy”, which could then lead us to conclude “happiness = obesity = stupidity” . . . You can see, then where the multiple meanings of words (bifurcations of meaning, to throw in another mathematical metaphor popular in some at one time trendy lit-crit circles)) can lead.)
I would argue that a mathematical poem is a statement that represents a mathematical operation on the words involved, but which isn’t necessarily one that can be checked the way mathematical statements with numbers can be. I will even go one step further and assert that one can create a mathematical poem that is mathematically wrong but which still makes a metaphorical point. I have done this using matrix multiplication – a 2x2 matrix times a 2x1 vector is set equal to a 3x1 vector. That’s not something you can do with real number (or even imaginary number) math, but I think it works as a poem.
Written mathematics is inherently visual, not verbal: I can grant Bob’s point that “3-1=2” is visually not interesting, and furthermore it hardly matters what font is used. It does matter a bit what numbers are used – roman numerals will say “III-I=II”, and binary says “11-1=10”, and ternary says “10-1=2”, which are all the same numerically. But it becomes evident for large numbers that roman numerals are unwieldy for calculating, and we are used to the decimal number system, so the non-decimal numbers need cumbersome subscripts or context to be read as intended. I would argue, though, that the real test of whether we have something verbal versus something visual is whether the statement can be read aloud. Again “Three minus one equals two,” is pretty straightforward, but that is merely because of the simplicity of the expression. Try reading, say, a passage out of the middle of J.D. Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics or any other graduate physics or mathematics text, and it will be immediately obvious why these equations aren’t written out in words and why mathematicians and scientists do nearly all their professional discussions with slides or in the presence of a blackboard. And even if one does manage to put the text purely into words read aloud, you will find nobody in the audience who will understand what has been said who hasn’t at least written down some equations or a drawing as a guide. One of the most tedious reading experiences I had was a few pages out of an algebra text written by Leonhard Euler, who felt it was necessary to write down an equation and then repeat the equation in words, such as:
“E=mv ²/2
The kinetic energy is equal to half the product of the mass and the square of the velocity.” This continues for page after page.
If you’re still not convinced, show me how to do read calculus aloud and make it intelligible. Two pages minimum.
Because the visual representation is integral to the intelligible communication of all but the simplest mathematics, I would argue that mathematics is inherently visual language, and that by extension, mathematical poetry is also inherently visual poetry. The visual poem may still not depend on which font is used (though I have examples where that is the case as well), but it still can’t be read aloud and have the same meaning, because it will not then register as mathematical.

Kaz wrote in response to Endwar:

That is an interesting argument however, you seem to be making a distinction between the existence of a math equation which doesn’t have to be seen (like your Euler example) and then the distinction of performing the mathematical operations which have to been seen. (or at least I will agree that I would have extreme difficulty working out equations with out seeing them). Yet, since you can have math equations in verbal form (you just can’t work them out) it seems that math does not have to be in visual form and therefore not necessarily ‘exclusively’ visual. Or this begs the question what is math? Is it the performing of mathematical expressions or is it the expression itself? Or a mathematical Platonist would claim that math is an inherent object in nature … Gee why did I have to drag the Platonists into this – go ahead and slap me and forget that I said that.

Yours,
Kaz

Bob Grumman wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, endwar. I’ll get to all of them, I hope. Right now, just some thoughts in response to your comments about mathematical poetry.
I don’t care whether a poem can be read aloud or not. Mathematics is written in text just as ordinary verbal material is. Text printed standardly is effectively not visual, as far as I’m concerned: it’s symbolic. So a purely mathematical poem, in my definition, would be expressed in verbal and mathematical symbols.
On further thought, it seems to me all mathematics can be read out loud. So what if one needs to see it on the page to understand it? That would be true of many linguexclusive poems, too. Even relatively simple ones. I’ve almost never understood poems I was unfamiliar with when read at poetry readings.
As for the child and candy cane, I like your reasoning, but it now seems to me you have simple shown that “candy cane + child = happiness” and “candy cane + child = obesity” are both incorrect! They should be “candy cane + child = happiness + X” and “candy cane + child = obesity +Y.” And “happiness – obesity + X – Y.”
* * * * * * *
.
By the way, I love this discussion of mathematical poetry. I suddenly wondered, though, if there’s a subject fewer people in the world would be interested in.
One futher note: even if we admitted that difficult math must be seen to be understood, that would not make “candy cane + child – X = happiness” a visual poem since that particular poem would not have to be seen to be understood. That said, I can’t wait for the first mathematical poem based on mathematics you have to see on the page to understand.
–Bob

Kaz wrote:
As far as this Candy Cane analogy goes. I think that in both cases multiplication works better than addition. That said, I would imagine that people would relate to the following best.

Candy cane + childhood = happiness

Candy Cane x childhood = obesity

I am going to ignore the two equations above and rewrite them as multiplication problems with coefficients. The bottom-line is asking what numerical values you assign to these variables or words:

1(Candy Cane) multiplied by 100000(Childhood) equals 1(happiness)

Yet,

1000(Candy Cane) multiplied by 1(Childhood) equal 1(Obesity)
Kaz wrote:
Bob said, “Text printed standardly is effectively not visual, as far as I'm concerned: it's symbolic”

Gee Bob, if symbols are not visual then what are they? … verbal descriptions of symbols are just that ‘descriptions’ they are not the symbol.

Here you make an excellent point that language is just as difficult to understand when listened to as large mathematical equations Thus making a stronger case that pure mathematical poetry is not visual poetry or possibly making the case that all poetry is visual:

“On further thought, it seems to me all mathematics can be read out loud. So what if one needs to see it on the page to understand it? That would be true of many linguexclusive poems, too. Even relatively simple ones. I've almost never understood poems I was unfamiliar with when read at poetry readings.”

Instead of the definition of Visual poetry being – Poetry that has to be seen then state it as such: “Visual poetry is poetry that cannot be verbalized.”

Kaz wrote:
Bob said on his blog:
This is, I believe, the first time I’ve accepted that the operations are metaphorical, as Gregory St. Thomasino tried to convince me six months or so ago. My trouble (still) is that the operations seem actual to me–the sun really does multiply a field to get flowers!

Kaz said as a comment to Bob’s Blog:
There is a bit of a disconnect here. All mathematics is based in metaphor not just mathematical poetry. The problem Gregory had was that he was trying to delineate mathematical poetry from pure mathematics by claiming that mathematical poetry works by analogy and Pure mathematics doesn’t.
If you read George Lakoff’s book “Where mathematics comes from” then you will come to realize that all mathematics is based in metaphor. Not just mathematical poetry.

Mathematical Poets at the Bowery Poetry Club NYC

A couple of things of importance concerning the mathematical graffiti wall. The first being a new video of the wall produced by John Sims, the hippest voice in mathematical art – check it out below.


The second is some wonderful photos of the event that Geof Huth just released. (Thank you Geof!) – They can be seen below.

Here is John’s announcement of the event.


Here is a photo of John Sims introducing the event.


Here is Stephanie Strickland reading her response to the wall.


Here is Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino talking cubist poetry


Here is Bob Grumman reading his Poem’s Poem

Here I am talking about Similar Triangles Poems (Which is the type of Poem I put on the wall)


Here is Richard Kostelanetz after his talk about the history of his work.


Here is a group photo



Here is Geof making a contribution to the wall


Here is Geof and Bobs contribution


Here is JoAnne in front of the wall.


Here are some folks checking out the wall/


Here is a photo of the Kumbaya fest at Starbuck’s afterward. What a great time we had chatting about our common interests. (Left to Right) Geof Huth, Bob Grumman, JoAnne Growney, Arnold Skemer, Kaz Maslanka, Karen Orlin, and Richard Kostelanetz

What is Mathematical Poetry?

Lately, there has been a bit of passionate yet conflicting talk debating the definition of Mathematical Poetry among those who care. I will present six definitions. You pick what you like best or come up with your own.

Here is Bob Grumman’s:
A mathematical poem is a poem some or all of whose verbal elements undergo a mathematical operation centrally important to the poem that is simultaneously both significantly mathematical and significantly verbal–in the opinion of those capable of appreciating the poem.

Here is Karl Kempton’s:
A visual poem must contain a visual element consciously composed so that the poem must be seen to fully grasp meaning and experience, a mathematical poem must contain a mathematical operation, such as a addition, to fully grasp meaning and experience. a mathematical poem can or not be a visual poem.

Here is Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino’s ‘working’ definition:
The “mathematical poem,” if it is to be, or to contain, poetry, must have some poetic elements, as well as some formal symbols and operations of math.
I want to emphasize that by “operations of math” I do not mean that the poem will be “doing math.” What I mean is that the poem will be, in some way or in some sense — be that metaphorical, allegorical, but for the most part figurative — mimicking or imitating or finding a trope in that operation (whichever that operation may be). (I emphasize: I do not mean that the poem is “doing math.” Math does math. The poem is representational.)

Here is Kaz Maslanka’s: Mathematical Poetry is a umbrella term that covers any poetic expression involving Mathematics. Maslanka has broken mathematical poetry into five categories – they can be viewed here

Here is Sarah Glaz's: Mathematical poetry is an umbrella term for poetry with a strong link to mathematics in either imagery, content, or structure. -click here for more-

Here is JoAnne Growney's: Years ago when I first began to bring poetry into my mathematics classrooms, I used the term “mathematical poetry” to refer to poems in which some of the imagery involves mathematics; it was a sort of “applied mathematics.” Now, after lots of reading and exploring, the possibilities for math-related poetry seem nearly endless--including shaped poems, functional poems, permutation poems, various Oulipian structures, and then--on the Internet--a myriad of possibilities including animated poems, interactive poems (including linked hypertext), and so on. These days, I mostly avoid the term “mathematical poetry” (since I can’t formulate a definition that satisfies me). Instead, I think of the multiple possibilities as intersections of mathematics and poetry. (See, for example my blog: “Intersections -– Poetry with Mathematics.”)

Does Mathematical Poetry Do Math?

The comment Below was originally posted as a comment on Bob Grumman's blog but it did not show up on his comments so I will post it here.
----------------------------------

Does mathematical poetry ‘do’ math?

This is an excerpt from Bob Grumman’s blog where he and Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino are debating mathematical poetry. I have taken a small yet important few lines from the discussion to add my own thoughts. Gregory is green text Bob is Blue and I am white.

Gregory says: And I would offer, for starters:
1) It is a fallacy to think mathematical poetry is “doing math.”
Bob says: What is it doing?
Gregory says: The “sum” of a mathematical poem need not be the same for everyone.
Bob says: As in pure mathematics, it has to have the same value for everyone although it need not be “the same” for everyone. Just as in pure math, two plus two can be eight minus two as well as four.

Here is where I have inserted my responses:
Gregory says: And I would offer, for starters:
1) It is a fallacy to think mathematical poetry is “doing math.”
Bob says: What is it doing?
Kaz says: I feel very strong that Gregory’s viewpoint on this is too narrow. Mathematical poetry does do math the same as any applied mathematical problem does math. It just requires more math operations than pure math problems of the same size.
Gregory says: The “sum” of a mathematical poem need not be the same for everyone.
Kaz says: This is not what I would consider the correct verbiage for Gregory’s expression yet the essence of what he said is very true. Let me refine it a bit: “The answer of a mathematical poem is never the same for any two or more people.” In fact it is never the same for one person. There are different levels of answers for the reader if the mathematical poem is of any poetic value.
Bob says: As in pure mathematics, it has to have the same value for everyone although it need not be “the same” for everyone. Just as in pure math, two plus two can be eight minus two as well as four.
Kaz says: I have a question for you Bob. Would you say the value of a poem has to be the same for everyone that reads it? Of course not – everyone gleans different meaning from the metaphors among other things based on their own past and personal experience. It is no different for equational poetry/mathematical poetry. Not only are there different values for each reader of the mathematical poem there are also a multitude of different values for a single reader of a mathematical poem. (If it is read correctly) However, to Bob’s credit, I believe that he is using the right word to describe the terms in a mathematical poem. That very important word is “value”. Value is what makes it mathematical. A year ago, I erroneously thought that we were using words as if they were numbers and stated so in the introduction on my blog even though my intuition told me they were numbers, I could feel the numbers, yet, I didn’t push my mind to the realization that they were indeed numbers. I have now made the connections to realized it. I have realized that Value is quantity. In other words quality is really a cluster of quantities, however, all of the quantities have not been defined, and in addition, they don’t have to be. As long as you realize that each element in the cluster can be defined as quantities. For example in Gregory’s mathematical poem “ to+to= too” the poem has values in it yet you have to ‘see’ it that way. In other words you have to assign it value if you want to literally ‘do’ the math. In this example “to” and “too” both have value. One example is that the poem reads “2 + 2 = 4” it also can be read as “great + great = greater” and we can assign “great” to equal 100 so his poem can also mean 100 + 100 > 100 ; I can go on and on assigning new values - The bottom line is that the math is embedded in the poem but one must realize there are many answers – of course! This is why mathematical poetry is poetry (or art) instead of science. If poems had only one answer they would be science not poetry. One brings value and meaning to any poem that one reads and one brings value and meaning to mathematical poems the same way. The numbers are there you just have to assign them or just feel them the way you would a physics problem.

At the Bowery Poetry Club NYC

I got back from NYC last week after being invited by John Sims to participate in the “Mathematical Graffiti Wall” at the Bowery Poetry Club. I scrawled out my proportional poem titled “Afghanistan” on the wall as well as giving a short lecture intended to impart the necessary tools to access the piece. Below is an (poor quality)image of me delivering my lecture -- you can see Poet/Historian Richard Kostelanetz underneath me and mathematical / visual poet Bob Grumman to his right. I am not sure who was wearing the white hat.
After the gig myself, Richard Kostelanetz, Geof Huth, Bob Grumman, JoAnne Growney, and others went for coffee and discussion – I think we all had a great time - I certainly did.


Here is a photo of the wall taken from the stage.


Here is my poem Afghanistan

And you can see it here inked onto the wall.

Speaking of graffiti – here is a photo I shot in the men’s room at the bowery poetry club.



On another note the day before I gave my lecture I went to MOMA to see my old friends (The Tanguy, Magritte, Ernst, Dali, and De Chirico paintings) - I went up to pay my twenty dollars when the man behind the counter told me if I waited twenty minutes I could get in free. He said that I just need to wait in line outside. It was quite a long line and as we were coming in I noticed Bob Grumman about seven people up in front of me. So as fate turned out, I ended up hanging out with him as we viewed the art work. I had a nice chat with him as we covered a lot of territory in our discussions. Below is a photo of him and me in front of the De Chirico Painting “Gare Montparnasse” (The Melancholy of Departure).

John Sim's Mathematical Graffiti Wall

John Sim's Mathematical Grafitti Wall is taking shape at the Bowery Poetry Club in NYC. If you are Mathy and in NYC drop by an put your favorite equation on the wall. If you are in the NYC area on July 10 2010 drop by for a night of Mathematical Poetry Reading with visuals. There will be all of the most active Equational Mathematical Poets in America reading there!

Bob Grumman expresses what he calls True Mathematical Poetry

The following is a comment by Bob Grumman on my delineations for four types of mathematical poetry; with his vote that the only real kind of mathematical poetry is what I call Equational Poetry. I think his argument is pretty good so I am posting here so that everyone can see it.
I also agree with his assessment about number poetry … to me the beauty of number poetry IS the beauty of mathematics. Sure it has rhythm in it but so does virtually everything that the mind can remember due to memory's existence being dependent of repetition. And sure it can be visualized but does visualizing something make it art? Once again I will express that I think art is an expression of culture and ‘Pure Mathematics’ is cultureless.


VizPo-Central has left a new comment on your post "Four Types of Mathematical Poetry":

Number poetry gives one an appreciation of pure math but doesn't seem to me to be poetry. Appreciation of it takes place in one's mathematical awareness only, it seems to me.

The more I think about it, the less I know what to call it. It's not visimagery (i.e., visual art). I guess I would call it number art--it's numbers arranged in order to elicit mathematical pleasure. It's not a kind of mathematical poetry, but an equal art.

As for who "dominates" the term, "mathematical poetry," I say let there be competition; let all who want to define it have their say, and hope that reason prevails. What usually happens in picking terms for kinds of art is what has happened with the term, "postmodernism." A catchy worthless term is coined, probably by an ignorant academic, and someone even more ignorant but with a lot of readers makes it fashionable, and the morons run with it before people of intelligence have had a chance to analyze it and perhaps find a better term.

I will admit that my definition of mathematical poetry fits the kind of math-related poems I compose. So what? What matters is not whether my self-interest is involved, but whether the definition is effective or not.

Aside from what I'm calling "number art," it seems to me there are three kinds of math-related poetry: poetry that is about math, poetry that is generated by some kind of mathematical formula (like make a poem out of every third word in a given dictionary, and poetry in which some mathematical operation is aesthetically central.

I don't think poetry about math should be considered poetry because, to make it simple: poetry about chemistry is not called "chemical poetry," poetry about Bach would not be called "musical poetry," poetry about Picasso's paintings would not be called "visual poetry," poetry about Maria Tallchief would not be called "choreographical poetry," and so forth.

Similarly, mathematically-generated poetry (like sonnets, which are generated in part by the rule that they be ten by fourteen unit rectangles, or that kind of poem each of whose lines has a number of words in it equal to the sum of the number of words in the preceding two lines, or whatever it is) are no more mathematical poems than a bridge of building is a mathematical bridge or mathematical building because generated in part by mathematics. The end product is not mathematical.

Sorry about the slip up regarding "mathematical visual poetry," and I do see the difference. I wasn't able to type my post and read your entry at the same time, and forgot your designation. Anyway, my opinion remains the same: a visual poem that has mathematical symbols in it that don't carry out any mathematical operations is simply a visual poem with mathematical content.

I agree that my long division poems are equational. But some of my other math-related poems are just terms, Like one that is just an ampersand with an exponent of three. "Andness" multiplied by itself twice. I suppose you could call it an equation, half of which is implied.

Yes, I'm sure our little controversies will disappear into some void or other--"exiled history" sounds okay. Better than "non-history."

all best, Bob

Rhythm of Structure

John Sims has been putting together a series of mathart events in NYC which will occur at different times throughout the year. I am looking forward to an event later this next summer for which Richard Kostelanetz, Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino, Bob Grumman, Stephane Strickland and myself will be involved. To get on Johns Mailing list - contact him @ RhythmOfStructure@gmail.com

Bob Grumman

This page is to collect important links to the work of Bob Grumman

Mathemaku No 6a

Long division example

Mathemaku 6-12

Mathematics and love coupled in professor's book of poetry

Sarah Glaz - Photo by Jessica Tommaselli

I am a little late getting this out however; there is a nice interview of Sarah Glaz who co-edited with JoAnne Growney “Strange Attractors” a collection of mathematical love poems inside the April issue of “Advance”, which is a newsletter at the University of Connecticut. Most of the work in the book is traditional poetry however; Bob Grumman and I had works in the book that are of the “equational” genre. below is the interview however check it out at the source with this link.

Mathematics and love coupled in professor's book of poetry
by Sherry Fisher- April 13, 2009

Mathematics and poetry are two of Sarah Glaz’s passions. They are melded together in her new book, Strange Attractors, Poems of Love and Mathematics.
The book, published by A K Peters Ltd., is an anthology of about 150 poems that are strongly connected to mathematics in form, content, or imagery, says Glaz, a professor of mathematics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
The collection includes poetry from all around the world, some in translation, and spans about 3,000 years. In addition to works by noted poets and scientists, the book also contains several by Glaz.
Love is the common theme of the poems in Strange Attractors. The first chapter focuses on romantic love between two people, while the poems in the second chapter are about love of family, nature, and life, and spiritual love. The last chapter centers on love for mathematics and mathematicians.
The book is co-edited by mathematician JoAnne Growney.
Glaz, whose mother read poetry to her as a child, says she started enjoying poetry before she even knew how to count.
“I’ve been fascinated with it all my life,” she says. “I’ve been collecting poems with mathematical connections for as long as I can remember.”
Glaz and Growney came to write the book after several years of e-mail correspondence. Their relationship began when Glaz found a chapbook – a pocket-sized booklet – of poetry with a mathematical theme that Growney had published.
“I contacted her and we corresponded via e-mail for several years before deciding to write the book together,” Glaz says. “We met for the first time this January at a mathematics conference, where we celebrated the book’s publication.”
Glaz says finding poetry for the book was easy: “Both of us had large collections of poems with links to mathematics. Choosing the poems was the bigger problem.”
Many poets use mathematical language to express love, Glaz says. “I think that any strong emotion makes you feel you don’t have enough words to express it. Searching for new ways of expression leads some poets to the language of mathematics.”
In a poem from “Five Poems about Zero,” Eryk Salvaggio writes about losing love:

Zero is a number
of yearning.
In your absence,
I have nothing.
But it’s mine.

“Sacrifice and Bliss,” a poem by Kaz Maslanka, is in the form of a mathematical equation. “The equation-poem involves the mathematical notion of a limit,” Glaz explains.

“It can be ‘translated’ into words by saying that the relation between ego and love in a relationship is inversely proportional. As egos approach zero, love grows to infinity.”
Glaz says the book also contains a few “humorous, geeky” poems.
Katharine O’Brien writes in her poem “Valentine”:

You disintegrate my differential,
you dislocate my focus.
My pulse goes up like an
exponential
whenever you cross my locus.

Glaz, who wrote a poem called “Calculus,” says her poem is about the passionate, early history of calculus.
“It’s something I tell my students when I teach them calculus – the story of Newton versus Leibniz,” she says.
Mathematics is much like art, Glaz says: “I love to teach and I love doing research in mathematics. I think that proving a theorem and writing a poem come from the same place. You need to create, to discover, to look for a truth, to look for a pattern, and then enjoy it when it appears, and, of course, share it with students.”
Glaz is author and editor of several books and many articles in an area of mathematics called commutative algebra.
“Mathematics publications are for the initiated,” she says.
“They are read by the few hundred people around the world who work in the same research area.”
Strange Attractors, on the other hand, is an interdisciplinary work touching on mathematics, poetry, and history. In addition to the collection of poems, it includes bibliographical information for further exploration of the links between mathematics and poetry, and biographical information on the contributors and on the mathematicians appearing in the poems.
“It was exhilarating to work on such a project,” Glaz says.
“I hope the book brings poetry to mathematicians and some love of mathematics to poets. I hope people from many disciplines enjoy it.”
For more information about the book, and a sample of poems, Glaz invites you to visit her web page.
April is National Poetry Month and Mathematics Awareness Month.

The Long Division Poem

I would like to introduce the long division poem structure to this blog. The structure has been used for quite a few years primarily by Bob Grumman. It is similar to an orthogonal space poem with the exception that it uses a remainder. Because of its simplicity Betsy Franco and others including teachers have used it to help children play with mathematical ideas in the form of language. I think this is an excellent way to give children a fun way to play with poetic ideas and at the same time introduce them to the idea of applied mathematics. Here is a Christmas poem and one of my favorites by Bob Grumman:

“Strange Attractors” Poems of Love and Mathematics

Sacrifice and Bliss by Kaz Maslanka(below)

Mathemaku No.10 by Bob Grumman (below)


I just received a copy of “Strange Attractors” Poems of Love and Mathematics. Furthermore, I was fortunate and honored to have my poem “Sacrifice and Bliss” published in it. The book is edited by Mathematicians and Poets, Sarah Glaz and JoAnne Growney. It is full of many traditional language poems as well as a few mathematical poems of the flavor seen in this blog. One is “Mathemaku no. 10” which I believe is one of Bob Grumman’s better long division poems.

I do want to make a comment for the record. Unfortunately there was a typo in the contributors notes whereby it mentions that Kaz Maslanka believes that mathematics is “the” language of art. It should have said that Kaz Maslanka believes that mathematics is “a” language for art. All that aside it’s a great book and it’s time to order your copy.

Grumman's Christmas Poem 2007

Grumman's Christmas Poem

I would like to bring to your attention a poem I saw on Bob Grumman’s blog a few months ago. Bob basically has been doing most if not all of his recent mathematical poems in the form of long division. He rarely constructs a pure mathematical poem as almost all that I have seen are mathematical visual poems. The poem below is one such poem. Bob has been described by his friend Geof Huth as a curmudgeon and I have to admit that when I read his non-mathematical poems, his blog or his editorial writings I never find the boy child-like quality that he so beautifully expresses in some of his mathematical poems. Furthermore this poem has that particular boyish quality that can touch any man who allows it to happen. I feel it is one of Bob’s best. Here is a link where you can read Bob’s Blog entry where he talks about this poem.

Grumman on Schlegel

Bob Grumman has just posted Marko Niemi’s translation of Friedrich Schlegel’s equation for poetry and God on his blog at this URL: click here

Bob has made the following comments:

“This is a translation by Marko Niemi of the 19th-Century German philosopher Friedrich Schlegel’s formula for poetry. Kaz thinks it may be the world's first mathematical poem. I'm not sure. It seems mostly informrature to me--i.e., intended to inform rather than provide beauty, as literature is intended to do (in my poetics). It is a way of mathematically defining something philosophical as e equals mc squared mathematically defines energy, rather than creating a poetic experience. It is entirely asensual--at least for one like me, who has no notion what material feature "God" has. Mathematically, it is a little silly, too--for if "shit" were substituted for "FSM," the equation would be in no way altered. On the other hand, it is a marvelously step toward what Kaz and I and Geof and Karl are doing, perhaps a pivotal one (although I don't know of anyone who was inspired to create mathematical poetry by it).”

I would like to address a few things from his comments.

Bob says, “Kaz thinks it may be the world's first mathematical poem. I'm not sure.”

I would like to note that I doubt that this poem was the first mathematical poem ever written. It is however the earliest mathematical poem that I have seen. I have seen earlier mathematical visual poems but no mathematical poems this early. For an understanding of the difference between mathematical poem and mathematical visual poem, please check my terminology at this link: click here

Bob says, “It seems mostly informrature to me--i.e., intended to inform rather than provide beauty, as literature is intended to do (in my poetics).”

I see this as expressive rather than informative. The question to ask is, “Was Schlegel’s equation meant to be denotative or connotative. It is hard if not impossible to be denotative when you are dividing by zero. Concerning aesthetics, Bob has a very different idea of beauty than I and his views of mythology are very different from mine as well. Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. Although I also would have to say that Schlegel’s view of God is about as different to my view as mine is to Bob’s. I think the main aesthetical point to Schlegel’s poem is tying “The Transcendent” to an expression of infinity … not just once but six times. There are many things beautiful to mathematicians and infinity is definitely one of them if not the greatest idea of beauty. On the other hand, those who believe in “God” would also believe that the idea of God is the greatest beauty. However, I am certain that my idea of God is heretical to those same believers, for I do not believe in using lower case letters for the ‘G’ in God. All Gods are metaphors to The Transcendent.

Bob says, It is a way of mathematically defining something philosophical as e equals mc squared mathematically defines energy, rather than creating a poetic experience.

Here Bob equates philosophy with science … That was certainly true in 300 BC. However, there is nothing scientific about this equation for a scientist in Schlegel's time would never divide by zero (it is undefined for scientific use but perfect for poetry in fact it is the crux of metaphor)
Here is Schlegel’s view:
“Schlegel argued that poetry should be at once philosophical and mythological, ironic and religious. As a literary critic Schlegel sought not to reveal objective truths, but to write criticism so that the usual discursive prose becomes a work of art itself.” **

Bob says, It is entirely asensual--at least for one like me, who has no notion what material feature "God" has.

I am confused … I do not know where ‘anything’ physical was stated or implied.

Bob says, Mathematically, it is a little silly, too--for if "shit" were substituted for "FSM," the equation would be in no way altered.

The latter statement is another aesthetic judgment and again Bob is entitled to any scatological view he desires ;)

Bob says, On the other hand, it is a marvelously step toward what Kaz and I and Geof and Karl are doing, perhaps a pivotal one (although I don't know of anyone who was inspired to create mathematical poetry by it).”

If Schlegel inspired anyone to write mathematical poetry then Marko Niemi may be the closest person to know for he is our source.


**The quote was taken from this web site: click here