The Infinite Monkey Cage - Origin of Numbers

Episode Date: January 21, 2019

The origin of numbers and can fish count?Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by mathematician Dr Hannah Fry, comedian Matt Parker and neuroscientist Prof Brian Butterworth to ask where numbers come from and can fish count? They'll be looking at the origin of numbers and whether counting is a uniquely human trait that actually started before the evolution of language.

In our new podcast, Nature Answers, rural stories from a changing planet, we are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature. And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts. BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello. Hello. Today's show is about mathematics. By a rather incredible coincidence, today's Infinite Monkey Cage is the third episode of series 673 in the year 2019.

And what is amazing is that number 2019 is only divisible by 3 and 673, so it's very nearly a prime number. That means it's almost a prime number. You can't have almost a prime number, though, can you? And also, isn't the 673rd series to be fair? Wouldn't it be good if it was though wouldn't that be a coincidence except we've had to make up the coincidence it's the 19th series right anyway so this is the problem with science-based pedantry is uh it often gets in the way of some of my mystical beliefs such as numerology uh in fact the other day uh i went to see my roman numerologist

and i was worried because she just seemed oh oh, like, cross, cross, cross. She's 30. So, actually, I thought my hexadecimal numerologist was very cross with me the other day, but it turned out she was a... Not as good, that one, not as good, is it? We're going to give you a lot of choices here. Hexadecimal.

Yeah, I see, you didn't pronounce hexadecimal. I did say hexadecimal Well, what did I pronounce then? You said something like that Okay, let's do it again and see if it works a second time I thought my hexadecimal Think Brian Blessed I thought my hexadecimal numerologist

Was very cross with me the other day But it turned out she was A I was meant to see my binary numerologist the other day, but it turned out she was A! There we are. I was meant to see my binary numerologist the other day, but she's 111. Is that too young to be a numerologist? Okay. I often try to confess... I skipped that one. I love that one. It's my favourite one.

I thought my complex numerologist was very cross with me the other day, but I... See? That's only because I felt a level of threat from him. Which is obviously how comedy's always worked. I often try to confound my fractional numerologist, but she always gets one over on me. I went to see my imaginary numerologist the other day,

but she's very negative. The square root of it is very negative. Oh. Yeah. It doesn't make sense. Well, no, it does, mate, because the whole... It's merely... Right, here's the problem.

If jokes make sense, three men walk into a bar, an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotsman. They have a pint. They leave. Everything was fine, so... Yeah, but mathematics... Doctor, I've got a tummy ache. Have you? It may well be trapped gas. Thank you. Take charcoal pills.

Knock, knock. Who's there? Gary. Oh, good. Haven't seen you for ages. This is the problem we have, you see. No, mathematical jokes have to be precise. It doesn't work, does it? So what is an imaginary number? Tell me an imaginary number. So the square root of minus one.

Right, so... That's my imaginary numerologist. All right, then. I went to see the square root of my imaginary numerologist. We'll leave that hanging. If anyone is looking for a numerologist, I recommend my exponential numerologist.

She's keen to expand her practice. So that'll do for a show. Good night. Today we're looking at numbers. In fact, the origin of numbers. Is mathematics unique to human beings, or can fish count? We're joined by a prime number of panellists, and they are... My name's Brian Butterworth.

I'm in the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London. Now, I first really fell in love with mathematics when I met a very attractive mathematician at university and ever since then I have been gripped by it. Ooh. I say. Well, I am Dr Hannah Fry. I'm a mathematician and associate professor at University College London. And I think I first decided that I liked mathematics when I typed

58008 into a calculator. It's not true. It's not true. I came out of the womb liking maths. My name is Matt Parker. I am dangerously underqualified, but I am the public engagement in maths fellow at Queen Mary University of London, as well as being a maths author, YouTuber, etc. And I've loved maths ever since when I was very young, before I went to school, not straight out of the womb, but my dad would give me maths problems, like some exercises, to do as a treat. And I was too young to know otherwise. I mean, say what you want about brainwashing at works. And so, to this day, I enjoy maths.

And this is our panel. Brian, before we get to the fish, can we start with humans? Have we always had the ability to count? As a species, probably. So the oldest words that you can reconstruct from current languages, you can kind of say what these words were like 10,000 years ago, what this work has been done. The only words that are common to all known languages

where the reconstruction has happened are counting words. One, two, three, four, five, up to about five. So certainly, quite a long time ago, we were counting verbally. There are also marks on bones and stones, which suggests that humans living in

caves were also able to enumerate things and record the number of objects that were relevant to them. And in fact, there's a theory that one of the things that our cave-dwelling ancestors were really interested in and counted were phases of the moon. So you can find quite a lot of marks on bones and stones

with repeated 30s, which is more or less the phase of the moon. And it looks as though the phases of the moon are recorded in such a way that you can see when it's a waxing gibbous and a waning gibbous. So when the moon's getting bigger, the moon's getting smaller. So it looks as though our cave-dwelling ancestors, at least in Europe, were interested in counting days, phases of the moon,

and perhaps other astronomical phenomena. There's a big difference there, isn't there, Hannah, between counting. So I suppose it's very easy to understand why counting would be useful to our distant ancestors. But then when we say mathematics, we mean something way beyond counting as well. We mean this abstraction of numbers. So did you find... I thought you said you were interested in maths

from the moment you were born. When did you make that transition from just the counting and times tables and things to abstraction? Because I think that point is a thing that many people find difficult, to move into algebra or trigonometry or calculus or whatever it is. And at some point people just say, right, that's too difficult now. So I like the analogy that mathematics is like a language, really. Because I think that ultimately you have very simple words to describe very simple things.

But the more that you learn of that language, the more ability you have to be able to describe lots of other things. So in some ways, I kind of think that there's... I think that maths, sort of the ability to do maths, goes beyond just being able to quantify things. I think it's about a particular way of thinking about the world. So, you know, a sort of clean way of viewing things. You know, about shapes and about patterns and about, you know, structure of clean way of of viewing things you know about shapes and about

patterns and about you know structure that kind of stuff um but i think that you know that transition from uh you know from talking about numbers to talking about calculus or talking about much more complicated things it's just one of experience of kind of like earning that language really do you feel that that's also innate i I think, Brian, you were suggesting that there's some facility with number that appears to be innate in most human beings and has been practiced for many... I was very interested in what Hannah said about coming out of the womb. We know that in the first few days of life,

human infants are able to make numerical distinctions, discriminations. So, for example, human infants, like human adults, get bored when they see the same thing over and over again. And if you show them different patterns of dots, let's say two dots, then a different two dots, then a different two dots, and they'll start to look away. But then you show them three dots, then they'll start to look back again

because they've noticed that there's a change in number. In fact, we did this experiment with our first child, Amy. We put a... Well, the thing was... No. No, seriously, for a moment. There was a study that had just come out in America which showed that six-month-old infants were able to make these numerical discriminations.

And I thought, well, if American babies can do it at six months, my baby can do it at one month. And so we put her in this cardboard box so all she could see... We're talking science here. And so we put her in this cardboard box so all she could see... LAUGHTER We're talking science here. Brian's just old enough to have been before ethics panels were brought in. Just that.

But we used a method which wasn't very common at the time, which was sucking habituation. So babies suck more when they see something new. So if you see two green squares, two green squares, two green squares, and then three green squares, will sucking rate go up? And it turns out that we got some really beautiful data from Amy, really great data. And then, but halfway through the series, and she had to do the whole series or else the statistics wouldn't work, she spat this teat out of her mouth and refused to suck anymore and so we we never got the the complete statistical analysis we couldn't publish the data and strangely no one would lend us a baby to experiment the point of the story and and i think hannah's interesting uh reflection here

is even even infants have a sense of number. Matt, as someone who, you know, is in a very important position in terms of the public understanding of mathematics, why would you put a baby in a box for a mathematical experiment? That's a great question. What's interesting is, out of the box, when we first emerge into the world,

we get a few bits of built in maths for free like we can compare the size of numbers we can do very basic arithmetic looking at dots and we get some geometry a sense of space so we can kind of navigate but everything after that we have to learn ourselves and we forget how much is repurposing other parts of the brain and learning things that we were never meant to do intuitively. So if you do ever get a young child or you borrow one of someone else who has very few ethical qualms with experimenting on their offspring, or you find people who have never been in formal education.

So the same experiments have been done on infants as tribes who have never gone through formal education. If you experiments have been done on infants as um tribes who have never gone through formal education if you ask someone who's been to school what's halfway between like zero and ten or between one and nine we would say well five five is in the middle because one plus four gives you five and then five plus four gives you nine but if you get someone to put three dots between one and nine, who's never been educated, they'll put three in the middle, not five. And that's because one times three is three, and then three times three is nine. And so out of the box, we have this logarithmic.

We do it in terms of multiples, not in terms of adding. And it's only when we go to school and we get bullied by teachers that we switch to this. school and we get you know bullied by teachers that we switch to this uh we're adding sense of a number line as opposed to the logarithmic sense that we we start with right and that's already we're repurposing so i think that's that you know we experience the world a lot actually that way i mean if you think about how um time seems to speed up as you get older right um actually it's it's sort of in a way you're not thinking about a year as being a fixed number you're not kind of adding up the years you're thinking about a year as like a fraction of your life that has gone to like up until that point so actually I think that we kind of innately do think of things

in these kind of and we still have this problem with big numbers yeah so we get small numbers we get forced to learn this linear but then I had to go on bbc news the first time the debt in the uk went over a trillion pounds they went we need someone to come and say how big a trillion is i was like all right and they go okay so explain how big a trillion here's matt i'm like it's huge back to you but then i did i did the classic um how long is that many seconds? It's like a million seconds is just over 11 days, and a billion seconds is just over 31 years. Make sure you celebrate your billionth second birthday. And then a trillion seconds is not until the year 33,707. And everyone's like amazed by that, which by the way, from the recording date is the 13th of September, and it will be a Tuesday.

I checked. But that makes sense, right? Because a trillion is a thousand times bigger than a... It's way bigger than a billion, but yet we still think a million to a billion is about the same as a billion to a trillion, because we've got this logarithm.

Your job is public understanding of mathematics. That's an example, actually, isn't it, of the way if you don't know or you don't have a feel for a billion or 350 million a week, for example, or something like that, then it can cause problems in wider society.

But it is something that, interestingly, in modern life, it is it's something that interestingly in modern life it is something that we need a sense of one of my favorite examples of this was pepsi of all places pepsi ran a promotion in the mid 90s where if you collected points from pepsi products you could trade them in for like t-shirts and sunglasses and stuff and in the commercial they had a joke where you could trade in enough points to get a Harriet jump jet. And they showed a kid flying this jet to school because they traded in apparently 7 million Pepsi points. Ha, ha, ha. And no one in the advertising planning meeting said, well, hang on.

How much would it cost to get 7 million Pepsi points given we let people buy as many as they want for 10 cents each. And a jump jet at the time cost over 20 million US dollars to get in the air. And you could just buy $700,000 worth of Pepsi points and get one for free. And that's exactly what John Leonard did. He actually got the money together, wrote to Pepsi and said, here's my check for the money plus $10 postage and handling, which for a jump jet should be covered. And then Pepsi wrote back and we're like, no. And his lawyer was like, yes. Genuine court case because advertisers just thought

$7 million sounded really big but didn't check how really big it was. What was the outcome of the case? He didn't get it. Pepsi had to argue that their commercial was technically a joke, and so they got expert witnesses to say that... They genuinely argued no school would provide parking space... LAUGHTER ..for a jump chair.

The US military came in and were technically the ability to land vertically when you descend. That's military grade information. We would have to deactivate that. That's where the military drew the line on ridiculous. Their defence was it was obviously a joke.

Obviously a joke. And they redid the commercial for 700 million Pepsi points. Such a beautiful image, though, isn't it? Someone with a fighter plane and no teeth. Brian, it's interesting. This is the most lip-smacking, thirst-quenching war I've ever been in. Brian, just because of something Hannah was mentioning there, and I suppose it just enlarges on Matt's point

which again, which is, if you're talking about a different part of the brain is dealing with numbers, so when we have to verbalise, when we have to try, always I agree, that idea that when you see the word a billion, it immediately removes some of what it really means that the, how, is there

any way we're seeing where language to really express that kind of you know the enormity of numbers or sometimes the smallest numbers one of our great inventions one of humankind's great inventions uh number words and the great advantage of number words is that you can you can talk about very large numbers whereas it's very hard to conceptualize them even visually very large and that's a i mean can you imagine even say what 36 dots looks like not to mention a thousand dots but once you've got words and that or other symbolic means then you can go into very large numbers. And this is, if you like, the human advantage

over fish. Being able to communicate about numbers is one of the ways in which the human race actually progresses and gets better at dealing with numbers. So it's certainly true that we can talk about very large numbers. What they mean in our heads, of course, is a whole different issue. Now, Matt talks about we have a kind of logarithmic representation in our heads, at least when we're born. I think this is controversial. But anyway, even if that were true, how we...

Wow, that's a mass smackdown if you're not familiar with with rigorous scientific debate we could have a rigorous scientific debate about it but the question is if you've got a very big number and and your your mental representation is logarithmic right then your very big number is going to be very very tiny on this mental this logarithmic mental line so it's going to be very, very tiny on this logarithmic mental line. So it's going to be very hard to tell a million from a billion from a trillion because they'll all be really squashed up

at the end of your logarithmic curve. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or making fun of me now. No, take your pick. Just because you mentioned it, we may as well deal with the um title of this radio show brian can fish count yes good there we go moving on and now we return you to the test card how do we i suppose how do we know how do we know that fish and what can they count to?

It looks as though they've got two separate counting mechanisms, maybe even three separate counting mechanisms. They've got a mechanism for counting. What they like to count are other fish, because for little fish it's very important for them to swim in shoals, because shoals reduce the risk of predation. So if you've got a predator coming and you're in a big shoal, then the predator is less likely to get you. It might get some of your friends, but it's less likely to get you. So it's very useful for fish to be able to join a larger shoal.

So it must be able to tell which shoal is larger. Now, is this really counting? Well, for a big shoal, probably not because fish are all swimming around in the shoals. So the fish has to make a kind of a global estimate about how many fish there are here versus how many fish there are over there. But experiments that have been done, even by me, with small numbers, shows that fish can actually enumerate

up to about seven or eight other fish or indeed blobs on a screen. This really does strongly suggest that mathematics is not a human construct, which you often hear. It's a human construct. Astronomers often talk about, you know, could an alien civilization count or understand mathematics? But this strongly suggests that there's something clearly about number

that would be universal. Yeah. I mean, I think I would argue that. I mean, different species use numbers for different purposes. So fish use it to choose the largest shoal. It's a life-or-death decision, actually, sometimes. These things are things that animals have learned to survive though animals have evolved to process number different ways and same as humans that's how we get that but what i love about humans some of my some of my best friends are humans um is we've taken what

we were given from evolution but then where we've gone from number to maths is we've abstracted it and we've gone beyond what we can do naturally. And I would agree, I would say aliens, other intelligent organisms will have done the same thing. They will have discovered the same abstractions as we have. But it's the fact that we can now do things using maths, we have to start writing down numbers, which get us beyond what we could originally do.

I think that, for me, that's the phenomenal thing about mathematics. We've gone just beyond number, and we can do these incredible things with this abstract reasoning. There is something very... Oh, my God, the buffaloes are charging. Quick, work out Fermat's last theorem. Yeah, there is. Hannah, this is a debate, isn't it?

There's a sort of platonic school of maths, isn't there, which thinks that all mathematics is out there to be discovered rather than invented yeah yeah totally so um it's well it kind of goes back to to um you know what max was saying a second ago of like other aliens would have come up with the same abstractions as we have you know would they really have would they really have come up with the same ideas as we have and and this idea this is Plato's um Plato's idea that there is this perfect mathematical world right perfect circles perfect spheres perfect parallel lines everything is absolutely as mathematics wants it to be and all we're doing

is we're kind of tapping into that world right when we're doing mathematics we're doing the best that we can with kind of like you know our human flaws and sort of fumbling around and and coming up with language that that sort of approximates to that that perfect mathematical world and that's how we describe the universe and i think really i mean i you know this is actually a really sort of tough philosophical question of whether that perfect mathematical world really exists or whether actually all of this stuff is kind of just in our own minds is it like being a's like being a musician where some musicians will say I discovered a tune, I didn't write a tune, I discovered it. So if you look at Andrew Wiles for example, Fermat's last theorem, does he discover a proof or does he invent a proof? Is that proof out there?

Is there a set of proofs of Fermat's last theorem that any civilisation across the universe would have access to. So he says that it's discovered. He says that he very much discovered it. And he said, actually, in fact, you know, because it took him seven years, basically, working on his own to try and come up with this proof. He says that he always knew that it was out there and he just had to find it.

The answer was effectively out there. He was sort of searching around. And I think that, that actually when you talk to pretty much all professional mathematicians, they feel like this stuff is just too good to be a figment of our imagination. You take an equation and you try and break

it, you try and trick it, you try and get ahead of it, and you just can't. Because it knows where you're going to go before you get there. It is literally like discovery. But whether that's really what the universe looks like, I don't know, right? I mean, the things like, you know, zero, for example, which has been incredibly useful.

I mean, we can't imagine really having, like, a number system without the number zero. But whether nothingness actually exists in the universe, I don't know whether... I think it probably doesn't. Like, true nothingness. I mean, even in kind of deep space, there's always still something, right? Oh, the vacuum is fizzing with activity.

Yeah. The problem is, maths tries to find obscure, pure bits of mathematics, and then physics somehow finds a way. If you're unfamiliar with how physics works, you do experiments until you run out of theories, and then you pop over to the maths department and say, what have you guys got lying around recently? Oh,

matrices, 4D shapes, thanks. And then, so you think, you have this obscure bit of abstract mathematics, like higher dimensional shapes, and then a physics theory will come along, and just repurpose this bit of maths into such a glorious way, you're like, it would be a waste if the universe didn't use that incredible bit of maths i just love that image

though that that the physicists always find a use is this turns physicists into kind of junkyard scavengers just go what have you got there oh well i found the handles of a wheelbarrow half a basketball and a flip-flop i bet i'll'll find some use for it. Look, it's a collider. You know, there's something really to me. There's a great book by Kip Thorne, who's one of the great physicists, and he's just written a book called Modern Classical Physics. And in that line one is that physics

is geometrical relationships between geometrical objects. That's what it is. So that tells you there's a link between mathematics and nature, nature is geometric well on the brain element Brian I wanted to ask you about that this there are a lot of people who believe they don't have mathematical brains there are people who you know you get to a certain point in the education system where it seems to make sense and then there is sometimes just that single maths lesson where there's a new level of complexity where you properly get a kind of a brain freeze.

You just go, now, you've looked a lot into this, so this, you know, for those people who just feel that they... I'm just going to... I can't do maths. You know, how true is that in terms of, you know, hardware, software? What is going on there? Well, a lot of it's got to do with how appropriate your educational system is. So if you've got a bad maths teacher...

I had a bad maths teacher, so I was never very good at maths at school. I had to learn it sort of on the job when I became a scientist. So that's one reason. Also, we know that if you don't get much in the way of numerical experiences in your home, we did this study, then you start off at school as a disadvantage,

and the disadvantage might lead to a kind of vicious circle, so you're always falling behind, unable to do what the other kids can do. And so that's another reason why when the last straw comes, it's going to be the thing that stops you. But the stuff that is really the hardware problem is dyscalculia. And there's now quite good evidence that the part of the brain that deals with numbers is actually different in dyscalculics than in people who are not dyscalculic.

It looks as though we've got some evidence that there's a genetic component to this abnormality in what we call the intraparietal sulcus, a bit of the brain just above your left ear, actually sometimes of the right ear as well. So, you know, if you're born like this, it's going to be very difficult to do arithmetic. Now, I've met mathematicians, really well-known mathematicians, I won't mention any names, who I suspect are dyscalculic.

They really can't do calculations, numerical calculations. They're not in number theory. They're in things like geometry. And so, you know, they can... No, you don't think so. I don't know, we're both laughing because number theorists are the worst at adding.

Is that right? It's because they haven't defined it yet. Exactly. There are no rigorous axioms for splitting this restaurant bill. I don't know a single mathematician who would say that they were good at mental arithmetic. Not a single one. So they've survived school arithmetic

in order to get on with the stuff that they're really good at. And yes, you're right. The standard joke is, don't let a mathematician divide up the restaurant bill. So, yeah. This is tremendously interesting from the perspective of this show, because we started talking about numbers,

and really I think what you're saying is that there's a distinction between mathematics and numbers, which actually might be very deep indeed in that you can be a brilliant mathematician and not be able to add up yeah i've i've i say i might have met some who will be nameless i might tell you who they were after the show but um that's right i mean we've evolved as galileo said the language of the universe is written in mathematics. In order to succeed in the universe, any creature has to be able to extract numerical information from its environment.

And so we've evolved to extract that information, not only fish, which can do it, but even insects. There's some very nice cases of, for example, bees, some very beautiful work by, for example, bees. Some very beautiful work by Lars Chitgerd at Max University where he's shown that bees count landmarks between the hive and the food source in order to be able to find their way back to the hive. And ants may count their steps as well.

There's a very horrible experiment I'm not going to tell you about. But I just... You really know how to flirt with people, don't you? I may tell you the names of those mathematicians a little bit later on. There's something I know about ants, but I won't tell you now. I'm happy to tell you, but I just want to say one other thing. They're good at their six times table, but not

their five times table, is what you're saying, isn't it? Or their four times table, and so on. Well, if they're counting, let me just say this, if they're counting their steps, and if you like, they're multiplying the number of steps by the length of their leg, you can see how you can manipulate this particular process

by manipulating the length of their legs, I will say no more. But I just want to point out... And there the flirting ended. We're going to get letters. Is there an ant protection society? I just want to point out that there's one area where another creature is actually better than us at a numerical task.

And these are chimpanzees. Chimps are the champs when it comes to numbers. Chimps can learn the digits. And they can learn, for example, to match the digit 7 with 7 dots. I mean, there's not very many chimps that actually have this opportunity, but those that have had this opportunity can be very good at it. They also can learn the sequence of digits from 1 up to 10 or 12 even.

And so these chimps will know, for example, that 7 refers not only to an array of seven objects, but they will also know that seven is the digit after six and before eight. And what they can do better than us is that they can match digits to arrays of dots quicker and more accurately than we can do. But even more impressive is that at least one chimp, I mean when I say

chimps, I mean one chimp, this chimp called Ayumu trained by Tetsuro Matsuzawa in Japan. What this chimp can do is it can see a sequence of digits random on the screen say digits 1 to 9 on the

screen and then the digit positions are masked so it digits random on the screen, say digits one to nine on the screen, and then the digit positions are masked, so it can only see the positions, but it has to remember what's under those masks. And it can do this up to, with an exposure of 200 milliseconds, a fifth of a second, it can then touch those masks in the order of the numbers that were underneath them. And humans cannot do this. But one chimp can do that?

One chimp can do that. So chimps are better at humans than spotting numbers, but humans are better from extrapolating from a single data point. Good point. I want to pick up on what you said about ants, actually, because I think that ants are a really good example of how, actually, animals can often behave in very mathematical ways

that aren't necessarily to do with them counting. So ants, if you put... There's lots of experiments where you put ants in a maze, right? You put a food source at one end, the ants in at the beginning, and between them, they kind of strategize in this mathematically optimal way so they all go around and sort of walk around randomly um and then when one of them finds the food source they they sort of retrace their steps laying a different pheromone trail so the other ants can follow it and actually you know you can do these run these mathematical simulations which demonstrate that they're really sort of demonstrate that lots of other creatures

are acting in a mathematically optimal way. I think that goes back to what Brian was saying. Because I get annoyed when people say, if you catch a ball, you're solving quadratic equations. And you're like, well, you're not. You've learned to do that. But we can now show why that is how you catch a ball. And so I think there's animals doing maths,

but there's animals doing things incredibly well, and now we have the mathematics to explain and explore why that was the optimal solution that they ended up on. I like the fact that, because mathematicians, I've worked with a few of them, one thing's much like me, they're not great at sport, but I like the fact that they found out, oh, I might not be able to catch a ball,

but I can explain how you did. Now that, to me, is a great get-out clause. We've asked the audience a question. What do you think is the most terrifying number and why? Nine, because it's what that scary Angela Merkel always says to me. Theresa May. Oh, true. You see?

Yes. Seven, because it's the average life expectancy of a strawberry. That was from Andy. No. Have any of you ever listened to the Infinite Monkey Cage? This is four, because in Japanese, the sound of four is the same as death. Yes.

Not all punchlines, sometimes learning. I like this one. And ropinins, or ro-pine-ins, sometimes learning. I like this one. Ropinins. R-O-P-I-N. Spell R-O-P-I-N. Ropinins. Because it goes on forever without repeat. Yep.

42, because it's the meaning of life, and I haven't figured out what that is yet. 1997, because things did not get better. I don't get this one. Someone can explain this. 3.141592 because I'm gluten intolerant. Hi. Hi.

Hi. Does not compute brain. Oh, thank you, Mr Data, for reading the jokes. Thank you very much to our panel, Brian Butterworth, Matt Parker and Hannah Fry. Next week, we're asking, are humans still evolving? And if so, should they? Are we about to see the dawn of a new super being

with shiny hair and a brain the size of the planet? Or will humanity shrivel into a strange, bald creature in knitwear? And we'll also ask if I should have been more suspicious when Brian said, you pop out and get coffee, I'll just write a nice ending. Good night. Good night. Turned now nice again

This is the first radio ad you can smell The new Cinnabon pull apart only at Wendy's It's ooey gooey and just 5 bucks with a small coffee all day long Taxes extra at participating Wendy's until May 5th Terms and conditions apply In our new podcast Nature Answers Rural Stories from a changing planet,

we are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature. And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts.