I was undecided as to where to post this: the question I pose is relevant to many members of our community, yet my personal interest in the question is related to mathematics... For this reason I chose this area of the forum. Before getting to the question itself, here is some background information...

Across Britain the government are encouraging universities to boost the number of students applying for mathematics/science degrees. As a part of this, public engagement in the sciences is being well funded, and there is a boom in science shows, etc. I do not personally get this funding, however, I am interested in how I can motivate people to study mathematics using magic/performance, and I regularly take part in events aimed at school students, and also events aimed at disillusioned undergraduates.

The message I aim to give my audiences is: mathematics is a creative art... not just a science. My way of justifying this is that mathematics lends itself to unusual applications in magic. But at this point I hit a difficulty. To prove this claim to my audiences, I must expose methods used by magicians, which goes somewhat against the "magicians code"!

So here's the question: should we forego our pride in keeping secrets, to educate our audiences?

As an example, I currently explain the properties of the faro shuffle after performing Paul Gertner's Unshuffled. Note: if performing a magic show I do not explain it, but performing at a science event I do... I do not explain how the relevant card is forced but I do explain the unexpected properties of the faro, as well as how that produces the writing patterns.

On the other hand, Arthur Benjamin performs feats of lightening calculation, without any need of giving explanations. In his case he need not give any explanations as audiences simply believe he has dedicated his life to developing his skills. My personal approach, however, is to display mathematics which uses no numbers: proving to students that the arithmetic that they all hate is not what mathematics is all about... but to relate this back to mathematics relies on some level of exposure

I hope that my post has been clear (though not concise... I need to work on that), the question is something I have debated for a long time as I am torn between my role as a promoter of science, and as a magician who keeps his secrets!

Owen

That seems about the right balance to me. Frankly, even most magicians who faro won't know most of the principles you'll be discussing. And who knows, maybe you'll stumble across the next Alex Elmsley, Persi Diaconis, or Alan Ackerman.

I'm glad you are concerned!!!!!! We need more thought in this area.

There ar emany ways to educate with out exposing. The idea is to get them thinking artisticly and creatively, not handing them answers or secret

I have many effects I can do over the phone. I thought of doing a remote presentation to a math class to show them just what could be accomplished with invisible mathematics.

Mindpro.

I'm not sure that your answer is adressing the situation I am talking about, if it is then I apologize for misunderstanding.
I am interested specifically in the case of exposure to teach mathematics. Many "mathematics performers" are employed to perform magic for audiences that uses mathematical principles, so as to demonstrate that mathematics can be fun, interesting, and applied in diverse ways. The catch is, if I do not expose any of the methods, then whilst I may be enthusing them about magic, I'm not actually educating them about maths... or even justifying how it is relevant to the act (hence I won't be employed again by that school/university).

Mathematical magic is one of the most exposed areas of our art: Martin Gardner's columns (and now books) often taught magic tricks to his audience (of scientists... not magicians), and similarly papers are published in the academic community about the Kruskal count, lightning mathematics demonstrations, and others. On top of this, many respected members of our community blog about mathematical magic, and these are commonly aimed at either university students/staff, or school pupils. Most recently Persi Diaconis and Ron Graham wrote a magic book intended for the public teaching mathematical magic.

So in all, maths magic is heavily exposed, which I am happy with: I believe magic is a great way to enthuse people about mathematics, and at the undergraduate level it can provide a tangible hook on which to hang some abstract ideas.



I'd be interested in hearing some of your thoughts on this, as I agree that if we can motivate this area maths/magic without exposure then that would be brilliant. However I think that this becomes harder if one is not performing lightning calculation feats, or anything to do with numbers.

Owen