One cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.

Our offense is like the pythagorean theorem: There is no answer!

You wouldn't think there was a need for a Coase Theorem, really.

I'm no enthusiast for the Coase Theorem. I don't like it, but it's widely used.

I realized that anything to do with Fermat's Last Theorem generates too much interest.

Indeed, it is a proven mathematical theorem that a doughnut is topologically distinct from a sphere.

To insure the adoration of a theorem for any length of time, faith is not enough, a police force is needed as well.

The analysis of variance is not a mathematical theorem, but rather a convenient method of arranging the arithmetic.

The Limbaugh Theorem was not about me giving me credit for something. It was simply sharing with you when the light went off.

I tend to regard the Coase theorem as a stepping stone on the way to an analysis of an economy with positive transaction costs.

But my shift to the serious study of economics gradually weakened my belief in Major Douglas's A+B theorem, which was replaced in my thought by the expression MV = PT.

The three discrete invariances - reflection invariance, charge conjugation invariance, and time reversal invariance - are connected by an important theorem called the CPT theorem.

No matter how correct a mathematical theorem may appear to be, one ought never to be satisfied that there was not something imperfect about it until it also gives the impression of being beautiful.

Science is the one culture that's truly global - protons, proteins and Pythagoras's Theorem are the same from China to Peru. It should transcend all barriers of nationality. It should straddle all faiths, too.

I think I have met nearly all the Laureates in Economics. Among the few I haven't met, I suppose I'd most like to meet Ronald Coase because of his legendary power to persuade his colleagues of the validity of the Coase Theorem.

I think critics tend to think that comedy is freakin' math. Like, this is the Pythagorean Theorem. They're not sophisticated enough to know that comedy is fluid, that it evolves, and these organic evolutions are what you have to embrace.

That is why one day I said my game will be like the Pythagorean Theorem - hard to figure out. A lot of people really don't know the Pythagorean Theory. They don't make them like me anymore. They don't want to make them like that anymore.

Words are the children of reason and, therefore, can't explain it. They really can't translate feeling because they're not part of it. That's why it bugs me when people try to analyze jazz as an intellectual theorem. It's not. It's feeling.

When somebody discovers something like the quadratic formula or the Pythagorean theorem, the convention in science is that he can't control that idea. He has to give it away. He publishes it. What's rewarded in science is dissemination of ideas.

I loved doing problems in school. I'd take them home and make up new ones of my own. But the best problem I ever found, I found in my local public library. I was just browsing through the section of math books and I found this one book, which was all about one particular problem - Fermat's Last Theorem.

I took a break from acting for four years to get a degree in mathematics at UCLA, and during that time I had the rare opportunity to actually do research as an undergraduate. And myself and two other people co-authored a new theorem: Percolation and Gibbs States Multiplicity for Ferromagnetic Ashkin-Teller Models on Two Dimensions, or Z2.

Share This Page