talkmagic.co.uk

Recently Ive been doing a few mathamatical based effects in my routines. I admit that this type of magic is more suited to a parlour environment than say close up, but I feel that with the right pacing and patter they can be very effective.

Certainly there are many mathemagic based routines in older books, but nowadays it doesnt seem to get performed that often. Is there a reason for this? Is it just me that enjoys them?

Magic Squares and routines based around them especially fascinate me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Some example books are:-

Martin Gardner's books (Especially Mathematics, Magic & Mystery)

Simon Aronson has many great effects/books that utilise mathematical principles. "Try the Impossible" is probably one of the more mathematically based ones.

"Number...Please?" by Richard Busch. He also has an excellent stand alone close-up effect called "Mind over number"

"Mathemagic" by Royal Vale Heath

"Magic Squares" by Mark Farrar

'Mathematical Magic' by William Simon

John Scarne also has many nice mathematical effects in his books.

theres a section in "13 steps" about magic squares and such if i remember correctly??

I don't do it in my act but just to friends and family I love doing a version of the magic square (16 squares) and there are so many ways that the numbers add up to the chosen number its amazing. I even did it to my maths teacher when I was at school (aged 13) after he showed us a few 9 square versions I showed the class mine and it sort of stole his thunder. It blew him and the class away. he got really mad when he asked me how to do it and I wouldn't tell him. he even threatened me with a detention, but I still didn't tell em.

...to answer Bananafish...

I think the main reason that maths is not used so much in magic anymore is that perhaps it's become a little more of a 'trick' than a wow.

I have been compiling some mentalism stuff recently, and I have TOTALLY avoided the use of obvious mathematics for it... i.e. Pick a number, add 5, think of another etc...

My own reasons for this is that I believe spectators are not fooled by the finite and organised science of mathematics anymore. A trick involving mathematics is, in my opinion, always going to work. And therefore, it's not so much magical as much as clever.

I believe that for magic to BE magic, it has to be UN believeable. Science and it's mathematical relations are based on known quantities. A mathematical equation or calculation has a solution by nature, and therefore is not really something which may be considered 'amazing'.

However, tricks and effects which use mathematical principles but disguise them are becoming increasingly popular, it seems.

They are usually foolproof, and by nature of them being 'self-working' they can take place in the speccys hands.

By such tricks I am referring to gems such as the 'Will the Cards Match' type effects—whereas mathematics play a huge role, but in a rather back-seat manner.

I have to say, though, that I adore the old maths tricks. They are pub/party pieces.

I think the main reason that maths is not used so much in magic anymore is that perhaps it's become a little more of a 'trick' than a wow.

A lot of the time though the math can be hidden in the presentation. For example, if you draw out a grid of 4x4 numbers many people will be one step ahead of you and think Magic Square, and so softening the wallop of your climax.

However, for everyone that saw DB's show this year, they will know that he did a great Magic Square routine where he managed to hide the fact that it was a magic square and thus getting the tremendous climax it deserved. (don't we all).

So are you saying that math can be used, but it should just be part of the effect that is hidden to the spectator?

I think I will possibly go along with that, as for most people adding up numbers isn't being entertained, its a chore, but I still believe that sometimes the climax can be so great that it really makes it worthwhile.

Hi Banana fish and more friends!

I think that the “mathemagic” is good to use in first step the same tricks (or in extra resource), but NOT in all apresentation´s trick.

For example: The magician ask to specator think in three numbers, invert this numbers ... and after this operations, the result is 1089.

A-A bad performance: the magician tell the spectator the result number. In this case, 1089.

B-A good performance: the magician ask to spectator opened a book in page equal the result (1089), E the magician says with exactness, without seeing, the content of this page!

i think magic may be used to actually teach young children, like for example do a couler change so a 2 appears, then say 'add' change it to a 3, then say 'equals' change it to a 5. its an easy and more intresting way to teach basic math.

... and perhaps, using cards with words on such as "CAR", you could do a colour change to ADD a letter like a "D" or a "T" or an "S" and make "Cards, Cart or Cars"

Wow.

So, the same idea, Ben, could be used to teach spelling, perhaps grammar... as well as math??!?!?

Or perhaps you could have cards with little moral guidelines printed on them and....

...Oh, no, wait....perhaps that would be a little bit to advanced for preschool. Maybe save that for secondary learning.

I have a pdf of an alphabet/number deck if anybody needs one ?

Happy to pass it on, pm me if needed.

seige was you been sarcastic then, i cannot tell lol, i know i come accross as a idiot on the forum who sounds liek he thinks hes better than someone else but i am not i am not trying to be like it trust me so if its the case then sorry.

Karl Fulves has a self working book dedicated to number magic that is well worth a read

Karl Fulves has a self working book dedicated to number magic

That makes sense, Karl Fulves has a self working book on just about everything doesn't he?

I think there are distinctly two types of mathematically based magic tricks.

Type a) where part of the trick requires the audience to add/subtract etc.
Type b) where mathematics are used by the magician, hopefully unbeknown to the spectators.

I personally feel that they both have there place. I can see why some people would consider that the type-a effects could be considered more trickery than magic, and so they avoid them. However I still maintain that wth clever presentation and patter they can still become little miracles. As mentioned before, Derrens Magic Square climax is a very good example of this.

On the other hand, the type-b tricks I feel are nearly always very strong, as in theory the spectator isn't even aware of the involment of math. I was at a Paul Hallas lecture last night (review to follow), he he quite catagorically proved to me that some of the strongest magic can be math based. He did a few, my favourite was 43, but I will certainly be using some of his others.

As with anything else. It is the patter, presntation and subtleties that can make the simplest of tricks into the most miraculous. As another exasmple, check out Bob King's "impromptu stunner".

If you want to know a few more examples of the type-b genre of tricks I would have to recommend the Phil Goldstein book. "Redivider".

I will admit that i hardly use any mathematical tricks, but the ones that I would shy away from are those that rely on mathematical principles within the deck and hence involve dealing piles and gathering up cards and dealing them out again until the card is in a known position. This sort of thing has two points against it as far as I'm concerned; firstly the spectator is likely to get bored or remember that trick that their mate told them how to do about dealing the cards out until the selected one is the ninth card downin the third pile or whatever. The second is that there are far easier and cleaner ways to establish the identity of a card than that.

Apart from that I don't have any problems with mathematical effects except that I have always been so sleight happy that I have never bothered to learn any, in fact I have usually just skipped over the mathematical and selfworking sections in most basic card books. I think now would be a good time to dig a couple of them out and have a look.