That's the 900 year old Bayeux Tapestry just arrived in the Freight Warehouse, ready for transporting to the British Museum for display. I had a sneak preview and it's absolutely magnificent.
Below is a story about a young woman who wants to marry a rich man, J.P. The following is the text of a letter allegedly sent to Morgan's CEO, James Dimon:
“Dear Mr. Morgan, I will be honest with you. I am turning 25 this year. I am very beautiful, have good style, and I like quality things. I want to marry a man with an annual income of at least $500,000 or more.
You may think I am greedy, but in New York, people with an annual income of $1 million are unfortunately considered middle class. I am not asking for too much.
Do you have anyone in your area with an annual income of $500,000 or more? Are you all married? I am curious about these things and would like to ask, what do I need to do to marry wealthy people like you?
The wealthiest man I have been with so far earned $250,000 a year. For someone who wants to live in high-end residences on the west side of Central Park, $250,000 a year is not enough. I humbly ask you;
1) Where do wealthy singles hang out?” (Please write down the names and addresses of places like bars, restaurants, gyms, clubs, etc.)
2) Which age category should I focus on?
3) Why are most wealthy men's wives only of average beauty? I met a few girls; they weren't beautiful or attractive, but they were able to marry wealthy men.
4) How do you decide who can be your wife and who can only be your girlfriend? My goal is to get married. What should I do to be able to marry a wealthy man?”
Sincerely”
James Dimon's supposed response to a young woman asking how to find a rich husband was as follows:
“Dear Miss Beautiful, I read your letter with great interest. I imagine there are many young women asking the same questions as you.
Please allow me, as a professional investor, to analyze your situation. My annual income is over $500,000, which fits your criteria, so I hope I am not wasting your time.
From a businessman's point of view, marrying you is a bad idea. The reason is very simple, please allow me to explain.
Leaving aside the details, what you are trying to do is to trade ‘beauty’ for ‘money’: Person A provides the beauty, and Person B pays for it, quite fair.
But there is a fatal problem here; your beauty will fade, but my money will not run out unless there is a good reason.
In fact, my income may increase year after year, but you cannot become more beautiful year after year. Therefore, from an economic point of view, I am an appreciating asset while you are a depreciating asset. And not just an ordinary depreciation, but an exponentially increasing depreciation.
If beauty is your only asset, your value It will be much lower in 10 years.
To use a term we use on Wall Street, we could call it a ‘swap position’ for you, not ‘buy and hold.’
Buying you isn’t a good idea, so I’d prefer to rent. Because holding onto something that’s losing value for a long time isn’t wise at all. Of course, the same applies to the marriage you want.
If what I’ve written sounds cruel to you, consider this: if I lost all my money, wouldn’t you leave me? Similarly, if you lose your beauty, shouldn’t I also find a way out?
People with an annual income of over $500,000 aren’t stupid; we’ll only date you, but we won’t marry you. I suggest you forget the idea of marrying a rich man. By the way, you could be that rich person earning $500,000 a year. Because earning that much money is more likely than finding a rich fool. CEO J.P. Morgan”
In the early days of commercial airline travel, David Hilbert (1862–1943) was invited to a certain university to give a lecture. He was told to speak on any subject that suited his fancy.
He announced that he would speak on “The Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.” Certainly his prospective audience was enchanted and thrilled, because no proof of this famous theorem was known to exist. It is safe to say that the event was much anticipated.
The great day arrived, and the room was packed. Hilbert delivered his lecture, but it had nothing whatever to do with Fermat’s last theorem. Afterward, someone had the temerity to ask why the great man had chosen a title that had nothing at all to do with the subject matter. “Oh,” said Hilbert. “That was just in case the plane went down.”
Source: Mathematical Apocrypha Redux by Steven G. Krantz
Fermat dies in 1665 - his last theorem is unsolved
↓
⏳88 y
↓
Euler proves it for n=3
↓
⏳72 y
↓
Legendre & Dirichlet prove it for n=5
↓
⏳14 y
↓
Lamé proves it for n=7
↓
⏳69 y
↓
Wolfskehl offers prize for solution in the next 100 years
↓
⏳86 y
↓
Wiles proves it 🎉