Unfortunately, it is mathematically quite complicated to determine a precise formula to govern the behavior of a heating system which is both energy-efficient and heats the house quickly. Fuzzy math is aimed at exactly this issue: It provides a set of tools to find optimal solutions to problems by analyzing hybrids between several different alternatives.

Simply put, fuzzy arithmetic is the mathematics of compromise.

Armed with this knowledge, we can quite easily guess what Bush was driving at with his repeated comments about fuzzy math during the debate. Consider, for example, the issue of taxation. The non-fuzzy, black-and-white approach is to send the bulk of the money in our economy to one place, whereas the fuzzy solution is to attempt to spread wealth throughout society.

Thus, Bush is completely accurate in accusing Gore, whose proposed tax plan includes no cuts for families making over $300,000 per year, of fuzziness. In contrast, Bush's plan is strikingly unfuzzy: He believes that families earning $300,000 per year ought to receive a 9.7 percent tax cut, in spite of the widening disparity between the wealthiest and poorest Americans.

Moreover, although Bush only began to use the word "fuzzy'' recently, his record as governor of Texas demonstrates a long and storied history of unfuzzy policy decisions. For example, in the spring of 1999, he pushed a $2 billion tax cut through the Texas legislature, a move which he has often trumpeted as evidence of his opposition to taxation. In fact, this was a spectacular example of unfuzzy policy: The cut, which came mostly out of property and sales taxes, was directed straight at the wealthiest Texans, and was financed in part by a $250 million cut in the education budget, one of whose primary effects was the tabling of a proposal for free mandatory kindergarten for Texas children. Presumably Gore's proposed increases in spending on education, especially those which target public schools, some of which are attended by children from poor families, would also be labeled as fuzzy.

This is truly a ground-breaking moment in political history: It is the first time that a major candidate for the American presidency has used mathematics as a justification for a political philosophy.

My only confusion is why Bush, who is apparently opposed to all fuzziness, doesn't take these beliefs to their logical conclusion. Why should we tax the wealthy at all? And certainly, if we want to keep children from low-income families poor, it would be best to not educate them at all. We can only hope that Bush will gradually iron out these inconsistencies in his agenda, so that eventually, if he becomes president, only Texan oil billionaires will be able to feed their children. Until this happens, we are reduced to surmising where exactly Bush's philosophy of unfuzzy politics will take him.