That’s so true.
I’m collecting her mathematical works of art. After I have enough, I might publish them.
How do these sound for titles?
Ladders Out of Limbo: Saint Mary’s Escape Routes from Geometric Purgatory
From Abomination to Algebra: Saint Mary’s Progressive Solutions to Parochial Problems
These kinda have a Notre Dame du Lac, math goddess tone to it.
Mr. BB, the essence of your arrogant, mind-numbing dumbness and blarney permeates any environment you visit. You may have recognized a chimp, but there are no chimp footprints here. We chimps prefer to travel in trees, and we rarely leave footprints.
The big footprints belong to a gorilla. The small turkey footprints in the mud are yours, and the veiled and unveiled stupidity is yours and yours alone.
Rom had a wrong assumption and because of that assumption he gave a partial solution (although the final answers were correct).
You are full of Bullshit!
Rom made an assumption and it was correct. He gave a partial solution because he wants the student to learn from this and not just parrot answers. Now the student knows more about how and when to apply the Taylor series. Applying a complex process to simple questions is an optimal way to learn the rote mechanics.
The Taylor series isn’t a “complexification,” it’s actually a simplification. The Taylor series gives an analytical understanding to paradoxical mathematics such as those found in Zeno's paradoxes. This makes complex problems less complex, not more complex.
Thank you! That makes a big banana-boat load of sense!
The probability of their occurrence is higher than the final observable count.
While this seems to the case for elements selected from a single (dependent) set, when elements are selected from independent sets, such as “pick 3” lottery based questions, the probability directly reflects the enumeration, when a player “boxes” (permutes) a selection where (2) of the numbers are the same.
Dissection of the statistical processes clearly shows why duplicate numbers require division to calculate the probability of success.
Your analysis of a dependent set shows why duplicate numbers require multiplication to calculate the probability of success.
Hi Melody, how do you justify this statement?
“Of course if you were doing it for a probability question then some of these combinations are more likely to occur than others.”
Why would a question seeking a probability solution change the enumeration, that is make some combinations more likely to occur?
We chimps do have powerful jaws and big mouths. This is handy for cracking tough nuts and keeping our hands free while foraging. I’ll try keep the mouthful to a minimum.
There is an instinct to give cautionary warnings to children to “be careful” while playing. When children are playing with math and science, a general warning should always be “Do not embrace the philosophies of the brain-dead and intellectually disturbed.” It’s OK to entertain yourself and others with this drivel, but embracing it will alter your perception of reality and make it easier to accept the next cup-full of drivel. (ML appears to have embraced this.)
Rosenfeld’s delivers his preposterous postulates with all the undertones of “The Emperor's New Clothes.” That is, you are stupid or incompetent if you don’t see this this as fact. There is not a hint of sarcasm; so he’s either a fool of fools, or a troll attempting to making a fool of everyone. He did a good job. Many adults on that Youtube post embrace his theory, including the original poster of the video--who is not a mathematician, but a service provider for real estate investors. (I’d not be inclined to employ his services.)
This math question (if it could be called that) is BS! There is enough ambiguity to give credence to several answers, or to none. There is no consensus among mathematicians (professional or amateur) for a correct solution. (There is a consensus for what isn’t a solution.)
While the question is plain BS, the solution you posted in #19 is pure BS!
This is one line.
This is another line.
You get it right.
Only the bottom line counts.
What makes the final line valid and the lines above it invalid? Does the multiplication sign or the zero have magical powers? It seems that it does.
This incredibly incompetent bullshit comes from a YouTube post by user Jack Rosenfeld stating:
“Having a cousin as a math teacher confirmed what I already knew. The only ‘legitimate’ equation in the problem is LINE 3. LINES 1&2 are meaningless and obviously put there to trick or confuse potential problem solvers. Nowhere in the example does it even IMPLY that all 3 lines must be used to obtain an answer, therefore the obvious solution is ‘2’, as follows 1+(1×0)+1=2. Math is simply nothing but logic and you can’t ASSUME things that aren’t stated. End of story.”
One clear warning sign for incompetence is the use of arbitrary (emotional) reasoning veiled in flawed logic.
His logic is chaotic and contradictory. He tells us not to assume things that aren’t stated, but it seems to be OK to ignore things that are. “Math is nothing but logic,” but nothing he writes is consistently logical. This contagious batshit incompetence is confirmed by a math teacher.
Well, that certainly “ends the story” for me! This seal of approval is second only to that of the God(s) of Math. I’m so overwhelmed and awed by this intellectual brilliance that I’m going to shed my genetic enhancement and return to the trees of my ancestors.
An important theme to remember while studying and learning mathematics (or any subject) is there are many more wrong answers than correct answers. Part of the learning process is to recognize and repel stupid and dumb. Repelling this will help to keep you from embracing it.