Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts

"I was kind of, really mad, sort of... I was trying to think back, 'What did I miss? What did I do wrong?'"

That's what Abhinav Venigalla thought when he fell 10 points short of a perfect score on the math SAT, which he took in 7th grade as part of a part of a Johns Hopkins University competition.

Factor that into your thinking about teaching kids self-esteem.

A mathematical walk.

The Fibonacci chimes at the new Morgridge Center here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:



Some nerdy graffiti near the math buildings:

P1040917
(Enlarge.)

The courtyard at Sterling Hall:

P1040920

Van Vleck:

P1040924

The "Reform and Revolt" plaque:

P1040930

You can read the plaque here.

"Do the math."

Have you noticed no one says that anymore?

"The subject of pain is the business I am in. To give meaning and shape to frustration and suffering."

"The existence of pain cannot be denied. I propose no remedies or excuses."

Said the grand sculptor Louise Bourgeois, who, at 98, has arrived at last at that remedy for pain which no one ever needed to propose.

At the age of 20, she studied math: "I got peace of mind... only through the study of rules nobody could change."

She moved on to art:
"I have a religious temperament," Ms. Bourgeois, a professed atheist, said about the emotional and spiritual energy that she poured into her work. "I have not been educated to use it. I’m afraid of power. It makes me nervous. In real life, I identify with the victim. That’s why I went into art."

Grigory Perelman, math genius, living in a tiny apartment in St. Petersburg, doesn't want that $1 million prize.

Please take the prize, Dr. Perelman.
The mathematician is reported to have said "I have all I want".... speaking through the closed door of his flat.
He also turned down the Fields Medal:
"I'm not interested in money or fame," he is quoted to have said at the time.
"I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo. I'm not a hero of mathematics. I'm not even that successful; that is why I don't want to have everybody looking at me."
He seems to be so wrong, but he is so much smarter than we are. Should we not absorb his opinion with awe and respect?

"Wow, each tourist spends on average $212,083.33."

"Those are some rich tourists!"

Oh, now, now, it's a problem that Barack Obama understands. Please be quiet and let him solve it. It's only going to cost $100 million and nobody you care about will have to pay for it.

(Via Fark.)

"I was a brilliant math guy on Wall Street and I got out partly because of the 'math abuse'..."

"... I recognized that the mathematical complexity and sophistication of the models was completely wasted because of the stupidity of the underlying assumptions about economic behavior and the unreliability of the input data."

A comment by JoeShipman from yesterday's "Capitalism: A Love Story" post.

***

Several commenters knocked me for saying: "My favorite thing in the movie was the trashing of young math and science graduates who, instead of applying their talents to the benefit of humanity, went to Wall Street to design the complicated derivative securities that almost destroyed the economy. The closeup on an incomprehensible math equation was, for me, the most shocking image in the movie."

I wish I could get a screen shot of the equation shown in the movie. It's far more complicated that my critics are imagining. (More complicated than this.)

Why were people with such depth of mathematical skill using it this way? I guess the question answers itself. For the money. I agree with Michael Moore's disgust over the misapplication of intellectual work.

Now, Moore operates through cinematic technique not conventional rational argument. He's an entertainer and a polemicist, and complicated math can't be funny for long. It's interesting to see how he presents the stuff about the financial crisis. At one point, we see him sitting on a park bench next to a guy who tries to explain derivatives, and what's funny is the expression on Moore's face — we see in him what nearly all of us are thinking — I can't understand. And that generates a further emotional/political reaction: If I can't understand it, I'm worried that it's an evil scheme. Moore's cinematic "argument" works like that.

There will be math.

Yesterday, I said that, contrary to Arlen Specter's assertion, black people are not underrepresented on the Supreme Court. I noted the presence of Clarence Thomas, the fact that 1 is 11.1111 percent of 9, 2 is 22.2222 percent of 9, and that African-Americans make up 13.4% of the U.S. population.

In the comments, JackOfClubs defended Spector:
Technically, he's right since 11.11...% is less than 13.4%. To get an accurate representation, we would need 0.134 * 9 = 1.206 black people on the Court. This could be achieved if the next candidate were 13/64 = .203125 black, i.e. if 13 of his or her great-great-great-great grandparents were black and the other 51 were some other race. This approximation would be precise to the 2nd decimal place which is really all we can expect given that the original statistic of 13.4% is probably rounded. A slightly more precise approximation could be achieved by looking for someone 53/256 = .2070312 black, but that would just be silly.
More math satire, from Mike S:
The views of Blacks (13% of the population) are only under-represented on the court if they are on the LOSING end of an 8-1 or 9-0 decision. If they are on the losing end of 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4 decisions, or on the winning side of any decision, they are over-represented.

The views of whites (60% of the population), on the other hand, are under-represented if they are on the LOSING end of ANY decision.

Therefore, to be fair, all supreme court cases should be decided by a nationwide poll of white people.

"Options theory is kind of deep in some way. It was very elegant; it had the quality of physics."

Quants.
Seduced by a vision of mathematical elegance underlying some of the messiest of human activities, they apply skills they once hoped to use to untangle string theory or the nervous system to making money....

Asked to compare her work to physics, one quant, who requested anonymity because her company had not given her permission to talk to reporters, termed the market “a wild beast” that cannot be controlled, and then added: “It’s not like building a bridge. If you’re right more than half the time you’re winning the game.” There are a thousand physicists on Wall Street, she estimated, and many, she said, talk nostalgically about science. “They sold their souls to the devil,” she said, adding, “I haven’t met many quants who said they were in finance because they were in love with finance.”...

Given the state of the world, you might ask whether quants have any idea at all what they are doing....

Lee Smolin, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, who was one of the authors, said, “What is amazing to me as I learn about this is how flimsy was the theoretical basis of the claims that derivatives and other complex financial instruments reduced risk, when their use in fact brought on instabilities.”...

Quants say that they should not be blamed for the actions of traders. They say they have been in the forefront of pointing out the models’ shortcomings.

Quants! Scapegoats or devils?

Quants: scapegoats or devils?
Scapegoats
Devils
  
pollcode.com free polls
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...