29 Mar 2001
=cough=
Lingering cough/cold is not fun (were you expecting something different?) In
an endearing show of solidarity, Livejournal is puking on me, so I thought I'd
come here, to the people who love me best -- those who want to read something
in an "ugly" plain old text format. I really don't have much going on right
now (the usual state of being for me) other than a realization that I should
put some =useful= Markov chain stuff up on the site, since so many people end
up here using some search with the word "Markov" in it. At the very least, I
should expand my links.
Since people are already arriving here on the following search terms, it
couldn't hurt if they hit this page as well:
high heel naked woman
wear glasses wedding
dangerous eye pics
calculate sin
yellow teeth because lack of enamel
all her teeth capped
squid dance
saw her having a pee
Markov chain sex stories
viagra signalling pathway
pictures of plutonium
how to make a hakoo
magical markov
Oh lord, I am so silly. I read "calculate sin" as well, calculate sin. As
opposed to =sine= which is what I think the person meant. Which reminds me of
one of the more egregious examples of math cluelessness I came across in a
Calculus class (remember, people in Calculus have to show =some= understanding
of precalc...):
sin(x)
----- = (well, let's just cancel out the x's) sin
x
sin, indeed.
What saddens me is that I really don't see mathematical understanding
improving beyond the idea that math is symbolic manipulation. Truthfully, I
wouldn't mind this as long as the manipulations are being done
=correctly=. Still, people keep thinking that adding these fancy-schmancy
calculators and the idea of math as problem-solving will improve the
situation. All that does is add =more= manipulations the students have to
learn -- as for problem-solving, students will still see the math part of the
problem as taking all the data one is given and manipulating it willy-nilly.
What makes these ponderings even sadder to me is that one of the sources of
the joy of mathematical play has disappeared; I am referring to the
Mathematical Recreations column in Scientific American - where Martin Gardner
amused thousands (and others helped along the way, as well, but Gardner was
the true genius of the column). This was math as a mental plaything, and I'm
not talking about stupid "Think of a number. Add two...." kind of "math
tricks". I'm talking about matchbox game-learning machines, thoughts on
minimalist and topologically interesting sculpture, patterns in music, curves
that can "roll", the handedness of the universe, and on and on and on. The
April 2001 issue of Scientific American has, in the place of this pondersome
column, a silly arithmetic puzzle involving balancing a very particular set of
weights on a 2-fulcrum see-saw. No question as to whether the problem is
always solvable; no question as to how the distance between the fulcrums
affect the answer (obviously, the farther apart the fulcrums, the more stable
the situation). No question as to why one might be considering such a
balancing problem. Argh! Give me the generating function for bowling scores
any day of the week over this snoozer!
I found a site that has the Paint by Numbers puzzles - it's from the magazine
that originated that fiendish logic puzzle in Japan. I still wish I could get
further books of the large puzzles like I found in Japan, but I couldn't find
them in KinoKuniya book store here in Manhattan, and I really don't know how
to find the damn things. Perhaps Amazon.com or bn.com have Japanese
sites. Still, what would the thing be called? The ones from Japan I have are
Illusto-Logic. Still, would I have to look it up in katakana or
romaji? I find it interesting that the puzzles I found (and still find) in
Japan are larger and more difficult than the ones sold in America. For crying
out loud, the U.S. is a larger country! Surely we have more people interested
in hard puzzles!
For some reason, I've been thinking about tombs. It's probably because of
where I had stopped in reading Inferno. I really need a good annotated
version of it, because of all the damned political references.
Well, this is certainly long enough for saying nothing.