So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

Can't you just download the past paper for that exam if you really want the answer and formula?

Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

No wonder you can't solve the problem, you only included half of the information that was given in the test problem. The key part you're missing is that there are six orange sweets. Once you have that piece of information it's all just trivial algebra that anyone should be able to do very quickly. So:

Probability of two orange = (6/N) * (5/N-1) = 1/3

30 / (N^2-N) = 1/3

N^2 - N = 90

N^2 - N - 90 = 0

If the actual math problem is really a big deal on twitter, not the half-complete one you posted, then it's a sad comment on the state of math education.

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

That's not a starting point, it's a completely broken attempt that has nothing to do with the actual problem. You've assumed the thing you're trying to prove and solved for the exact value of N, when you're supposed to demonstrate that the final equation (N^2 - N - 90 = 0) follows from the initial information (how many sweets and the probability of two orange ones).

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

The usefulness of a topic is the reason I changed my Major from History to Intelligence. The only jobs I could find for a history degree was .........teaching history.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

A lot of these internet meme math problems are order of operations games which can be important depending on how you handle them.

That said, I use probability and statistics every day in my career.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

The usefulness of a topic is the reason I changed my Major from History to Intelligence. The only jobs I could find for a history degree was .........teaching history.

You could flip burgers too. I hear a lot of History majors do that.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

The usefulness of a topic is the reason I changed my Major from History to Intelligence. The only jobs I could find for a history degree was .........teaching history.

You could flip burgers too. I hear a lot of History majors do that.

LOL your getting history majors confused with Psychology and Philosophy majors.

I have 3 buddies who have BA's in Psych or Philosophy and none of them have jobs utilizing those degrees.

If the actual math problem is really a big deal on twitter, not the half-complete one you posted, then it's a sad comment on the state of math education.

Education here in general really isn't great. Schools are focussed far more on rankings than they are on the quality of education, and teachers face increasing pressure to simply ensure passes rather than encourage pupils. Of course, As and A*s are valuable, but if the system hasn't changed since I was at High School, only a select few classes will be taught to the degree required to achieve them. For our GCSE years, we were split into sets ranging from top-set, to bottom-set, and each was taught in line with their predicted grades. Top-set classes were taught more advanced maths, because they were almost assured passes. Lower-set classes were taught the maths required for them to pass, resulting in the top one or two sets getting a better grounding in the subject, but the lower sets getting a higher chance of passing.

Since the question in... question, was noted by the exam board as being of A-A* difficulty, it's easy to imagine that a LOT of pupils would not have received the education necessary to complete it, simply because in the time it'd take to attempt to teach them more complex maths they might not understand, they could instead have been taught how to get a solid C or B. I wasn't taught a lot of what some of my friends in higher-set maths were taught, but I was taught the required maths for me to at least pass, and as long as you pass, the school couldn't give less of a damn about you.

The backlash over social media would almost certainly reflect the disbelief of those in lower sets, and given how it was a top-tier difficulty question, I'm not surprised that so many people complained. It's incredibly likely that they were never taught--at least sufficiently--how to complete the problem.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

The usefulness of a topic is the reason I changed my Major from History to Intelligence. The only jobs I could find for a history degree was .........teaching history.

Isnt't that the point though?

Why else would you Major in History unless you were planning on teaching it.

I actually was seriously contemplating, pursuing PHD in History with the plan on teaching, until I saw how much money Teachers made.

So I went engineering instead. I make a lot of money, but my heart really is in History.

GG

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

It may not be useful to you, but college level math teachers have to use it everyday!

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

The usefulness of a topic is the reason I changed my Major from History to Intelligence. The only jobs I could find for a history degree was .........teaching history.

Isnt't that the point though?

Why else would you Major in History unless you were planning on teaching it.

I actually was seriously contemplating, pursuing PHD in History with the plan on teaching, until I saw how much money Teachers made.

So I went engineering instead. I make a lot of money, but my heart really is in History.

GG

A history major for me is leading into a Masters in Library and Information Science.

I would absolutely hate to teach history, but the major helped me develop my researching and critical thinking skills, along with improving my ability to write. You'd be amazed at how many college level graduates were still stuck with the 5 paragraph essay formula.

 Peregrine wrote:

If the actual math problem is really a big deal on twitter, not the half-complete one you posted, then it's a sad comment on the state of math education.

The issue people seem to have is that the test was much more difficult than expected, and that it was game like; with that question being used as an example.

 infinite_array wrote:
You'd be amazed at how many college level graduates were still stuck with the 5 paragraph essay formula.

Writing is one of the single most underdeveloped skills in America. Being able to communicate effectively with others using the written word is a massive plus in any industry, especially now that so much is done by way of SMS and email.

You would be surprised how often you have the opportunity to use advanced math in real life if you knew how to use it. I use it frequently and can figure out things which lead to a greater understanding of my world and things around me because of it.

The question on the test was 7th grade math. That is when I took basic fractions and algebra. That question is entry level algebra, and they gave you the damn answer, so all you had to do is "show your work." That is all they wanted... Is proof of understanding of the process.

The reason people lack higher math is they never learned basic math. Memorizing math facts is not learning math. Memorizing times tables up to 10 doesn't teach you math and doesn't lay foundations for understanding. And when they try to teach math "the right way" ignorant parents cry on social media about how the tests make no sense... "Why can't they ask my genius offspring what 5*4 is and give him an A? Why does he have to show method and prove he knows what 5*4 is?"

I thank my lucky stars for my extensive math knowledge every day, and it gives me an advantage in literally every walk of life because of it.

Solving the initial problem:

There were N sweets to start.
Removing 1 Orange sweet leaves N-1 sweets in the bag.
Remaining sweets are 1/3 Orange. O/(N-1) = 1/3

3O = N-1
N = 3O + 1

N(1) = 4
N(2) = 7
N(3) = 10
...

The problem as presented is indeterminate, but we can validate for N(O-3):

10*10 - 10 = 90
100 - 10 = 90
90 - 90.

There is a piece of information missing in the way that the question is presented.

Seems no worse than many of the A-A* level questions I've seen before.

The way maths exams are structured, not every student is expected to be able to answer every question, otherwise everyone would achieve an A*.

 Deadshot wrote:


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours

The problem there is that most accountants are not actually that good at maths. The maths needed to be an accountant is primary school level. My wife is an accountant and I work with accountants every day.

The BBC have done a good video showing how to solve this. It is actually pretty simple once you see what you need to do. Nothing to do with Probability, in other words.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33017299

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Nothing to do with Probability, in other words.

Well, you do have to know a bit of basic probability (the probability of two outcomes both happening is the probability of the first times the probability of the second) to set up the equation. If you don't know that you're never going to get it.

Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

I read a good analogy the other days. It's like all those exercises footballers have to do, such as stepping rapidly in hoops, kick-ups and so on. None of these are ever used in a real game, but they build up the kind of skills that are needed. Maths problems are like that.

I remember an article in WD a few years back, where somebody was using trigonometry to calculate his cannon shots for his Empire army.

I decided to re-learn it myself, for when I used my own Empire force. This was back when you had to guess the range.

Never stopped my cannons from mis-firing, though

Here's another maths question:

In the UK, if you want to win the lottery jackpot, you have to pick 6 numbers from 1-49, and match all 6 that are drawn, in order to win the jackpot.

I remember seeing somebody calculate the odds,, which impressed me, and I'm sure it went like this: 49x48x47x46x45x44 = whatever

Is that the correct way for calculating the odds? I can't really remember.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Nothing to do with Probability, in other words.

Well, you do have to know a bit of basic probability (the probability of two outcomes both happening is the probability of the first times the probability of the second) to set up the equation. If you don't know that you're never going to get it.

I meant it doesn't use any probability equations.

Chance of the first sweet being orange is X/n.
Chance of the second sweet being orange, assuming the first is orange, is (X-1)/(n-1).
Multiply together to get total probability of 1/3

(X/n) x [(X-1)/(n-1)] = 1/3

We know X=6

(6/n) x [5/(n-1)] = 1/3
Multiply the brackets
30/(n²-n)=1/3
Flip it
(n²-n)/30=3
Solve
n²-n=90
n²-n-90=0

To those saying that this sort of maths has no use in life, I say that that is unfortunate view of life and a negative message to send to today's youth. A basic understanding of maths opens up great opportunities that you will have never have even considered possible.
I can understand this being an A grade question, but it isn't difficult.

@Do_I_Not_Like_That
At a guess it would be (6/49)x(5/48)x(4/47)x(3/46)x(2/45)x(1/44) = your odds.
The order of the balls being drawn doesn't matter, so the first is 6/49, whereas the last on is definitely 1/44.
So (6*5*4*3*2)/(49*48*47*46*45*44)=720/10,068,347,520=1/13,983,816
Always heard it was 1 in 14 million, so I guess this is right.

(just noticed Peregrine solved it ages ago, whoops)

Math is vastly overrated and 90% of more of what you learned at school is dead weight. You need basic algebra and having a firm knowledge of basic statistical math is useful, but other than that, unless you talk about specific jobs, you don't need much more. While on the other hand, math that actually /matters/ is widely neglected at school in favor of useless trash math. It's sad to see how many students can't solve basic % exercises yet school curriciula aim at trash math.

Math is vastly overrated and 90%

I work in industry (Power) and I can gurantee you math is not over rated. What do you think your powergrid works on? Wizards?
Try doing even a basic power calculation and you'll see why math is important

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I read a good analogy the other days. It's like all those exercises footballers have to do, such as stepping rapidly in hoops, kick-ups and so on. None of these are ever used in a real game, but they build up the kind of skills that are needed. Maths problems are like that.

This.

I like do lots of puzzles when I've got nothing else on. I'm currently addicted to cryptic crosswords. On face value there's no connection to my job (fixing aircraft). But underneath, the skills that are encouraged through lateral thinking, as well as being able to form strong logical connections, help me out on a daily basis. It also helps me to recognise the skills in my juniors that need developing.

GCSEs are back? I thought those were done away with

 Ratius wrote:

Math is vastly overrated and 90%

I work in industry (Power) and I can gurantee you math is not over rated. What do you think your powergrid works on? Wizards?
Try doing even a basic power calculation and you'll see why math is important

The key to a lock that secures a shed filled with excavating tools is of little importance to the general public. I am well aware of the importance of math in various areas as well as mine - I absolutely need math every day, even if tools usually do most of the job. I just don't make the mistake of thinking that because it's important for me, it suddenly becomes important for the general public. That'd be a lie. Most people only need basic math and that should be the focus of every education system. If a student knows how to calculate the distance between a circle and its tangent, but struggles with quickly solving simple % problems, then the system has failed. Useful math must be prioritized and unless all basic and actually useful math is safe, then throw some less useful math in and see where it sticks.

I hate math...
Worst of all, the kind of things I want do to later don't require math at all, so it is completely useless to me. I don't get why it is a mandatory subject. Especially because the kind of math they teach you in school has no practical applications whatsoever, it is just all theoretical.
If I would want to, I could probably solve the above problem, altough it does seem to be a difficult one. Usually, I can usually solve that kind of problem with little difficulty, but at the same time I can't even do multiplications or divisions quickly without a calculator. That is how sad math education is over here. I strongly agree with Sigvatr that math in schools should focus more on basic, practical problems, with higher mathematics as optional course for those who need it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

Social sciences rely heavily upon statistical tests, many of which involve calculus. While you're still in college, it would benefit you greatly to invest your time in learning math. The softer your science, the more math you need to try to substantiate your claims.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Math is vastly overrated and 90%

I work in industry (Power) and I can gurantee you math is not over rated. What do you think your powergrid works on? Wizards?
Try doing even a basic power calculation and you'll see why math is important

The key to a lock that secures a shed filled with excavating tools is of little importance to the general public. I am well aware of the importance of math in various areas as well as mine - I absolutely need math every day, even if tools usually do most of the job. I just don't make the mistake of thinking that because it's important for me, it suddenly becomes important for the general public. That'd be a lie. Most people only need basic math and that should be the focus of every education system. If a student knows how to calculate the distance between a circle and its tangent, but struggles with quickly solving simple % problems, then the system has failed. Useful math must be prioritized and unless all basic and actually useful math is safe, then throw some less useful math in and see where it sticks.

I think the real point is that all jobs that require a college degree also require a more-than-basic understanding of math. Each job and each profession has different math problems that are advanced and need to be solved routinely, but are unimportant to the company next door. Students aren't really prepared for jobs where the only math necessary is fairly basic. Why would they be? If you were to do that, you would run out of material in two weeks anyway, and then you could move on to the advanced math again. So maybe that is the real problem, that students aren't taught the basic math enough. And that I agree with. I've had a teacher tell me this exactly: "I let them do it with a calculator because it's may job to teach algebra and not how to do multiply. I have to teach them algebra or I fail so I let them use a calculator and they multiply things like 5*0 and they write down the answer and I hope they figure it out on their own but I can't spend time teaching them."

There are a lot of problems with every education system. Students need a lot of things, including attention and more study for basic math. For instance, the distance between a circle and its tangent is, by definition, zero, unless you're talking about the distance between another point on the tangent and the circle, in which case you're talking about curvature, which is basic math. Curvature is immensely useful to me so I consider it basic, useful math. But then again I'm a PhD so my opinions on math are already pretty skewed.

This threatens the future of mathhammer. Something must be done immediately


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS I can post another interesting puzzle, do you want to see it?

The probability is 50%, either the sweet is orange or it isn't.

 Peregrine wrote:
No wonder you can't solve the problem, you only included half of the information that was given in the test problem. The key part you're missing is that there are six orange sweets. Once you have that piece of information it's all just trivial algebra that anyone should be able to do very quickly. So:

Probability of two orange = (6/N) * (5/N-1) = 1/3

30 / (N^2-N) = 1/3

N^2 - N = 90

N^2 - N - 90 = 0

If the actual math problem is really a big deal on twitter, not the half-complete one you posted, then it's a sad comment on the state of math education.

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

That's not a starting point, it's a completely broken attempt that has nothing to do with the actual problem. You've assumed the thing you're trying to prove and solved for the exact value of N, when you're supposed to demonstrate that the final equation (N^2 - N - 90 = 0) follows from the initial information (how many sweets and the probability of two orange ones).

Oh! Thanks Perry, I got really confused on this. That second piece is key to the problem.

Yeap, I thought I had typed 6 orange sweets. 1am + phone keypad is bad sometimes.

On top of the failure to provide necessary information, your attempt to paraphrase the question also changed its meaning. You said "Hannah takes one orange sweet out", but this is not equivalent to "Hannah takes at random one sweet from the bag." According to what you said, there would have to be 16 sweets, not 10, because there is a 100% chance that she took an orange sweet the first time, followed by a 5/15 chance she took an orange sweet the second time.

The question is easy to solve (for me) but the answer is to show the working out and prove it for me this is hard. Strange as it seems i can answer equations but not show workings in any depth. Which means in this case i wont get the marks.
And probibility wasnt in my gcse's 25 years ago at all.

Probability wasn't in my O-Levels either, but it was in my business course.

Most maths that people use won't get used again after highschool, that's true. But familiarity with formulas, and knowing how to take problems and set them out in mathematical formulas, even just in a non-formal sense is essential to a hell of a lot of office jobs. And the only way to develop that kind of familiarity is through years and years of different kinds of math equations.

What's funny about the "you'll never use this" argument is that the problem in the OP is the kind of math that you do very frequently when trying to evaluate units/strategies in a game like 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
What's funny about the "you'll never use this" argument is that the problem in the OP is the kind of math that you do very frequently when trying to evaluate units/strategies in a game like 40k.

That is the funny side, the tragic side is there are probably dozens of opportunities to use higher level math in their daily lives, but due to their math illiteracy, they don't see it and pretend they don't need it to get buy when they are literally stumbling over math-related issues all the time and are too uneducated to realize.

The line where someone was like "If you need to do math, have an intern do it" is hilarious, until that Intern learns to do YOUR job AND can do math and replaces you.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

Social sciences rely heavily upon statistical tests, many of which involve calculus. While you're still in college, it would benefit you greatly to invest your time in learning math. The softer your science, the more math you need to try to substantiate your claims.

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

And you're useless as an employee if you don't understand the math behind what you're doing. Blindly entering stuff into math software can work as long as you don't make any mistakes, but if you don't understand how the math software works then you aren't going to recognize mistakes when things don't go perfectly or you have to deviate from the step-by-step formula of button pressing.

That attitude (SPSS can do the maths for me) is the hallmark of a terrible scientist. In fact I would hesitate to call someone with that attitude a scientist at all.

How do you know which analysis is appropriate for your data, and what the analysis models? These are not trivial questions. When collecting data and designing studies they need to be considered and require a deep knowledge of the fundamentals of statistics, or you are likely to draw the wrong conclusions from data which is in any case useless.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

Social sciences rely heavily upon statistical tests, many of which involve calculus. While you're still in college, it would benefit you greatly to invest your time in learning math. The softer your science, the more math you need to try to substantiate your claims.

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

Hahaha, SPSS and SAS are used across tons of industries, even where you think it wouldn't be, and if you don't understand the formulas being run, you potentially are putting out trash results. In fact, that is why we hire PHDs to design the testing, analyze the results and verify the authenticity of the output...

Hotsauceman1, You are a child without even a college education and you speak with such authority like you know everything... College is where you should be opening your mind and learning as much as you can, not spending your energy building brick walls around your brain entrenching your biases and solidifying your ignorance. To be discounting Math based upon 'nothing' in your limited life experience path so far is a waste of your college tuition...

And since the next 20 years of your life are going to be enslavement to your college loans, know what helps manage money, build wealth and beat 'the system' which keeps people poor and in debt? A Deep Understanding of how money works... IE: MATH.

Everyone of our Graduates starts on hand calcs for power equations, stress tests, civil works calcs (load bearings etc)
If you havent mastered them when your professional engineer review takes place, you arent kept on.

 Da Boss wrote:
That attitude (SPSS can do the maths for me) is the hallmark of a terrible scientist. In fact I would hesitate to call someone with that attitude a scientist at all.

How do you know which analysis is appropriate for your data, and what the analysis models? These are not trivial questions. When collecting data and designing studies they need to be considered and require a deep knowledge of the fundamentals of statistics, or you are likely to draw the wrong conclusions from data which is in any case useless.

A Scientist designs the statistical models, implements the formulas, and analyzes the output.

A Lowly Paid data entry slob stuffs data into SPSS... Or if you have a good programmer, that slob is replaced with a script which can reformat input on the fly and pull in data to avoid the need for harmonization via human input.

One of those positions requires extensive math, and the other one can be made functionally obsolete with extensive math.

Oh, I can do the math, I know how to. I got the book right next to me for what I use. I cant do it right off my head.

A few months ago I had a snag concerning torque on a tube. We had to do a lot of maths. The development team rejigged the formulas we were using to make it "easier" for us. As soon as they did that everything started failing.

I had to prove to them, showing my workings, where they had gone wrong. The torque sum was allowed an error of 1.5%, the development team's sum mistakenly only allowed 1.5 of the total torque (roughly 0.7%). But because the team had re-written the formula and hidden most of the information, the only way to discover the mistake and prove it was by breaking the formula down in a way similar to the OP's question.

If we had blindly used the formulas provided to us, just inputting numbers, we would have never solved the problem. By understanding what I consider to be basic maths we resolved a real world (not theoretical) problem.

New entrants to my job only require a GCSE grade C in maths - this is not high level college/university grade stuff.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Oh, I can do the math, I know how to. I got the book right next to me for what I use. I cant do it right off my head.

Good to hear, was worried after reading your initial post. You'd be a fool not to use SPSS or similar tools as doing everything on your own would include an extremely high risk of mistakes / miscalculations and terrible efficiency. Knowing what you'Re doing, however, should always be a priority.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

And you're useless as an employee if you don't understand the math behind what you're doing. Blindly entering stuff into math software can work as long as you don't make any mistakes, but if you don't understand how the math software works then you aren't going to recognize mistakes when things don't go perfectly or you have to deviate from the step-by-step formula of button pressing.

I completely agree with Peregrine, this must be weird for both of us.

 AlexHolker wrote:
On top of the failure to provide necessary information, your attempt to paraphrase the question also changed its meaning. You said "Hannah takes one orange sweet out", but this is not equivalent to "Hannah takes at random one sweet from the bag." According to what you said, there would have to be 16 sweets, not 10, because there is a 100% chance that she took an orange sweet the first time, followed by a 5/15 chance she took an orange sweet the second time.

The original question I read said she took an orange sweet followed by another unspecified sweet, and the chance of both being orange is 1/3. Must have been given the wrong information but I wasn't paraphrasing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

It looks like you've cleared up this matter some. However I will point out that this line of thinking is funny, considering that is basically how humans got to where they are in 40k.

"I don't know how it works, but when I turn it off, light incense, say a prayer, and turn it back on, then it works again."

Tydil wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

It looks like you've cleared up this matter some. However I will point out that this line of thinking is funny, considering that is basically how humans got to where they are in 40k.

"I don't know how it works, but when I turn it off, light incense, say a prayer, and turn it back on, then it works again."

Don't forget the sanctified oils! It won't work properly without the sanctified oils!

Isn't that just grade 9 calculus?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

Social sciences rely heavily upon statistical tests, many of which involve calculus. While you're still in college, it would benefit you greatly to invest your time in learning math. The softer your science, the more math you need to try to substantiate your claims.

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

If you don't understand the math, then you will join the thousands of "scientists" who don't know why it's inappropriate to run 5 ANOVAs on highly intercorrelated DVs without correcting for inflated alpha, and make all sorts of other statistical errors.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh math, The thing the constantly tell you that you will need to now for the real world. Yet, once you get past algebra, if you need it, you can pay interns to do it for ya.

Social sciences rely heavily upon statistical tests, many of which involve calculus. While you're still in college, it would benefit you greatly to invest your time in learning math. The softer your science, the more math you need to try to substantiate your claims.

Yeah, But you dont have to DO the math. I just took statistics. all of our tests where with SPSS. you entered data and it would do much of the match for you

If you don't understand the math, then you will join the thousands of "scientists" who don't know why it's inappropriate to run 5 ANOVAs on highly intercorrelated DVs without correcting for inflated alpha, and make all sorts of other statistical errors.

As long as your mistakes lead to a significant result, who cares

Kidding of course

I think it would be a real shame not to learn maths at school just because you are aiming for a job where you think it won't be required. Isn't that true of nearly every subject we learn at school? Does everyone want our children to grow up as ignorant yahoos? Knowledge is power.

Maths is like a ladder. You can have a ladder with a million rungs that will take you up to the highest level, but if the first six are missing, you won't get anywhere. You have to learn the basics before you can tackle the more advanced stuff.

Here is a trivial small business problem.

You run a corner shop, stocking a product of which you sell on average 10 units per week.

Currently there are 135 units in your stockroom. You need to keep a minimum of two and half week's stock in hand because the delivery time from order is two weeks but you don't want to run out and sometimes the delivery is late. The manufacturer's delivery carton contains eight units of the product.

Are you stocking too much or too little? How far ahead should you order new stock? How much stock should you order in one shipment?

Work that out without using maths.

 Deadshot wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
On top of the failure to provide necessary information, your attempt to paraphrase the question also changed its meaning. You said "Hannah takes one orange sweet out", but this is not equivalent to "Hannah takes at random one sweet from the bag." According to what you said, there would have to be 16 sweets, not 10, because there is a 100% chance that she took an orange sweet the first time, followed by a 5/15 chance she took an orange sweet the second time.

The original question I read said she took an orange sweet followed by another unspecified sweet, and the chance of both being orange is 1/3. Must have been given the wrong information but I wasn't paraphrasing.

In that case, you just found out why people couldn't provide the proof: because the question you read didn't have a proof.

The very concept of there being 'A' or A*' (or whatever the English system calls it), question kinda freaks me out a little bit...

Especially if it's not well sign posted. I was only a (Scottish) B Grade student and I would have been so COMPLETELY screwed if working through the paper and I came up to a question like that.

In Scotland, our equivalent of GCSE's (I think, anyhow), were called Standard Grades, and were split into 3 different tests. - Foundation (Score 6-5), General (Score 4-3) and Credit (Score 2-1). You sat 2 of the papers depending on your ability.

It seemed quite a fair way to do it to me. If you were the type that was, "oh, I'm terrible at maths" you did the Foundation and General courses and it was more of a case of "these are the things you needed to learn to function in society."

But the credit paper was very much a, "ok, you're a high flyer, you want to do a scientific or something career maybe? Or maybe you're just bright. Take this exam."

In any case, it seemed like a fair way to me.


My sort of opinion on education now, keeping in mind, that I've been out of full time learning's for um... Lets say a few years now, is that there needs to start being more of an emphasis on finding out information.

In school, I had a class called 'Research Methods' and, it was basically a rubbish-ey joke class where we learned about the 'Dewey Decimal System' and half the time it was just 'free study' or whatever.

But actual, proper 'Research Methods' classes would be great.

I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that. So where the hell would you need "Advanced" math in political analysis? Statistics I don't consider to be advanced. So where in Political analysis do you use trigonometry and calculus?

 Compel wrote:
The very concept of there being 'A' or A*' (or whatever the English system calls it), question kinda freaks me out a little bit...

Especially if it's not well sign posted. I was only a (Scottish) B Grade student and I would have been so COMPLETELY screwed if working through the paper and I came up to a question like that.

In Scotland, our equivalent of GCSE's (I think, anyhow), were called Standard Grades, and were split into 3 different tests. - Foundation (Score 6-5), General (Score 4-3) and Credit (Score 2-1). You sat 2 of the papers depending on your ability.

It seemed quite a fair way to do it to me. If you were the type that was, "oh, I'm terrible at maths" you did the Foundation and General courses and it was more of a case of "these are the things you needed to learn to function in society."

But the credit paper was very much a, "ok, you're a high flyer, you want to do a scientific or something career maybe? Or maybe you're just bright. Take this exam."

In any case, it seemed like a fair way to me.


My sort of opinion on education now, keeping in mind, that I've been out of full time learning's for um... Lets say a few years now, is that there needs to start being more of an emphasis on finding out information.

In school, I had a class called 'Research Methods' and, it was basically a rubbish-ey joke class where we learned about the 'Dewey Decimal System' and half the time it was just 'free study' or whatever.

But actual, proper 'Research Methods' classes would be great.

I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam. All that work you did, any extra effort you put in to get a good grade in maths - doesn't matter, you can't achieve a higher grade than C (I think that's what the old foundation papers had as their maximum) no matter what you do, because it was decided before doing the exam that you weren't going to have the opportunity to attain the highest grade.

Also, the A/A* questions are a bit of a misnomer - in any given paper, there are questions from a range of difficulties. Nothing in the question is inherently tied to any particular grade, but some are just easier than others. This allows almost everyone to get some marks, but keeps the marks spread out enough that it is possible to fairly award grades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that. So where the hell would you need "Advanced" math in political analysis? Statistics I don't consider to be advanced. So where in Political analysis do you use trigonometry and calculus?

And that's the crux of the problem right there. I'd be willing to bet you've never had to do anything with a Normal, Poisson or even Binomial distribution, let alone any hypothesis tests or rank correlation coefficients. I don't want to say this, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

Please explain to me how I "Don't know what im talking about" in regards to what I posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excuse me I didn't see your highlighted section. SO I will agree that some Statistics are advanced but I would also venture that advanced statistics are useless for about 95%+ of the world.

 Compel wrote:
I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

The problem with the "just look it up" approach is that if you never learned something in the first place looking it up is going to be incredibly slow and inefficient. Looking something up is fine when you can't remember if a term in a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, because once you get the equation you know how to use it and don't have to spend a bunch of time reading articles about the subject. But if you never learned the material you're going to have to waste time reading the basics before you can even attempt to solve the problem. That might be fine if you're talking about a forum thread on a math problem, but you'd better hope that it doesn't come up as part of your job.

And the unavoidable fact here is that the question in the OP is incredibly basic probability. If you understand the subject at all it should take less time to solve the problem than it would take you to google search for a statistics 101 article to read. If you have to look something up to answer the question it's a sign you don't understand probability at all, and you're going to be flailing around desperately looking for 101-level sources to teach yourself something you should have learned a long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that.

Which is funny, because the one class I took on signals as part of an electrical engineering degree was full of high-level math. I guess you were the kind of analyst/operator who knows what buttons to press for routine operations but doesn't understand how it works?

When I was at prep school I dreamt of having a French dictionary in which I would be able to look up anything at all that I needed to answer a homework question. But the real world doesn't work like that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that.

Which is funny, because the one class I took on signals as part of an electrical engineering degree was full of high-level math. I guess you were the kind of analyst/operator who knows what buttons to press for routine operations but doesn't understand how it works?

And you have no idea what a Signals analyst/operator does If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it. And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation. We did routine things like setting up OE's and rigging FEA's wherever we needed them, and that was the extent to which you needed math skills, otherwise it was a simple mission and simple math was needed. IE basic statistics and basic math.

On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

 Da Boss wrote:
On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

My attitude is based on the way the Japanese school system operates. After a certain point you stop learning extra things that are irrelevant towards your degree. If your a history major it doesn't help you that much to know how to use calculus....unless your teaching the history of calculus.

Math is incredibly useful across the board in every persons life....up to a point. Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements and make every higher math a prerequisite only for degree programs where the person has a reasonable chance of coming into contact with it on a regular or at least semi regular basis. Instead, the university I went to had Statistics and Calculus as the minimums for most degree programs, almost 100% irrelevant for most people and yet required by the university.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements

IOW "decide early in high school if you want to have any chance at a math-heavy career in the future". This is a terrible idea, and the reasons should be obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it.

Oh really? So you did all the math with a pencil and paper? You never had software that did it for you?

(PS: if you did your Fourier transforms with a table instead of calculating it by hand each time then you had an easy button.)

And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation.

So you never used the instruction manual for your hardware and always re-calculated every piece of math that went into that instruction manual for each new situation?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements

IOW "decide early in high school if you want to have any chance at a math-heavy career in the future". This is a terrible idea, and the reasons should be obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it.

Oh really? So you did all the math with a pencil and paper? You never had software that did it for you?

(PS: if you did your Fourier transforms with a table instead of calculating it by hand each time then you had an easy button.)

And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation.

So you never used the instruction manual for your hardware and always re-calculated every piece of math that went into that instruction manual for each new situation?

So Japan then doesn't know what they are doing as far as education is concerned? Also, did you take Algebra freshmen year? because usually Algebra is taken Junior year or so. But I was actually talking about Freshman year of COLLEGE! Algebra should be the last math REQUIRED for the student, if they decide they wish to go into a math heavy job field then they are open to taking all sorts of other math courses that aren't required of all students.

So an analyst is supposed to help design the software for the gear he is using? your mistaking Electrical Engineer and Computer programmer for Analyst/Operator.

As for math on pen/paper, you bet your sweet butt we did all the time.

Antenna Length. To construct expedient, efficient antennas, the wavelength of the frequency being used must be known. The length of the antenna needed can be determined by using the proper formula below:
◾ To figure a quarter-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 234 (constant) by the operating frequency MHz.
◾ To figure a half-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 468 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.
◾ To figure a full-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 936 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.

BASIC MATH


here is the radio operators guide book with all the information you would ever need....well theres a lot more you need but this is still a good starting point.

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/usmc-radio-ops-hdbk.pdf

Then their was the other factors you had to calculate, such as the distance with which the gear you had would operate. This was always different depending terrain, prevailing weather conditions, gear available, condition of gear, and what kind of FEA you were using, what kind of sodder. all sorts of fun things. And at the end we would usually figure this out by measuring the distance we could communicate/receive from other units in our AO.

SO please enlighten me on how you know more about being a signals intelligence operator/analyst then I do.

nkelsch wrote:
That is the funny side, the tragic side is there are probably dozens of opportunities to use higher level math in their daily lives, but due to their math illiteracy, they don't see it and pretend they don't need it to get buy when they are literally stumbling over math-related issues all the time and are too uneducated to realize.

Yeah, which I think touches on the point I made about so many people having got through secondary and tertiary maths just through rote learning, and never understanding the principles behind the maths exercises.

I know people with who got through science and business degrees at uni who would rather risk getting screwed on a deal than take a second to use all that maths they learned to calculate what interest rate they'll be paying on a loan.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Also, did you take Algebra freshmen year?

Last year of middle school, actually. And that was the standard year to do it.

But I was actually talking about Freshman year of COLLEGE!

Which is hopelessly late. If you aren't taking basic algebra until college then you're not even remotely qualified for any math-heavy major. To finish a science or engineering degree in four years you have to start with calculus your first semester.

Algebra should be the last math REQUIRED for the student, if they decide they wish to go into a math heavy job field then they are open to taking all sorts of other math courses that aren't required of all students.

And the point is that a student doesn't know what they want to do for a career until well after basic algebra. We make the higher-level classes mandatory so that we don't have as many problems with "oops, I want to be a scientist after all". If you're ready to start calculus in your first semester of college then you're prepared for any major you want to do, and you aren't penalized for choices you made when you were 14 years old.

So an analyst is supposed to help design the software for the gear he is using? your mistaking Electrical Engineer and Computer programmer for Analyst/Operator.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that your field does use math, it just uses math that has been neatly packaged into a finished product by the engineers. Which is fine, as long as you never have to work outside of the instruction manuals written by those engineers. But you're going to be limited in your ability to go beyond following the directions because you don't know the math.

Antenna Length. To construct expedient, efficient antennas, the wavelength of the frequency being used must be known. The length of the antenna needed can be determined by using the proper formula below:
◾ To figure a quarter-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 234 (constant) by the operating frequency MHz.
◾ To figure a half-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 468 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.
◾ To figure a full-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 936 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.

And guess where those rough guidelines came from: someone who does know the math behind antenna design did a whole bunch of calculus. If you need to design an antenna for a situation where the rough guideline doesn't apply you're hopelessly screwed. On the other hand I could dust off my old textbook and do the math (or at least have a chance of doing it, I never learned more than the basics).

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with the "just look it up" approach is that if you never learned something in the first place looking it up is going to be incredibly slow and inefficient. Looking something up is fine when you can't remember if a term in a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, because once you get the equation you know how to use it and don't have to spend a bunch of time reading articles about the subject. But if you never learned the material you're going to have to waste time reading the basics before you can even attempt to solve the problem. That might be fine if you're talking about a forum thread on a math problem, but you'd better hope that it doesn't come up as part of your job.

A hell of a lot of what we learn isn't so we have all the information in our head to bring out at any time, but so we know where to start looking, and how to start reasoning through the problem.

That lesson couldn't have been made more clear than the first time I sat an open book exam - thinking it was open book I didn't think I had to study as I could just look it up in the exam. Wow was I wrong.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

My attitude is based on the way the Japanese school system operates. After a certain point you stop learning extra things that are irrelevant towards your degree. If your a history major it doesn't help you that much to know how to use calculus....unless your teaching the history of calculus.

Math is incredibly useful across the board in every persons life....up to a point. Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements and make every higher math a prerequisite only for degree programs where the person has a reasonable chance of coming into contact with it on a regular or at least semi regular basis. Instead, the university I went to had Statistics and Calculus as the minimums for most degree programs, almost 100% irrelevant for most people and yet required by the university.

My attitude comes from the stance that I am very likely preparing my students for jobs that don't exist yet. So whatever mental tools I am able to give them may be useful.

(This is aside from the point that maths can be beautiful and satisfying in it's own right)

I just think it is imprudent (not to mention arrogant on the part of my students, but they are teenagers so I forgive them) to think that they know already how much maths they are going to need in their lives.

The other thing is, if you're going for a technical profession you definitely need more than basic algebra and probability. And we need more technical people- the modern world is imagined, built and maintained by them. So if some less useful people need to sit through some maths they don't use so that we increase our number of engineers and scientists, I am also cool with that.

 -Shrike- wrote:

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam.

In my school, students would take both the 'Foundation' and 'General' level exams. - So, everyone would be taking the General exam. Additionally, as Standard Grades lasted 2 years, you could potentially move into the credit classes after your first years 'mock' exams, if you did well at the General exam there.

Even if, hypothetically, someone discovered their 'love' of maths a fortnight before the final Standard Grade exams, assuming they did well, they could then take the 'Intermediate 2' Math classes in their 5th year and then, potentially, the "Higher" Maths classes in 6th year.

Your 'Higher' results being the main Grade results required for universities from Scottish students. While yes, you do miss the 'Advanced Higher' classes if you go that route, Advanced Highers are effectively direct preparation for university and the one I took, matched the first 2/3rds of the first year at university.

Scotland has four year degrees, I believe, to make up for less specialisation earlier like we have in England.

IMO there is much to be said for maintaining a broader span of study.

My daughter is thinking of doing International Baccalaureate for that reason.

None of this means children should not study maths, of course. It is a fundamental achievement of the human intellect.

 Compel wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam.

In my school, students would take both the 'Foundation' and 'General' level exams. - So, everyone would be taking the General exam. Additionally, as Standard Grades lasted 2 years, you could potentially move into the credit classes after your first years 'mock' exams, if you did well at the General exam there.

Even if, hypothetically, someone discovered their 'love' of maths a fortnight before the final Standard Grade exams, assuming they did well, they could then take the 'Intermediate 2' Math classes in their 5th year and then, potentially, the "Higher" Maths classes in 6th year.

Your 'Higher' results being the main Grade results required for universities from Scottish students. While yes, you do miss the 'Advanced Higher' classes if you go that route, Advanced Highers are effectively direct preparation for university and the one I took, matched the first 2/3rds of the first year at university.

We have "Additional Maths" which is a separate subjects and covers stuff like Mechanics (forces and pulleys as sopposed to engineering exactly) and Statistics on one side, and pure maths on other like quadratic equations differentiation. Similarly there is A Level Maths which is similar to GCSE Add Maths, and then Further Maths which is supposedly first-year university level. In both cases they are a separate subject.

I don't think I can agree with your idea that a student who only works at the end can be entered into the higher papers for the exact reason you stated. Because he's only worked at the end, there is no evidence to suggest he is capable of doing the higher papers. And it also encourages students to continually work throughout the year rather than slacking off for most of it, which will ultimately provide better grades 99% of the time.

I saw this last week and did chuckle at all of the fuss that was made about it.

Pencil + Paper x a few minutes = solution

My biggest problem was that all the talk of sweets and colours distracted me (mmmmmm...sweeeeets), I mean really it was just the square root of 100).

I wasn't allowed to do higher maths (allowing the higher A or B grades) at school despite it being the only subject I was any good at, so I got a C at GCSE.

I'm now a commercial manager responsible for £100M+ Accounts.

School really prepared me for that!

High School taught me absolutely nothing. And it was hell due to being stuck with the same people in homegroup and classes year after year. I left at the end of year 11.

On the subject of math, I got mostly algebra from year 8 through to year 11. I flew through most of it at the time but even 4 years of it doesnt help me remember any of it now.

Im actually forgetting any and all math now so I guess people are right when they always said we are not taught properly these days.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

Hey you never know when a little girl has a bag of N fruits on a train going one way, and another train going another way. What would Jason Bourne do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

Calculus is not advanced math. I thought it was until I saw what the Boy was doing.
Just being picky. My level of math is "Noog has two rocks and three pointy sticks. Three hyenadons are chasing Noog. How far can Noog run before the hyenadons eat him?" (there was a practical lab component to this as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

Math is vastly overrated and 90%

I work in industry (Power) and I can gurantee you math is not over rated. What do you think your powergrid works on? Wizards?
Try doing even a basic power calculation and you'll see why math is important

1. Yes it is powered by wizards.
2. Your case is an excellent example. For some, differing levels of math is important. For others, not so much, or only specific forms of it. Heavens to Betsy its like all other forms of knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
That attitude (SPSS can do the maths for me) is the hallmark of a terrible scientist. In fact I would hesitate to call someone with that attitude a scientist at all.

How do you know which analysis is appropriate for your data, and what the analysis models? These are not trivial questions. When collecting data and designing studies they need to be considered and require a deep knowledge of the fundamentals of statistics, or you are likely to draw the wrong conclusions from data which is in any case useless.

He didn't say anything about being a scientist, just that the grind work of statistics can be done with programs. Indeed, all heavy statistics (and heavy math) really requires compute programs at this point.

yes I theoretically have to know the math for architetcture, but I now have architecture programs that inherent calculate the stress loads etc. Skynet understands math, and thats all that matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please explain to me how I "Don't know what im talking about" in regards to what I posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excuse me I didn't see your highlighted section. SO I will agree that some Statistics are advanced but I would also venture that advanced statistics are useless for about 95%+ of the world.

Pfft 5% confidence intervals are for wussies. Real menz use 1%!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When I was at prep school I dreamt of having a French dictionary in which I would be able to look up anything at all that I needed to answer a homework question. But the real world doesn't work like that.

You mean like Google?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

Hey you never know when a little girl has a bag of N fruits on a train going one way, and another train going another way. What would Jason Bourne do?

Easy. Kill every melonfether on the trains.

Then everything explodes.

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

The BBC posted their solution here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33017299

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The BBC posted their solution here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33017299

The better solution is to kidnap the question maker. Put two pieces of fruit on the wall. Ask them how many pieces are there. Motivate them to come to the answer "three."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

Maths is not practical says the guy typing his response into an internet forum made possible only by incredibly complex mathematical operations layered on top of each other to produce operating systems and the internet. Oh dear.

What you posted about probability shows a deep misunderstanding of what probability is about too, but after your first statement that is not surprising.

When people say "Learning maths is not practical" they mean "I don't use maths much in my life", sometimes with the addendum "because I can't". Mathematics is part of every advance in science, every feat of engineering. We live in a world made possible by people doing complex mathematics day in day out.

If you can't take part in that, okay, I can't take part in conversations happening in Japanese either, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to deride all Japanese as worthless.

Prestor Jon wrote:


I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

Your response here is hilariously ignorant as M&Ms explicitly control ratio of colors in their bags as they have deep market research on how the colors of the candies impact the mood of the customer. So they increase sales and enjoyment of their product by explicitly knowing and controlling "what color sweet someone will pull out next."

Having an equation makes answers much easier than having 200 million customers 'just look in the bag' and report back to M&M. And a change in the formula can impact millions of dollars. What you call 'worthless' is a live or die formula for a major corporation.

The ability to understand a situation, break it down into an equation, then extrapolate it into usable data is EXACTLY the kind of thing a math illiterate person won't do because they are too buys 'looking in the bag' via manual processes because their brains can't even conceptualize other solutions besides manual processes because they are so illiterate in math. This kind of application of math happens across all industries every day.

nkelsch wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

Your response here is hilariously ignorant as M&Ms explicitly control ratio of colors in their bags as they have deep market research on how the colors of the candies impact the mood of the customer. So they increase sales and enjoyment of their product by explicitly knowing and controlling "what color sweet someone will pull out next."

Having an equation makes answers much easier than having 200 million customers 'just look in the bag' and report back to M&M. And a change in the formula can impact millions of dollars. What you call 'worthless' is a live or die formula for a major corporation.

The ability to understand a situation, break it down into an equation, then extrapolate it into usable data is EXACTLY the kind of thing a math illiterate person won't do because they are too buys 'looking in the bag' via manual processes because their brains can't even conceptualize other solutions besides manual processes because they are so illiterate in math. This kind of application of math happens across all industries every day.

I know you've thoroughly enjoyed that condescending attack but:
*He has a point. Word problems through the ages have been argued as being without merit.
*Studies have shown that you typically forget 90% of what you learned within 5 years.
*Your example is what we call...gak. They will make up a simple percentage for candles that have samples of more than one each. Even higher level logistics chains aren't usually very high math.
*Each occupation has its different level of math. Part of my business is reviewing complex cash flow models. Those models can become monsters such that 3rd party consultants are hired to make them. But its specialized (and rather quite simple math actually). Absent engineering, design, etc. you're not going to be using high levels of math outside of certain forms. And that just means you'll be replaced by robots a few years later.

 Deadshot wrote:

I don't think I can agree with your idea that a student who only works at the end can be entered into the higher papers for the exact reason you stated. Because he's only worked at the end, there is no evidence to suggest he is capable of doing the higher papers. And it also encourages students to continually work throughout the year rather than slacking off for most of it, which will ultimately provide better grades 99% of the time.

I didn't say (or intend to say anyhow), that they could enter into the Credit exams 2 weeks before the exams are happening. I was intending to illustrate that there are other classes (Intermediate 2) available in the next year that will give them equivalent knowledge to the 'Credit' level classes and, actually a little more as all to prime them for choosing the Higher level classes in 6th year, of they course to have a 6th year that is.


Heck, if someone is really keen or crazy, in their final 6th year they could cost to take a "Crash Higher" in a subject they haven't previously studied at all.


Of course this is all based on my experiences. I was in the Foundation\General classes in my first year of standard grade maths (3rd year of secondary education) and moved up to the General/Credit classes in my 2nd Year of Standard Grades. I then went on to take Maths as one of my Highers.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Probability is a waste of time.

This is a joke, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Probability is a waste of 8/10 of the time.

This is a joke, right?

corrected his typo

 Da Boss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

Maths is not practical says the guy typing his response into an internet forum made possible only by incredibly complex mathematical operations layered on top of each other to produce operating systems and the internet. Oh dear.

What you posted about probability shows a deep misunderstanding of what probability is about too, but after your first statement that is not surprising.

When people say "Learning maths is not practical" they mean "I don't use maths much in my life", sometimes with the addendum "because I can't". Mathematics is part of every advance in science, every feat of engineering. We live in a world made possible by people doing complex mathematics day in day out.

If you can't take part in that, okay, I can't take part in conversations happening in Japanese either, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to deride all Japanese as worthless.

Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese. The majority of the humans on Earth don't speak Japanese because they don't need to speak Japanese.

Point of fact, I didn't say math was impractical. I said: If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math
You've deliberately broken apart my conditional statement to create a strawman argument and ignore the the salient points of my post (as have others in this thread).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Probability is a waste of time.

This is a joke, right?

Why devote time and effort to make a prediction that is either going to be right or wrong? Spend as much time on the equation as you want and assign as much importance to it as you wish, it's still either going to happen or it won't. So no matter what equations you use, it's just a coin flip so why bother doing all the work to make a guess that has a 50% chance of being wrong?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

Maths is not practical says the guy typing his response into an internet forum made possible only by incredibly complex mathematical operations layered on top of each other to produce operating systems and the internet. Oh dear.

What you posted about probability shows a deep misunderstanding of what probability is about too, but after your first statement that is not surprising.

When people say "Learning maths is not practical" they mean "I don't use maths much in my life", sometimes with the addendum "because I can't". Mathematics is part of every advance in science, every feat of engineering. We live in a world made possible by people doing complex mathematics day in day out.

If you can't take part in that, okay, I can't take part in conversations happening in Japanese either, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to deride all Japanese as worthless.

Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese. The majority of the humans on Earth don't speak Japanese because they don't need to speak Japanese.

Point of fact, I didn't say math was impractical. I said: If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math
You've deliberately broken apart my conditional statement to create a strawman argument and ignore the the salient points of my post (as have others in this thread).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Probability is a waste of time.

This is a joke, right?

Why devote time and effort to make a prediction that is either going to be right or wrong? Spend as much time on the equation as you want and assign as much importance to it as you wish, it's still either going to happen or it won't. So no matter what equations you use, it's just a coin flip so why bother doing all the work to make a guess that has a 50% chance of being wrong?

feth, I never realised that's how statistics work. I'd better go and buy some lottery tickets, then; I mean, I'm just as likely to win as I am to lose, right?

 -Shrike- wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

Maths is not practical says the guy typing his response into an internet forum made possible only by incredibly complex mathematical operations layered on top of each other to produce operating systems and the internet. Oh dear.

What you posted about probability shows a deep misunderstanding of what probability is about too, but after your first statement that is not surprising.

When people say "Learning maths is not practical" they mean "I don't use maths much in my life", sometimes with the addendum "because I can't". Mathematics is part of every advance in science, every feat of engineering. We live in a world made possible by people doing complex mathematics day in day out.

If you can't take part in that, okay, I can't take part in conversations happening in Japanese either, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to deride all Japanese as worthless.

Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese. The majority of the humans on Earth don't speak Japanese because they don't need to speak Japanese.

Point of fact, I didn't say math was impractical. I said: If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math
You've deliberately broken apart my conditional statement to create a strawman argument and ignore the the salient points of my post (as have others in this thread).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Probability is a waste of time.

This is a joke, right?

Why devote time and effort to make a prediction that is either going to be right or wrong? Spend as much time on the equation as you want and assign as much importance to it as you wish, it's still either going to happen or it won't. So no matter what equations you use, it's just a coin flip so why bother doing all the work to make a guess that has a 50% chance of being wrong?

feth, I never realised that's how statistics work. I'd better go and buy some lottery tickets, then; I mean, I'm just as likely to win as I am to lose, right?

Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Ok then, in order to prove how much you disagree with statistics, go jump in front of a speeding car on the motorway. Because, whatever the supposed likelihood of getting turned into road jelly, there's only two possible outcomes so believe what you want.

Unbelievable!

Prestor Jon wrote:

Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Those are the two possible outcomes for a single ticket. However, both outcomes will not occur with the same frequency, therefore a well-informed decision maker will evaluate the expected utility of his purchase.

The basis of rational thought is the learning and application of event probabilities to the decision making process. Medical and professional decision making, economics, Bayesian statistics, AI, many engineering disciplines, biomedical research, weather prediction...all of these consider probabilistic events.

Your point of view is simply dildos. You shouldn't trust sources entitled Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, and given that the author of that book basically acknowledges that he's trollin', I'm really hoping that you're doing the same.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Your point of view is simply dildos.

This right here is the best thing I've read all day.

This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Why devote time and effort to make a prediction that is either going to be right or wrong? Spend as much time on the equation as you want and assign as much importance to it as you wish, it's still either going to happen or it won't. So no matter what equations you use, it's just a coin flip so why bother doing all the work to make a guess that has a 50% chance of being wrong?

feth, I never realised that's how statistics work. I'd better go and buy some lottery tickets, then; I mean, I'm just as likely to win as I am to lose, right?

Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

 sebster wrote:
This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

We both know there was a 100% probability of that.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Did you seriously just apply Yoda to lottery tickets? "Win or Win not, there is no try"?
That's just straight up childlike. I mean, "probablity doesn't matter, either it happens or it doesn't" is something I was taught was wrong at the age of nine. That you still believe it is troubling.

Also, I'm enjoying the irony of insisting that understanding probability doesn't matter whilst posting on a wargaming forum. No probability involved in wargames, you just roll a dice and see what happens. You either kill a unit or you don't. No probability needed.



Side note: I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that some lotteries have lower level prizes? For matching five numbers but not the sixth, for example; so surely that means that there's actually more than two outcomes?

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

We both know there was a 100% probability of that.

Would calculating the probability of such a thing happening have convinced you that it was definitely going to happen? Yet it did happen so the equation would need to show that it was 100% certain to happen to be correct.

Frazzled cracks joke PJ says something serious. Frazzled confused. Can only be unconfused with chocolate.

Chocolate you are my master! Command me!

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We can also calculate how many different tickets are required to have a 100% chance of winning.

If there's only one winning ticket, then you literally need to buy all of them to have a 100% chance at winning. But you can weight the payoff against ticket cost and P(win) to get the expected utility of each ticket, and buy a number that puts you over the edge, so to speak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

We both know there was a 100% probability of that.

Would calculating the probability of such a thing happening have convinced you that it was definitely going to happen? Yet it did happen so the equation would need to show that it was 100% certain to happen to be correct.

Is the North Carolina public school system really this bad?

 Goliath wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Did you seriously just apply Yoda to lottery tickets? "Win or Win not, there is no try"?
That's just straight up childlike. I mean, "probablity doesn't matter, either it happens or it doesn't" is something I was taught was wrong at the age of nine. That you still believe it is troubling.

Also, I'm enjoying the irony of insisting that understanding probability doesn't matter whilst posting on a wargaming forum. No probability involved in wargames, you just roll a dice and see what happens. You either kill a unit or you don't. No probability needed.



Side note: I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that some lotteries have lower level prizes? For matching five numbers but not the sixth, for example; so surely that means that there's actually more than two outcomes?

Example: a tac squad of IF SM with bolter drill will probably generate X hits and Y wounds against a mob of ork boyz. I won't know exactly how many hits and wounds the SM generate until I roll the dice. The probable number of hits and wounds that the tac squad will generate has zero impact on what numbers I roll with the dice. Just because the math says the IF will hit X orks and produce Y wounds doesn't mean they will. GW could change the rules in 40k to eliminate dice rolling but as long as the outcome is determined by the dice you have to roll them to find out what will happen. I can make the same attack multiple times in a game or a series of games and the tac squad may never deal precisely the number of hits and wounds that probability says they should. I can take the average hits and wounds they deal over the course of the game(s) and that average (another mathematical construct that may have never actually happened) could be different from the number of hits and wounds most probable to occur. There are wargames, like chess, that don't require dice rolls to determine outcomes but if you're going to have to roll to get an outcome then won't know what happens until after you roll. We've all had very unprobable and unlikely outcomes happen in games due to very good or very bad dice rolls. Even if an outcome is unlikely to happen you still have to roll to see if it happens. It's impossible to mathammer your way to being able to predict the outcome with certainty.

The lottery ticket will either win you money or it won't. Whether you win all the money or some of the money, the outcome are still either money or no money.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Frazzled cracks joke PJ says something serious. Frazzled confused. Can only be unconfused with chocolate.

Chocolate you are my master! Command me!

Not completely serious. Obviously there was a 100% chance of this happening because it did but could anyone have generated any equations to show that level of probability or even come close to that level of certainty? Determining the likelihood of this discussion happening had no bearing on it actually happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We can also calculate how many different tickets are required to have a 100% chance of winning.

If there's only one winning ticket, then you literally need to buy all of them to have a 100% chance at winning. But you can weight the payoff against ticket cost and P(win) to get the expected utility of each ticket, and buy a number that puts you over the edge, so to speak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

We both know there was a 100% probability of that.

Would calculating the probability of such a thing happening have convinced you that it was definitely going to happen? Yet it did happen so the equation would need to show that it was 100% certain to happen to be correct.

Is the North Carolina public school system really this bad?

What's the probability that I actually attened NC public schools? I'll let you know if the predictive math is right or wrong.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Did you seriously just apply Yoda to lottery tickets? "Win or Win not, there is no try"?
That's just straight up childlike. I mean, "probablity doesn't matter, either it happens or it doesn't" is something I was taught was wrong at the age of nine. That you still believe it is troubling.

Also, I'm enjoying the irony of insisting that understanding probability doesn't matter whilst posting on a wargaming forum. No probability involved in wargames, you just roll a dice and see what happens. You either kill a unit or you don't. No probability needed.



Side note: I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that some lotteries have lower level prizes? For matching five numbers but not the sixth, for example; so surely that means that there's actually more than two outcomes?

Example: a tac squad of IF SM with bolter drill will probably generate X hits and Y wounds against a mob of ork boyz. I won't know exactly how many hits and wounds the SM generate until I roll the dice. The probable number of hits and wounds that the tac squad will generate has zero impact on what numbers I roll with the dice. Just because the math says the IF will hit X orks and produce Y wounds doesn't mean they will. GW could change the rules in 40k to eliminate dice rolling but as long as the outcome is determined by the dice you have to roll them to find out what will happen. I can make the same attack multiple times in a game or a series of games and the tac squad may never deal precisely the number of hits and wounds that probability says they should. I can take the average hits and wounds they deal over the course of the game(s) and that average (another mathematical construct that may have never actually happened) could be different from the number of hits and wounds most probable to occur. There are wargames, like chess, that don't require dice rolls to determine outcomes but if you're going to have to roll to get an outcome then won't know what happens until after you roll. We've all had very unprobable and unlikely outcomes happen in games due to very good or very bad dice rolls.

I think we have an insight here into the minds of 40K designers.

It is not "Terribly late" to take algebra in college, nor does it preclude you from taking a math heavy degree. I don't know why you went to college but I knew what degree program I wanted to take before I decided to shell out 30k a year for a degree. (granted I changed my degree after the military because the idea of teaching a bunch of kids made me want to commit murder) The absolute worst part about US Colleges is the amount of nonsensical classes that are required before you can start taking courses aimed at your degree. now before you have a conniption fit, I also feel that if you are undecided then you should feel free to take whatever random courses your heart desires, but for those who are driven and know what they want they are penalized and forced to take useless courses.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that your field does use math, it just uses math that has been neatly packaged into a finished product by the engineers. Which is fine, as long as you never have to work outside of the instruction manuals written by those engineers. But you're going to be limited in your ability to go beyond following the directions because you don't know the math.

Actually your 100% wrong and your changing the question to better reflect your opinion. The analyst NEVER has to d the kind of math that went into building the equipment because if he did then combat would be a lot more boring then it already is. "Hold on a second while I figure out this coefficient." The engineers usually build us a useless lump of metal which weighs so much that its bordering on the useless. Then they forget important details such as "Its hot in Afghanistan" and we have to find field expedient measures to keep the lump of metal from melting. IF that gear DOES break down then it wouldn't matter how many math degrees I had because I wouldn't be able to prosecute my mission with formulas. As far as limited in my ability its actually the opposite. On a regular basis we had engineers and technicians interviewing our guys to come up with solutions to the myriad of problems that Math didn't foresee.

Antenna Length. To construct expedient, efficient antennas, the wavelength of the frequency being used must be known. The length of the antenna needed can be determined by using the proper formula below:
◾ To figure a quarter-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 234 (constant) by the operating frequency MHz.
◾ To figure a half-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 468 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.
◾ To figure a full-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 936 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.

And guess where those rough guidelines came from: someone who does know the math behind antenna design did a whole bunch of calculus. If you need to design an antenna for a situation where the rough guideline doesn't apply you're hopelessly screwed. On the other hand I could dust off my old textbook and do the math (or at least have a chance of doing it, I never learned more than the basics).

 Elemental wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Go ahead and buy the lottery ticket. Either the ticket will win or it won't. Those are the only two possible outcomes. Whatever mathematical equation you choose to use to arrive at a supposed likelihood of winning doesn't create another outcome besides winning and not winning so believe what you want.

Did you seriously just apply Yoda to lottery tickets? "Win or Win not, there is no try"?
That's just straight up childlike. I mean, "probablity doesn't matter, either it happens or it doesn't" is something I was taught was wrong at the age of nine. That you still believe it is troubling.

Also, I'm enjoying the irony of insisting that understanding probability doesn't matter whilst posting on a wargaming forum. No probability involved in wargames, you just roll a dice and see what happens. You either kill a unit or you don't. No probability needed.



Side note: I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that some lotteries have lower level prizes? For matching five numbers but not the sixth, for example; so surely that means that there's actually more than two outcomes?

Example: a tac squad of IF SM with bolter drill will probably generate X hits and Y wounds against a mob of ork boyz. I won't know exactly how many hits and wounds the SM generate until I roll the dice. The probable number of hits and wounds that the tac squad will generate has zero impact on what numbers I roll with the dice. Just because the math says the IF will hit X orks and produce Y wounds doesn't mean they will. GW could change the rules in 40k to eliminate dice rolling but as long as the outcome is determined by the dice you have to roll them to find out what will happen. I can make the same attack multiple times in a game or a series of games and the tac squad may never deal precisely the number of hits and wounds that probability says they should. I can take the average hits and wounds they deal over the course of the game(s) and that average (another mathematical construct that may have never actually happened) could be different from the number of hits and wounds most probable to occur. There are wargames, like chess, that don't require dice rolls to determine outcomes but if you're going to have to roll to get an outcome then won't know what happens until after you roll. We've all had very unprobable and unlikely outcomes happen in games due to very good or very bad dice rolls.

I think we have an insight here into the minds of 40K designers.

He makes some skewed kind of sense. The calculated probability of failing saves on Terminators would say that if you make 6 rolls you'll fail only 1 of them. But that doesn't stop them from getting wiped off the board from 5 Tactical Marines in a practical situation. I believe what he's saying is the theoretical probability has no bearing on the practical outcome, which is true in a sense.

Still, talking in a mathhammer context, or gambling for example, probably is your best friend.

 Peregrine wrote:
The key part you're missing is that there are six orange sweets.

Grumble grumble grumble...wish I had read that first....

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We can also calculate how many different tickets are required to have a 100% chance of winning.

If there's only one winning ticket, then you literally need to buy all of them to have a 100% chance at winning. But you can weight the payoff against ticket cost and P(win) to get the expected utility of each ticket, and buy a number that puts you over the edge, so to speak.


... ..

You only need to buy enough tickets to hold one of each possible number combination. Then you are guaranteed to win, as the balls must fall into one of the possible combinations and you already hold it.

There is a small danger that the winning combination is also on a ticket held by another party, making you share the prize. However this happens fairly infrequently. (It is possible to calculate the probability for different conditions.)

Another benefit of holding all the other tickets is that you win second, third and fourth prizes too, etc.

In the historical case, the syndicate failed to get all their ticket selections run through the machine before closing time, but they were lucky anyway and won the jackpot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We can also calculate how many different tickets are required to have a 100% chance of winning.

If there's only one winning ticket, then you literally need to buy all of them to have a 100% chance at winning. But you can weight the payoff against ticket cost and P(win) to get the expected utility of each ticket, and buy a number that puts you over the edge, so to speak.


... ..

You only need to buy enough tickets to hold one of each possible number combination. Then you are guaranteed to win, as the balls must fall into one of the possible combinations and you already hold it.

There is a small danger that the winning combination is also on a ticket held by another party, making you share the prize. However this happens fairly infrequently. (It is possible to calculate the probability for different conditions.)

Another benefit of holding all the other tickets is that you win second, third and fourth prizes too, etc.

In the historical case, the syndicate failed to get all their ticket selections run through the machine before closing time, but they were lucky anyway and won the jackpot.

Got it - I'm thinking of it more as a raffle. Shows how much I play the lottery.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


We can also calculate how many different tickets are required to have a 100% chance of winning.

If there's only one winning ticket, then you literally need to buy all of them to have a 100% chance at winning. But you can weight the payoff against ticket cost and P(win) to get the expected utility of each ticket, and buy a number that puts you over the edge, so to speak.


... ..

You only need to buy enough tickets to hold one of each possible number combination. Then you are guaranteed to win, as the balls must fall into one of the possible combinations and you already hold it.

There is a small danger that the winning combination is also on a ticket held by another party, making you share the prize. However this happens fairly infrequently. (It is possible to calculate the probability for different conditions.)

Another benefit of holding all the other tickets is that you win second, third and fourth prizes too, etc.

In the historical case, the syndicate failed to get all their ticket selections run through the machine before closing time, but they were lucky anyway and won the jackpot.

Well assuming that each country has a different number of numbers to choose (ie, 1-45, 1-50), take an average of 50 and run that against the possible combinations and get approximately 1.8 I -don't-even-know-how-to-pronounce-this-illion possible combinations.

A less surefire way but cheaper, would be to take those numners most likely to come up based on, if I remember this correctly, standard deviation? Like I said in the OP, haven't done Maths in a few years so forgot a lot of stuff but IIRC, standard deviation would suggest those numbers in the centre are more likely to come up than those on the edges. So for example, numbers 22-28 would be more likely than 1 and 50.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We've all had very unprobable and unlikely outcomes happen in games due to very good or very bad dice rolls.

What's your point? Anyone who understands probability (a group which apparently does not include you) knows that the typical "mathhammer" approach of calculating average outcomes is just a quick approximation, and the full analysis is a bell curve of outcomes. Probability already accounts for those unlikely outcomes, and can tell you exactly how unlikely they are.

It's impossible to mathammer your way to being able to predict the outcome with certainty.

No, and that's not the point. Probability tells you that you have an X% chance of killing at least Y orks with your tactical squad, and you can use that information to decide if it's worth shooting at those orks or if you should find something better to do with the tactical squad. If you don't understand probability and/or think that it's a useless concept then you will consistently make bad decisions and lose games.

The lottery ticket will either win you money or it won't. Whether you win all the money or some of the money, the outcome are still either money or no money.

And probability tells you how likely you are to win money, which tells you whether or not you should buy a ticket.

(Hint: if you understand probability you know that the answer is almost always "no".)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
A less surefire way but cheaper, would be to take those numners most likely to come up based on, if I remember this correctly, standard deviation? Like I said in the OP, haven't done Maths in a few years so forgot a lot of stuff but IIRC, standard deviation would suggest those numbers in the centre are more likely to come up than those on the edges. So for example, numbers 22-28 would be more likely than 1 and 50.

This is not true. For a simple "pick a random number" draw each number has exactly the same chance of appearing. Bell curves and standard deviation only apply to certain types of situations (though they are very common).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
It is not "Terribly late" to take algebra in college, nor does it preclude you from taking a math heavy degree.

Yes it is. I can tell from this statement that you haven't done any kind of math-heavy degree, and you're simply wrong about this. If you aren't taking your first calculus class in your first semester of college then you will not finish a math-heavy degree in four years. The classes you have to take are scheduled on the assumption that you have that level of math, and you will not be allowed to take them if you don't meet the prerequisites (even if they gave you a special exception you'd have no hope of passing). If you're taking basic algebra in college then you're going to have to spend at least a year or two taking pointless classes before you can start your degree.

Wonderful, someone a long time ago came up with a formula for constructing antennas, but guess what? Nobody needs to do that anymore because the formula is already in place.

Sigh. And that's the point! Your field involves math, your job does not. That's fine if you can find one of those low-math jobs in your field and keep it for a whole career, but it does limit the work you can do. For example, if you want to turn that practical experience into a job designing equipment for people like you to use you're going to need a lot more math.

In the end my point still stands and I will go even further. Anything beyond Basic Statistics and Algebra is a WASTE for over 95% of the world. Engineers, scientists and the like need math but your average person does not because we never use it. You can continue to preach about how your opinion is so much more valid because "balance" but at the end of the day you know I am right.

And, again, even if you aren't going to use math in your life you still have to take it because high school (where you take those math classes) is supposed to prepare you to make your career choice. If you don't take the higher-level math classes your career options are extremely limited. So we err on the side of keeping a student's options open and make them take enough math that they can choose any career path when they graduate, not just the low-math ones. We want to avoid the situation where a student graduates from high school and wants to become an engineer, but can't do it because of a choice they made when they were 12 years old.

I will argue that there is one other area of maths everyone needs: calculating interest. Both flat interest and accumulative interest. Ie, ones that just add on from the original figure (100+ 20% = 120 +20% =140) and ones that add on the new figure each increase (100+20%= 120, 120 + 20% = 144).

I do realise I've explained those badly but interest is the thing you'll probably need most, for stuff like loan repayments and mortages.

Taxes is the other thing that I think should be taught in maths class. Its just working with percentages so its like 8 year old stuff, but important information to be used in life. Here's even an example question in British example

" Hannah recently paid her taxes but is unsure she paid the correct amount. She knows that the first £10,000 are tax free, and that she must then pay 13% of the remainder as tax, as well as another 10% for National Insurance. Calculate how much net salary she will receive per year, if her taxes are paid annually and her gross monthly pay is £2000. "

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This thread just lurched from annoying and in to full blown crazy. And the best bit is that the crazy was nestled away in the OP's first post, but none of us bothered to read that far the first time around. It took one diligent poster to read all the way through and get to bit of craziness about probability and respond, and now we're off to the races.

We both know there was a 100% probability of that.

Dakka - the probability of threads changing from annoying to crazy is 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Example: a tac squad of IF SM with bolter drill will probably generate X hits and Y wounds against a mob of ork boyz. I won't know exactly how many hits and wounds the SM generate until I roll the dice.

Sure, but different results have different probabilities, and it's really basic thing to choose a course of action where the probability is most in your favour. You know this, everyone knows this, it's a basic part of human decision making.

When you drive to work tomorrow you might die in a car crash. This is true if you drive sensibly, or if you get drive to work while slamming a bottle of whisky and driving down the wrong side of the road. But, of course, the likelihood of dying in a car crash is much higher in the second case, and so we don’t do that.

That’s how probability works – you figure out which course of action is most likely to lead to a good result, and you do that. This can mean actually spending time to work through the numbers, or it can mean learning through experience which method tends to work most often. But either way, it’s something we all do every single day, and your effort in this thread to deny it is, well, a very strange thing indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
I will argue that there is one other area of maths everyone needs: calculating interest. Both flat interest and accumulative interest. Ie, ones that just add on from the original figure (100+ 20% = 120 +20% =140) and ones that add on the new figure each increase (100+20%= 120, 120 + 20% = 144).

I do realise I've explained those badly but interest is the thing you'll probably need most, for stuff like loan repayments and mortages.

Taxes is the other thing that I think should be taught in maths class. Its just working with percentages so its like 8 year old stuff, but important information to be used in life. Here's even an example question in British example.

I’m not sure this kind of thing belongs in a math class, but I certainly agree that it should be taught. Perhaps a Finance class, that just goes through the basics like tax, interest and budgeting. It would rely on stuff already learned in maths class, but be its own thing.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Your point of view is simply dildos. You shouldn't trust sources entitled Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, and given that the author of that book basically acknowledges that he's trollin', I'm really hoping that you're doing the same.

That source (which he has almost quoted verbatim) has a promotional quote on the cover, you know the kind where someone has said something glowing about the book. It's from "The Onion AV Club". The book is clearly a deliberate joke, the only question is who is the but of it? Prestor for taking it seriously, or us for taking him seriously?

The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

The point of teaching a range of subjects is to give everyone a rounded education that potentially opening up many opportunities. It's also about skills and an appreciation of history and society, as much as raw facts.

You don't need to know about Henry VIII's six wives, or most other things in history, in order to work in most jobs on a day to day basis. Following the arguments in this thread it should be scrapped. Things like higher maths and science or most subjects should be scrapped unless the child will need them for a specific profession. Presumably this will be chosen for them aged about 12 before you start teaching unnecessary things.

And the problem with that attitude is we don't know what professions or fields people will be working in in 10 years. In that way, subjects like mathematics that teach problem solving and logical thinking and abstract reasoning are in many ways much more useful than content orientated subjects. Though actually I consider all aspects of education pretty useful, despite my science bias.

The way my school worked it was very good in this regard.

Everyone from Years 8 and 9 (Year 7 and 8 in England), aged 11/12, takes Maths, English Language, English Literature, Science (alternates after each topic between Chemistry, Biology and Physics), ICT, Technology (tech drawing), geography, history, music, french and latin (because its old fashioned) and Religious Studies

In 3rd Year, you either continue or finish with Latin based on how well you've done. Extremely poorly you drop it, average or above you continue. You also choose one of the following to study that year at the expense of the others; German; Spanish; Music; ICT+Business studies.

At the end of 3rd year you pick your GCSEs. Everyone studies Maths, English Language, English Lit, French, Religious Studies short course, PE (exercise only). You also choose one of the following options;

Section A;
1) Physics+Chemistry+Biology (3 grades)
2) Any 2 sciences above + one other subject
3) Single Award Science involving 1 paper featuring all 3 subjects but only worth 1 grade + 1 other subject

Section B;
Music, Technology, Manufacturing, History, Geography, PE (theory and physiotherapy heavy)

Section C;
Latin, Spanish, German, History, Geography, Technology, Manufacturing, PE, Religious Studies (full course).

French was compulsary but those who struggled were put into an OLA class which is basic language stuff.


This way, you slowly built up subjects you enjoyed and could choose not to study those you did poorly at. At GCSE you took essential subjects in Maths, English Language and Science in some form, as well as other extremely useful subjects like Eng Lit, French and Religious Studies (the study of various religions rather than studying and teaching the Bible) as a short, half course. But it also gives you a scope to choose a wide range of careers and choose a maths based career early by taking science, technology, manufacturing, or go Arts by taking History and Spanish.

At the end of 4th Year you could choose to take Additional Maths which covers statistics and mechanics and the like.



At A Level you could then specialise and choose extra special subjects like Psychology and Media Studies, while you could drop unneeded things like Maths or English Literature.

The southern Irish system is somewhat similar. It varies a little by school but for the first three years of secondary school (which starts later than it does in the UK) you do the Junior Certificate (somewhat analogous to GCSEs but a little easier).
You do:
English, Irish, Maths and PE(compulsory), Science, History, Geography, a third language (not compulsory but offered in almost every school) and then some option subjects like Art, Technical Drawing, Music, Business Studies, Cooking, Metalwork, Woodwork and so on.

After that you go through a transition year with some work experience and projects, before doing the Leaving Certificate (analogous to A levels but again, a little less in depth), which consists of:
English, Irish, Maths and then four optional subjects. Since universities generally require a science and a third language, most students pick at least one science and does a third language, and then picks two subjects from a pretty broad list for their last two. Then you are assessed on your best six scores for consideration for university. It's a bit like the IB but without all the project and coursework.

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

Average salaries and employment are not the only measure of need.

 Da Boss wrote:
Average salaries and employment are not the only measure of need.

You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.
Would you like me to write a formula that shows you?

(sorry couldn't resist that one).

It's a fair cop, but economics is not a real science real sciences pay attention to reality.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

This is completely wrong. I had no less than 5 job offers from companies offering six figure salaries straight out of my doctoral program.

https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/early-career-engineers/engineering-salaries-on-the-rise

And the most general search index ever,



By the way, aren't you a lawyer? Clearly the world needs more of those.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

This is completely wrong. I had no less than 5 job offers from companies offering six figure salaries straight out of my doctoral program.

https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/early-career-engineers/engineering-salaries-on-the-rise

And the most general search index ever,



By the way, aren't you a lawyer? Clearly the world needs more of those.

It depends on what type of specialty obviously, and a big driver is the import of foreign engineers.

Me, lawyer, lover, chocolate cake aficionado. However involved on that front as The Boy is in grad school. Doing something all sciency and mathy. He discovered last week that his research job allows him time on the supercomputer and he was giddy talking about it. Frazzled III-putting the love back in Dr. Strangelove.

We don't need engineers and scientists, so we import them from other countries? Come on Frazz...that doesn't make much sense. Don't confuse a free market's influence on salaries with a lack of need - scientist and engineers are necessary, but employers are finding ways of staffing those ranks more cheaply.

That said, the specific area can mitigate that effect to some extent. My work is almost entirely on defense projects for which American citizenship is mandatory, and ability to obtain a clearance usually also required. They don't just replace us with cheaper guys from India or China, and for obvious reasons.

Congrats to your son - he's learned useful skills that will net him a great deal of cash while making the world a better place.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
We don't need engineers and scientists, so we import them from other countries? Come on Frazz...that doesn't make much sense. Don't confuse a free market's influence on salaries with a lack of need - scientist and engineers are necessary, but employers are finding ways of staffing those ranks more cheaply.

Sure it does. It means you can be out-competed by cheaper foreign labor. If there is no demand for US labor, there's no demand for labor.

That said, the specific area can mitigate that effect to some extent. My work is almost entirely on defense projects for which American citizenship is mandatory, and ability to obtain a clearance usually also required. They don't just replace us with cheaper guys from India or China, and for obvious reasons.

Don't tell Toshiba...Enjoy it. Your budget will be cut soon enough.
I guess I should be clear. I am not trashing the argument we need engineers. I'm actually in agreement. I'm trashing open borders that allow companies to replace domestic workers with foreign ones (Disney looking at you).

Congrats to your son - he's learned useful skills that will net him a great deal of cash while making the world a better place.

Thats what we're hoping for.

Yes it is. I can tell from this statement that you haven't done any kind of math-heavy degree, and you're simply wrong about this. If you aren't taking your first calculus class in your first semester of college then you will not finish a math-heavy degree in four years. The classes you have to take are scheduled on the assumption that you have that level of math, and you will not be allowed to take them if you don't meet the prerequisites (even if they gave you a special exception you'd have no hope of passing). If you're taking basic algebra in college then you're going to have to spend at least a year or two taking pointless classes before you can start your degree.

My degree is in Military Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. And again you are wrong . Math above and beyond Algebra and Statistics is USELESS for 95% of the world. And no, it should not be lower. The world needs far more people working in actual jobs instead of theory jobs. Im not down playing the contribution from Scientists and Engineers im just pointing out a fact that for some reason has escaped most of you. if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force. In the United States, MIT is arguably the best school for engineers and mathematicians, it is also one of the hardest schools to get into. And this is the pre reqs for a degree in mathematics:
•18.03 or 18.034 (Differential Equations)
[sufficiently advanced students may substitute 18.152 or 18.303]
•18.100 (Real Analysis)
•18.701 (Algebra I)
•18.702 (Algebra II)
•18.901 (Introduction to Topology)

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

Sigh. And that's the point! Your field involves math, your job does not. That's fine if you can find one of those low-math jobs in your field and keep it for a whole career, but it does limit the work you can do. For example, if you want to turn that practical experience into a job designing equipment for people like you to use you're going to need a lot more math.

By that statement then every job in the world involves math in some form or another, and it does. But again you are wrong. You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite. Not only that my the vast majority of careers in the world are "Low-math". You are right that not having a math degree limits me to what I can do, but if you didn't have a degree in Intelligence it would limit you in how far you could go in a different field. Your argument is basically invalid because the points you are making are true for any degree and not just math. Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book. I have friends who I served with who are currently working with universities around the country developing gear. none of them have any degrees in mathematics but they are still working those jobs. So again, going from my first hand ACTUAL experience and proof that I am right, tell me how your theoretical point is more correct then mine?

And, again, even if you aren't going to use math in your life you still have to take it because high school (where you take those math classes) is supposed to prepare you to make your career choice. If you don't take the higher-level math classes your career options are extremely limited. So we err on the side of keeping a student's options open and make them take enough math that they can choose any career path when they graduate, not just the low-math ones. We want to avoid the situation where a student graduates from high school and wants to become an engineer, but can't do it because of a choice they made when they were 12 years old

In the US High Schools offer and require Algebra and Algebra II, They also offer as an option calculus and statistics, at least in the 2 High schools I attended. I am not saying people shouldn't take Algebra, actually im saying the opposite. But the point I was making is that the REQUIREMENT should stop at Algebra and statistics. WHen you get to college almost every university wants you to take "College" Algebra and Statistics which is also FINE. But after that you, as a student, should not be required to take any higher level math, unless your degree is in a math heavy area. So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

Not sure where the doom and gloom is coming from...all available evidence suggests that salaries and employment opportunities for scientists and engineers are actually growing, despite your assertions to the opposite, and the directorate I work for is growing significantly with new hires galore, all of them American.

Funny you should bring up Disney...last summer I worked with a CMU doctoral student intern who was also working with Disney, and she made a killing with them. She actually turned down continued employment there to take an offer with the Air Force.

Again, really not sure where the doom and gloom is coming from. I'm on the front lines of this stuff interacting with these people every day and it's really nothing but sunshine, even with a Democrat in office. The limiting factor in lifestyle satisfaction for these people is functioning in a high stress environment where performance is carefully scrutinized, but I don't know anybody worth his salt who is actually concerned with getting a good job.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

Honestly talking calculus should be taught pretty thoroughly already in highschool.

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

OMG!

People were having trouble with a basic quadratic equation?

And one so stunningly obvious as this?

This has to be a satire, or joke.

Are people really that stupid?

MB

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

Peregrine if you think the only types of low math jobs available to people are minimum wage "Wal-Mart" style jobs then your basically incapable of common sense.

Furthermore, we discussed math in college and now its about an engineering degree which is what you have. I guess you have never heard of summer semesters? Bang out the preqs in your first year and then take the two summer semesters and boom right back on track, and if you wanted you could actually continue to take summer semesters and finish up your 4 year degree early if you continued to take summer courses.

Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

To expand, economics is considered very complex by the scientific community. For example, psychologists who have received Nobel prizes have actually received them for their work in economics (Amos Tversky --> Daniel Kahneman is one example).

Interestingly, the Nobel Prize for Economics is not a real Nobel Prize established by a bunch of bankers.

Edit: Not to say that you are wrong Nuggz, your post just reminded me of that.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Of course economics is more complex. Some of it is even useful (ok thats mostly a lie... )
TIdbit: The Boy considered an economics degree but 1) the math wasn't hard enough; and 2) it didn't pay enough. Its all about the Benjamins...

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

There will always be less opportunity and lower ceilings for those people with gaping gaps in their knowledge or are highly specialized without at least a functional background across all levels of academia.

You cannot argue that a well educated and well-rounded person doesn't clearly have an advantage in life over those who are uneducated, partially educated or are functionally illiterate in many aspects of their education, math and reading being big ones.

Making decisions at 12 years old to drastically limit your opportunities in life is a really bad idea... In our county, the High School principal meets with every kindergarten class before schools tarts and tells parents the expectation is those kindergartners will have passed ALGEBRA before they set foot in high school. Why? because it can be done, most kids do it if you set the expectation and don't give them an out and to basically correct ignorant parents who tell their kids 'you never need math.' We have kids going to college for theater, music, English, history and for all sorts of other degrees with AP calculus in their pocket and they are better off because of it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

And you are better because...?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese.

Or because it may be an interesting journey? Maybe a fun one?

You can rely one other people to do things for you, or actually try to understand how things work. Even if it's not useful, it can be very enlightening. Or even fun.

If you rely on translations, you'll totally miss Machiavelli's point. Si guarda al fine never meant the end justifies the means.

You'll also miss Dicken's rambling monologue about doornails. Or Heirich Heine's genius. Damn, this guy was even more brilliant than Oscar Pistorius : running with no knees is one thing, but writing german poetry that actually sound like poetry... that is one impressive achievement.

Studying foreign languages also makes you formulate ideas in a different canvas, and ultimately allows you to really elaborate new concepts. It's the anti-Newspeak.

Mathematics work in the same way. You can choose to completely ignore calculus or algebra, but you'll miss a lot of things.

 generalgrog wrote:
Why else would you Major in History unless you were planning on teaching it.

I actually was seriously contemplating, pursuing PHD in History with the plan on teaching, until I saw how much money Teachers made.

So I went engineering instead. I make a lot of money, but my heart really is in History.

My gf is my Marion Ravenwood. And I'm her Indiana Jones.

Well, sort of.

Actually, I'm both Indiana Jones and Leroy J. Gibbs...

(technically, my job looks more like Abby's, but let's pretend, shall we... )

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Bang out the preqs in your first year and then take the two summer semesters and boom right back on track, and if you wanted you could actually continue to take summer semesters and finish up your 4 year degree early if you continued to take summer courses.

You're assuming that all coursework is offered during the summer. This is foolish, as quite frequently courses are not even offered every semester.

Litcheur wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese.

Or because it may be an interesting journey? Maybe a fun one?

I learned Japanese because I was curious how closely the dub or sub of an anime was to the actual Japanese.

I was absolutely stunned at the liberties taken with the various translations.

For instance:

そ。(So) is used in Japanese to mean all kinds of things ("Yes, I see." "Well, maybe." "Well, maybe not." "I don't think so." "I think so, too."), often contradictory things, and guessing which one is not always so easy from the context.

And.

はい。(Hai - supposedly meaning "yes") can also mean "What/I beg your pardon?" Or simply "No, but I don't want to upset anyone." OH! And there are at least three different common words for saying "yes," each for different social situations, and each that can also mean "Not really." (Aside from just saying べつに - Betsu ni).

But I didn't NEED to learn Japanese... It just seemed like something that might be fun while I couldn't walk.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Of course economics is more complex. Some of it is even useful (ok thats mostly a lie... )
TIdbit: The Boy considered an economics degree but 1) the math wasn't hard enough; and 2) it didn't pay enough. Its all about the Benjamins...

Da Boss said that average salaries are not the only measure of how needed a job is. You responded that average salaries are determined by the meeting of supply and demand. I responded that that isn't true, there's a whole lot of factors beyond demand and supply that influence salaries.

Oh, and economics degrees are a great option. You can walk in to anything that business will get you in to (except financial accounting, but that's probably a good thing). And if you want to do that whole life of the mind thing, economics is more lucrative than anything else, even more than proper, hard work fields like hard science. This is because economics consulting is stupidly lucrative, and its way more practical to take that work while working for a uni than in any other field.

I'm of the opinion that advanced math and science (Physics, etc) are of use to everyone. It's good to know how the world works. I have a job where I never use those things, but I'm glad I learned them.

Having the knowledge means that the populace is less easily manipulated by people lying about science/math. This is a good thing.

If nothing else, it will mean less arguments along the lines of 'It's only a theory'...