Sure, but not quite with Andy’s flying colors:
|
You Passed 8th Grade Math |
 Congratulations, you got either 9/10 or 10/10 correct! |
I choked at the last minute trying to remember the difference between a whole number and an integer. I guessed wrong. Otherwise, take that, oh skeptics of the humanities! I’m at a robust 12-year-old level!
EDIT: I’m trying to discover the difference between a whole number and an integer. Is there a difference? If so, what is it? If not, then the makers of the test may have stumbled. Some sources say whole numbers must be positive. Others say that whole number and integer are synonymous. I tremble to see this kind of uncertainty.
FURTHER EDIT: Ah, I see that I really did get 10/10 on the math quiz. This Wikipedia entry, which I have checked against other sites such as Wolfram, etc., makes it clear that “whole number” can mean the same as “integer.” Apparently the term “whole number” has become so ambiguous–positive integers, nonnegative integers, all integers?–that its use is now discouraged by some (many?) mathematicians.
Congratulations Gardner. Unless, of course, you changed the Wikipedia article on integers to fit your needs. 🙂
As the kids say, LOL! 🙂 (Or should that be ROTFLM*O?)
But is “knowing math” really knowing memorizable definitions? I am sure you can handle some complex frequency adjustment calculations in your sound work– now that is math!
I’d say it’s both, Alan, but thanks for the 20hz-20khz vote of confidence! 🙂
Well, it’s time for ‘a man on the street interview.’ Walt is not impressed by our math skills. Integers are defined as positive and negative whole numbers. Whole numbers are that set of positive and negative numbers. Imaginary numbers (this part gives me a headache. . ..)
Tell Walt to stand down. 🙂 The issue here is whether “whole numbers” includes negative numbers, nonnegative numbers, or positive numbers only. There is, alas, no consensus on this question, so for my money the phrase “whole numbers” needs to be retired from use.
Imaginary numbers let us do things with square roots of negative numbers. But that’s all I know about that, to misquote Forrest Gump.
I can’t believe you! Imaginary numbers are necessary to understand the three dimensional quality of forces, such as for example, electromagnatism–as to your whole numbers thing, well of course it’s not a useful distinction–but why not retire integers????? instead. Think conceptually how much easier whole number is to say than integer? Honestly. Imaginary numbers are the best ever. Want to talk about what Kant has to say (in his dissertation) about zero?
From mathworld.com
One of the numbers 1, 2, 3, … (Sloane’s A000027), also called the counting numbers or natural numbers. 0 is sometimes included in the list of “whole” numbers (Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974), but there seems to be no general agreement. Some authors also interpret “whole number” to mean “a number having fractional part of zero,” making the whole numbers equivalent to the integers.
Due to lack of standard terminology, the following terms are recommended in preference to “counting number,” “natural number,” and “whole number.”
Right, that’s one of the references I saw in this regard.
As for electromagnetism and zero, I can’t hear you when the radio is up so loud. 🙂
Jeez, Terry. What a renaissance women you are! Does your department know you use words like those? And to think I used to see you only as a humanist. 😉
Some eerie synchronicity here: this week’s “In Our Time” is on Negative Numbers, and while they didn’t discuss the whole number vs. integer question, they did tell some fascinating stories about math competitions, the controversy over whether imaginary numbers are even needed, and “directive quantities.” Amazing stuff.
Pingback: Techfoot » Blog Archive » I Passed College
I was just trying to get a hit on “I Pass” by Y.A.Tittle. an autobiographic hardcover that I got at a library for 25cents a few years ago. When I saw fthe Gardner response to “Could I pass eight-grade math?”, it prompted me to comment. It is perhaps because of my egocentric side that my own surname caught my interest and my eye . (mea culpa) Is this the Martin Gardner of Scientific American fame whose name appeared in the blog? I didn’t search around much to answer my question but it was good to see intelligent conversation in print.