Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 7:43 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Does Mathematical Innumeracy foster superstitions and support the belief in them?

Topic closed. 122 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Delta Draw.

Page 2 of 9
52
PrintE-mailLink

Does Mathematical Innumeracy foster superstitions and support the belief in them?

Yes [ 9 ]  [45.00%]
No [ 11 ]  [55.00%]
Total Valid Votes [ 20 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 4 ]  
Avatar

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 22, 2011, 6:43 am - IP Logged

RL,

You have somehow been able to use the words chance and luck together as a set in one sentence. This is a survey on Innumeracy, not illiteracy. Innumeracy and illiteracy are sometimes a human trait but so also is numeracy and literacy. So being human is neither good nor bad; it is how you process information between your ear wax plugs that counts. Your point is indeterminate.

In certain public games of chance, the player who uses a form of numeracy to their advantage is considered a cheat. At the
same time, all manner of media to promote the concept of luck is not considered as cheating and is an acceptable approach to a game. I think that balance could be viewed as a ‘sometimes’. A methodological approach to a game with a full understanding of the odds of chance is never promoted or encouraged.

Your Dunnig-Kruger effected mathematicians who use both models (chance and luck) for decision making cannot be disciplined in mathematics to be called Mathematicians.
Being able to use mathematics does not make one a mathematician with the exception to one’s relative skills to another. There is no ‘sometimes’ answer here, the answer is either true or false, one or zero; an absolute determinate.
Since this is an opinion poll, there is no wrong answer for as much as it confounds you, sometimes. BUT, if you have one or more studies from respectable
sources with numerical facts to back up such a big fat claim about the superstitions of mathematicians and how they switch hit, I would be glad to review the information from the link(s).

“Chance favors the prepared mind” is a famous quote of Louis Pasteur. He did not say luck because luck and chance are not the same to the prepared mind. They are not the same to the unprepared mind. They are not even in the same category. Not
even sometimes. That gray zone of lumping two different words to equal the same thing is a human trait too: Dunning- Kruger.

Vacillating on a decision is also called being human but the informed decisions always seem
to outperform uninformed decisions. Normal people evaluate the results from their decisions and make
corrections to make better decisions. Innumerics who cannot process information gravitate to superstition and there is no
correction to be made in that decision making process, except to try another equally stupid decision based on more bad information. The quick pick becomes a simplification to decision making that provides a chance on what is superstitiously
considered a fair distribution; your odds to win are 1:n. Are they?

The problem with the quick pick is that several winners have had the same winning numbers
for a draw that did not have sufficient sales to complete the sale of all combinations ONCE. If less than all the
combinations are sold for a draw as quick picks, there should be at the most, ONE winner at a jackpot level. The other losers did not buy a chance as advertised when there are two jackpot winners but are convinced that the QP is the right choice to beat the odds from example. What fails the innumeric is this: that if two tickets can be winners with less than all combinations
sold, then there can also be two losers for another two tickets of another identical combination. Those tickets do not represent an advertised 1:n chance. Not even sometimes. Only two have improved odds while the others have odds that are far worse than normal.

The only situation where less than all the combinations are sold as Quick Picks and there are two or more Jackpot winners (one being a QP) is where one winner has purchased a Quick pick and the other(s), Self Pick. The idea that QP’s can beat the odds is all about who’s odds you want to beat. Players think the odds are in their favor with multiple QP winners/low sales and chose a QP out of innumeracy thinking they have a better chance than another SP player. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.

If the entire combination pool is not sold and repeat tickets are distributed as QP’s, then what are the odds?

Are they really in the game?
Sometimes. That is called being human also.

IMHO, 

DD

At least you defined some of your terms.  Evidently within the context of your question there are apparently 'mathematicians' with a lower case 'm' [educated in math, but not performing in accordance with the parameters you've defined] and Mathematians with an upper case 'M', [those who agree with you].

If you went a step further and explained your personal definition of the word, "superstition" it might be helpful.  Would it be correct to assume the defining characteristics of a superstition follow generally the same guidelines as your distinction between mathematicians and Mathematicians?


    United States
    Member #81843
    October 31, 2009
    856 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 22, 2011, 6:54 am - IP Logged

    At least you defined some of your terms.  Evidently within the context of your question there are apparently 'mathematicians' with a lower case 'm' [educated in math, but not performing in accordance with the parameters you've defined] and Mathematians with an upper case 'M', [those who agree with you].

    If you went a step further and explained your personal definition of the word, "superstition" it might be helpful.  Would it be correct to assume the defining characteristics of a superstition follow generally the same guidelines as your distinction between mathematicians and Mathematicians?

    I guess I should have provided a link so you would not get all wound up and hung
    up on what “Innumeracy “ is.

    I guess what I think a mathematician is - whether I use upper case or lower case is not related to innumeracy as much as it is to illiteracy, therefore,..

    If

    a  mathematician is an innumeric by superstition, is he a mathematician?

    DD


      United States
      Member #81843
      October 31, 2009
      856 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 22, 2011, 7:06 am - IP Logged

      At least you defined some of your terms.  Evidently within the context of your question there are apparently 'mathematicians' with a lower case 'm' [educated in math, but not performing in accordance with the parameters you've defined] and Mathematians with an upper case 'M', [those who agree with you].

      If you went a step further and explained your personal definition of the word, "superstition" it might be helpful.  Would it be correct to assume the defining characteristics of a superstition follow generally the same guidelines as your distinction between mathematicians and Mathematicians?

      For you and pumpi, from the leading post to the thread, this should clear up any misunderstanding:

       

      "those who have a grasp on mathematics and statistics.

      DD"

        Avatar

        United States
        Member #105312
        January 29, 2011
        435 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 22, 2011, 7:09 am - IP Logged

        I guess I should have provided a link so you would not get all wound up and hung
        up on what “Innumeracy “ is.

        I guess what I think a mathematician is - whether I use upper case or lower case is not related to innumeracy as much as it is to illiteracy, therefore,..

        If

        a  mathematician is an innumeric by superstition, is he a mathematician?

        DD

        You could have done that, but it wouldn't have mattered.  I'd have still gotten all wound up and hung up on what innumeracy is.  I'd guess you're correct in your second sentence, though a reader would never guess you thought so, judging from your previous post.

        A mathematician is a mathematician, is a Mathematician.  Innumeric, on the other hand, is a vague, ill-defined word describing some degree of non-comprehension of math.

        Similar to the word, illiterate, in a sense.  Id de pipples on de forums illiterate?  Or id dey just semi-literate?

        Id de pipples on de sistems froum innumerate?  Or all dey just semi-innumerate?

        A dey superstitionous?  Or Superstitionous?  Semi-superstitionous?  Semi-Superstitionous?


          United States
          Member #81843
          October 31, 2009
          856 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 22, 2011, 7:59 am - IP Logged

          You could have done that, but it wouldn't have mattered.  I'd have still gotten all wound up and hung up on what innumeracy is.  I'd guess you're correct in your second sentence, though a reader would never guess you thought so, judging from your previous post.

          A mathematician is a mathematician, is a Mathematician.  Innumeric, on the other hand, is a vague, ill-defined word describing some degree of non-comprehension of math.

          Similar to the word, illiterate, in a sense.  Id de pipples on de forums illiterate?  Or id dey just semi-literate?

          Id de pipples on de sistems froum innumerate?  Or all dey just semi-innumerate?

          A dey superstitionous?  Or Superstitionous?  Semi-superstitionous?  Semi-Superstitionous?

          I like how you define things. In fact Minimus is a good name you have.

          I don’t know about all the people on the forums and do not care if they are illiterate
          or innumerics. This is a poll for people who have a grasp of mathematics and statistics, not just a familiarity. What separates the men from the boys is the fine line between science and psuedo-science you continue to wallow in.

          If you want to say a word is vague with vague facts and opinion then that is up to you. If you
          think a two year old that can count to ten is a mathematician, then that is up
          to you. If you play a game that is not grounded on the odds that it is founded
          on, then that is up to you. You are the master of your world and if it is flat,
          then that is up to you. I am not responsible for your lack of terminology and how you wish to define something. You could
          have looked the word up and responded in a self educated way but being a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect is the way you want to play it. BUT, the micro-cephalic and the innumerates on this site that challenge people they fear because they are educated and not superstitious and hold to science and not superstition can whine all the way to the poorhouse for all I care. If you want to discuss the benefits of superstition there is a forum for that and it is not the discussion forum. In this forum we explore the plus points of the science of numbers and this is not another place for superstitious people to spill over into to drive their innumeracy to new heights. Mathematics is a science, like it or not your opinion of what it is,  is meaningless innumeracy proving a point about innumeracy.

          Have it your way and make sure there is a toy with your happy meal, little Joe.

          DD

            Avatar

            United States
            Member #105312
            January 29, 2011
            435 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 22, 2011, 10:31 am - IP Logged

            I like how you define things. In fact Minimus is a good name you have.

            I don’t know about all the people on the forums and do not care if they are illiterate
            or innumerics. This is a poll for people who have a grasp of mathematics and statistics, not just a familiarity. What separates the men from the boys is the fine line between science and psuedo-science you continue to wallow in.

            If you want to say a word is vague with vague facts and opinion then that is up to you. If you
            think a two year old that can count to ten is a mathematician, then that is up
            to you. If you play a game that is not grounded on the odds that it is founded
            on, then that is up to you. You are the master of your world and if it is flat,
            then that is up to you. I am not responsible for your lack of terminology and how you wish to define something. You could
            have looked the word up and responded in a self educated way but being a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect is the way you want to play it. BUT, the micro-cephalic and the innumerates on this site that challenge people they fear because they are educated and not superstitious and hold to science and not superstition can whine all the way to the poorhouse for all I care. If you want to discuss the benefits of superstition there is a forum for that and it is not the discussion forum. In this forum we explore the plus points of the science of numbers and this is not another place for superstitious people to spill over into to drive their innumeracy to new heights. Mathematics is a science, like it or not your opinion of what it is,  is meaningless innumeracy proving a point about innumeracy.

            Have it your way and make sure there is a toy with your happy meal, little Joe.

            DD

            "On this forum 'we'?"  You haven't posted here before under this ID.  Under this ID you've been doing your posting on the Lottery Discussions Forum, attacking Coin Toss. 

            On this forum the 'we' of individuals who post here regularly, discuss whatever the people doing the posting choose to post and others choose to reply to. 

            You're the one who brought the question of superstition to the forum, without defining what you intended to define as superstition.  You're the one who's chosen to explain to RL, one of the regular members who posts here always using the same ID, the difference between an upper-case 'M" as opposed to a lower case 'm' as it pertains to expertise and approaches to math.

            And now, having had the petty attacks you were making against the character of Coin Toss on the Lottery Discussions Forum deleted, you've arrived to explain what's valid and appropriate on the math forum.

            Switch back to your other ID, advance and be recognized by those who don't have your posts blocked.


              United States
              Member #81843
              October 31, 2009
              856 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 22, 2011, 6:28 pm - IP Logged

              "On this forum 'we'?"  You haven't posted here before under this ID.  Under this ID you've been doing your posting on the Lottery Discussions Forum, attacking Coin Toss. 

              On this forum the 'we' of individuals who post here regularly, discuss whatever the people doing the posting choose to post and others choose to reply to. 

              You're the one who brought the question of superstition to the forum, without defining what you intended to define as superstition.  You're the one who's chosen to explain to RL, one of the regular members who posts here always using the same ID, the difference between an upper-case 'M" as opposed to a lower case 'm' as it pertains to expertise and approaches to math.

              And now, having had the petty attacks you were making against the character of Coin Toss on the Lottery Discussions Forum deleted, you've arrived to explain what's valid and appropriate on the math forum.

              Switch back to your other ID, advance and be recognized by those who don't have your posts blocked.

              Oh.
              You wish to make a point. I think Todd has the capacity to figure out if I have another ID. Maybe it is raven62?

              “You haven't posted here before under this ID.” My
              second post as a member (immediate platinum) was in this forum to a thread on Random
              Occurrences. That was on November 2, 2009.

              I have not posted in this forum before? Sure I have. I even posted about BOOKS
              here. Books for literate people who can read, as in read words….. Books that have
              ideas and concepts and new ways of thinking in them for literate people. Also about software. Software that does not
              have a hint of innumeracy in it. Computers can be trained to be innumerate
              while functioning at light fast speeds being numerate.

              I was a member on October 31, 2009. A Platinum member. As late as March of this
              year I posted in this forum.

              You have made several observations that never happened.

              You need to check yourself. As for Coin Toss goes, well as they say “you cannot pick your relatives”.

              I take it you do not think innumeracy and superstition has a correlation. Educators will be happy to know that. You cannot
              read, search or research facts. Like I said, this is not about one’s illiteracy, it is about Innumeracy and is not an invitation to argue but as my lead to the thread says, ” Just a friendly survey to find out what people think”. Why so sad?

              When I posted in this forum about Artificial Neural
              Networks, CT was reading the mail and taking pot shots in his loser threads
              like the sniper he is on the topic. He needs his meds and should stay on them.
              If you look up Innumeracy in a Dictionary book, there is a picture of Coin Toss.
              Next edition will have a picture of you next to Illiteracy. Sadly there is no
              medication to fight innumeracy and illiteracy, it is called being human: The Dunning-Kruger
              Effect (people are too stupid to know they are stupid). The cure is education.

              Do you know why Innumerate’s fear numerates? It is the education that they lack that makes them feel insulted. That is why you attack jimmy and follow him around like you do me. I like to post to CT’s threads because it gets people to read his threads more and I know how much that means to him. You can't pick your relatives even if one is an unlucky superstitious pinhead.

              DD

                Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                Zeta Reticuli Star System
                United States
                Member #30470
                January 17, 2006
                10348 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 22, 2011, 6:49 pm - IP Logged

                Well Double Dumbarse opening one of your posts is always so delightful but it's really a shame that nowhere in your education did you learn talking down to and belittling people only makes you like like a moron. Your pseudo-intellectual baloney is pathetic.

                I also see your posts in the Convergence thread did indeed disappear. If only you would. Guess you only decide to be marice's buddy for so long.

                Have a nice life.

                Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

                Lep

                There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.


                  United States
                  Member #81843
                  October 31, 2009
                  856 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 22, 2011, 6:58 pm - IP Logged

                  Well Double Dumbarse opening one of your posts is always so delightful but it's really a shame that nowhere in your education did you learn talking down to and belittling people only makes you like like a moron. Your pseudo-intellectual baloney is pathetic.

                  I also see your posts in the Convergence thread did indeed disappear. If only you would. Guess you only decide to be marice's buddy for so long.

                  Have a nice life.

                  Hey
                  Cuz, it’s all good.

                  I bet someone a grand that you were reading my posts even though you repeatedly said
                  you have me blocked. They wanted to up the anti and bet me another grand that
                  there is no way you would respond to a thread of mine.

                  Love ya pinhead,

                  DDBananaBanana Winner-Winner; Chicken Dinner!!

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                    United States
                    Member #59354
                    March 13, 2008
                    3964 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 22, 2011, 8:12 pm - IP Logged

                    RL,

                    You have somehow been able to use the words chance and luck together as a set in one sentence. This is a survey on Innumeracy, not illiteracy. Innumeracy and illiteracy are sometimes a human trait but so also is numeracy and literacy. So being human is neither good nor bad; it is how you process information between your ear wax plugs that counts. Your point is indeterminate.

                    In certain public games of chance, the player who uses a form of numeracy to their advantage is considered a cheat. At the
                    same time, all manner of media to promote the concept of luck is not considered as cheating and is an acceptable approach to a game. I think that balance could be viewed as a ‘sometimes’. A methodological approach to a game with a full understanding of the odds of chance is never promoted or encouraged.

                    Your Dunnig-Kruger effected mathematicians who use both models (chance and luck) for decision making cannot be disciplined in mathematics to be called Mathematicians.
                    Being able to use mathematics does not make one a mathematician with the exception to one’s relative skills to another. There is no ‘sometimes’ answer here, the answer is either true or false, one or zero; an absolute determinate.
                    Since this is an opinion poll, there is no wrong answer for as much as it confounds you, sometimes. BUT, if you have one or more studies from respectable
                    sources with numerical facts to back up such a big fat claim about the superstitions of mathematicians and how they switch hit, I would be glad to review the information from the link(s).

                    “Chance favors the prepared mind” is a famous quote of Louis Pasteur. He did not say luck because luck and chance are not the same to the prepared mind. They are not the same to the unprepared mind. They are not even in the same category. Not
                    even sometimes. That gray zone of lumping two different words to equal the same thing is a human trait too: Dunning- Kruger.

                    Vacillating on a decision is also called being human but the informed decisions always seem
                    to outperform uninformed decisions. Normal people evaluate the results from their decisions and make
                    corrections to make better decisions. Innumerics who cannot process information gravitate to superstition and there is no
                    correction to be made in that decision making process, except to try another equally stupid decision based on more bad information. The quick pick becomes a simplification to decision making that provides a chance on what is superstitiously
                    considered a fair distribution; your odds to win are 1:n. Are they?

                    The problem with the quick pick is that several winners have had the same winning numbers
                    for a draw that did not have sufficient sales to complete the sale of all combinations ONCE. If less than all the
                    combinations are sold for a draw as quick picks, there should be at the most, ONE winner at a jackpot level. The other losers did not buy a chance as advertised when there are two jackpot winners but are convinced that the QP is the right choice to beat the odds from example. What fails the innumeric is this: that if two tickets can be winners with less than all combinations
                    sold, then there can also be two losers for another two tickets of another identical combination. Those tickets do not represent an advertised 1:n chance. Not even sometimes. Only two have improved odds while the others have odds that are far worse than normal.

                    The only situation where less than all the combinations are sold as Quick Picks and there are two or more Jackpot winners (one being a QP) is where one winner has purchased a Quick pick and the other(s), Self Pick. The idea that QP’s can beat the odds is all about who’s odds you want to beat. Players think the odds are in their favor with multiple QP winners/low sales and chose a QP out of innumeracy thinking they have a better chance than another SP player. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.

                    If the entire combination pool is not sold and repeat tickets are distributed as QP’s, then what are the odds?

                    Are they really in the game?
                    Sometimes. That is called being human also.

                    IMHO, 

                    DD

                    DD

                    Wow, you must of really read this book many times.  Luck is a superstition and anyone who thinks it is 

                    responsible for anything is missguided.  What many call luck I call chance.  The Dunning-Kruger effect is

                    as common as rain in the Amazon jungle.  I must admit that I am confounded by your newley found

                    wisdom that clearly shows you suffer from D-K.  I doubt you took the time to consider the repercussions

                    your mention of Dunnig-Kruger would generate.

                    Many who post the work of others very neary never consider all the implications of doing so.  I would 

                    speculate that you found this info and made a quick read which empowered you in some way to educate

                    the rest of us without enough foundation to realize that you placed yourself within the confines of it's

                    findings.  I have yet to be convinced that Mathematicians post here, why would they waste there time?

                    I would think that a true Mathematician would never even consider buying a lottery ticket even as a form

                    of entertainment.  The lottery is a game which has players and critics and those who just like to cheer

                    them on.  I use math in my quest and I have also had some better then expected success.  Just having

                    a math forum in a lottery post is a sort of oxymoron.  The odds say it all and anyone that has even the

                    most mundane understanding of math and odds should be able to see this.  I would futhure venture to

                    say that not many Mathematicians hang here looking to improve ther academic skills, and because most

                    of them have no sense of hummor they would not visit even for a good laugh.  Those who pretend to

                    possess abilities needed to reprove me are laughable because I am playing a game.  I will continue to use

                    the most unorthodox math concepts without feeling need for correction because I understand what I am 

                    doing.  I am not a mathematician and I don't play one on TV but in my real life, the one outside the realm

                    of the lottery I do know several who are.  I sometimes like to put the top down and feel the wind on my

                    hair so to speak.  The lottery is a game is a game is a game.  I have yet to meet the person who has

                    complete immunity from defective reasoning and that includes me.  Anyone who thinks that they will

                    win a jackpot is illuisonal but I like the fact that there are some very rich illusional people out there.


                      United States
                      Member #81843
                      October 31, 2009
                      856 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 22, 2011, 9:04 pm - IP Logged

                      DD

                      Wow, you must of really read this book many times.  Luck is a superstition and anyone who thinks it is 

                      responsible for anything is missguided.  What many call luck I call chance.  The Dunning-Kruger effect is

                      as common as rain in the Amazon jungle.  I must admit that I am confounded by your newley found

                      wisdom that clearly shows you suffer from D-K.  I doubt you took the time to consider the repercussions

                      your mention of Dunnig-Kruger would generate.

                      Many who post the work of others very neary never consider all the implications of doing so.  I would 

                      speculate that you found this info and made a quick read which empowered you in some way to educate

                      the rest of us without enough foundation to realize that you placed yourself within the confines of it's

                      findings.  I have yet to be convinced that Mathematicians post here, why would they waste there time?

                      I would think that a true Mathematician would never even consider buying a lottery ticket even as a form

                      of entertainment.  The lottery is a game which has players and critics and those who just like to cheer

                      them on.  I use math in my quest and I have also had some better then expected success.  Just having

                      a math forum in a lottery post is a sort of oxymoron.  The odds say it all and anyone that has even the

                      most mundane understanding of math and odds should be able to see this.  I would futhure venture to

                      say that not many Mathematicians hang here looking to improve ther academic skills, and because most

                      of them have no sense of hummor they would not visit even for a good laugh.  Those who pretend to

                      possess abilities needed to reprove me are laughable because I am playing a game.  I will continue to use

                      the most unorthodox math concepts without feeling need for correction because I understand what I am 

                      doing.  I am not a mathematician and I don't play one on TV but in my real life, the one outside the realm

                      of the lottery I do know several who are.  I sometimes like to put the top down and feel the wind on my

                      hair so to speak.  The lottery is a game is a game is a game.  I have yet to meet the person who has

                      complete immunity from defective reasoning and that includes me.  Anyone who thinks that they will

                      win a jackpot is illuisonal but I like the fact that there are some very rich illusional people out there.

                      "I would futhure venture to say that not many Mathematicians hang here looking to improve ther academic skills, and because most

                      of them have no sense of hummor they would not visit even for a good laugh." 

                        Here, let me help and see if they have no funny bone; Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil!

                       

                      Wow
                      RL you got the Dunning-Krugar down. Notice it is spelled with an ‘a’.       I thought you were going to hammer me on an incorrect spelling; D-K. I estimated you were smarter, my D-K.

                      There would be no ‘legalized’ gaming if it were not for mathematicians. I do not
                      understand how you can say a mathematician would not buy a lottery ticket or
                      would not post here. It must have filled a need to have a mathematics forum as there
                      was a need for a mystical forum. Do you think a mathematician is meta cognitive
                      of the odds to the point that they will not venture a chance on probability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance

                      Winner-Winner, Chicken Dinner .Banana  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team

                      What is up with all the statistical mechanics at LP anyways? Are the people who make
                      those worksheets and software not aware that they violating your thoughts on
                      what a mathematician does? Someone is smarter than someone, so who is it?

                      How can you evaluate or define a mathematician if you are not one or have never been
                      a student of higher math? D-K suggests that the people under the stupid side of the effect have
                      issues trusting educated sources. Yet you will subscribe to myths and ones you
                      make up on the fly like the validity of a word: Innumeracy.

                      DD

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #105312
                        January 29, 2011
                        435 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 22, 2011, 10:13 pm - IP Logged

                        i believe in superstitions why 2 things for example of the many that make me believe in it is let us take gravity, how can you explain that something INVISIBLE that is not solid can HOLD things in place, sorry but i got to see a rope another example, the Aurora Borealis is unique in nature some force or atoms are in works in that that we dont know or dont understand fully....

                        also if it was 100 people is fine but when you start hearing millions and hundreds of millions of people SAY THE SAME THING SINCE MANKINDS INCEPTION theres got to be something to it...

                        also saw a documentary one time that the best renown mathematicians of older times including Issac Newton, many greeks were Astrologers and astrology is full of myth...is myth in many cases that keeps you going...

                        there are many things about the brain not understood or known, many misteries in the brain, good example is asperber syndrome...how you know there is not a gene or switch in the brain that so often makes you see a different type of energy...you have to give it time..

                        in 1320 nobody knew what a gene or DNA was...they saw blood and said: oh thats just a red liquid...

                        Pumpi:  I couldn't agree more on your comment about the mysteries of the brain.  Sometimes it almost seems human life is moving on an assembly line.  Always a group of humans of approximately the same size playing Ring Around the Rosey and Red Rover, a little further along the line always a group of similar size shooting goals in the driveway and wanting whatever the other kids think is cool.  Watching scary movies and describing them to one another.

                        And so on.  Somewhere in young adulthood they split off into loosely defined factions and begin solidifying in their certainties of their own rightness-of-viewpoing and disdain for the viewpoints of other factions. 

                        Every trailer park in the US has a group of guys sitting around in it saying the same things to one another as guys in a thousand other trailer parks all across the country.  Every university campus has the cadre of students walking and sitting around talking about the same things others were talking about on the same campuses 40 years ago, all of them then and now thinking they thought of it.

                        Assembly line.  There it is, running through the forums on Lottery Post.  The Math forum folks visiting Lottery Systems, but a great percentage of them seething with smug contempt for the Mystical Forum, members of which feel much the same about the Math Forum users. 

                        And all of them equally certain they are absolutely right in their own perceptions. 

                        The people on lottery post aren't much different from the people down in the trailer parks and the cadre of rosey cheeks moving across the landscape of university campuses.  They're all certain they're right and they're all certain anyone who views it differently is wrong.  Mostly they're convinced they're possessed of a higher level of intellect than people who disagree with them, more common sense, or a better understanding of something someone told them in school than people have who believe something some different person told them.

                        This creature who posed the question about superstition and  math is just stuck in one of the factional niches by having swollen with pride of opinions about what someone told him/her regarding superstition, pseudo-science, [his/her own] education, to such a degree as to be unable to escape.

                        Might as well be down in the trailer park talking about what they're saying down there insofar as originality.  Same melody with different lyrics.

                        You're right.  In 1320 nobody knew what a gene or DNA was.  In 2011 anyone who wants to know what it is can read a book someone else wrote and pontificate about what it is, while treating the knowing of it as a virtue.

                        You say you believe in superstition, which puts you one up on me.  I don't even know what superstition is.  But I've read some books about DNA.  Don't know what that is, either.


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 22, 2011, 10:40 pm - IP Logged

                          "I would futhure venture to say that not many Mathematicians hang here looking to improve ther academic skills, and because most

                          of them have no sense of hummor they would not visit even for a good laugh." 

                            Here, let me help and see if they have no funny bone; Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil!

                           

                          Wow
                          RL you got the Dunning-Krugar down. Notice it is spelled with an ‘a’.       I thought you were going to hammer me on an incorrect spelling; D-K. I estimated you were smarter, my D-K.

                          There would be no ‘legalized’ gaming if it were not for mathematicians. I do not
                          understand how you can say a mathematician would not buy a lottery ticket or
                          would not post here. It must have filled a need to have a mathematics forum as there
                          was a need for a mystical forum. Do you think a mathematician is meta cognitive
                          of the odds to the point that they will not venture a chance on probability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance

                          Winner-Winner, Chicken Dinner .Banana  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team

                          What is up with all the statistical mechanics at LP anyways? Are the people who make
                          those worksheets and software not aware that they violating your thoughts on
                          what a mathematician does? Someone is smarter than someone, so who is it?

                          How can you evaluate or define a mathematician if you are not one or have never been
                          a student of higher math? D-K suggests that the people under the stupid side of the effect have
                          issues trusting educated sources. Yet you will subscribe to myths and ones you
                          make up on the fly like the validity of a word: Innumeracy.

                          DD

                          Delta Draw,

                          Here at LP, I'm seeing what I think is a bigger problem than innumeracy per se.  As you pointed out earlier, an innumerate is not necessarily an illiterate.  There are plenty of resources and links to resources for anyone wishing to improve their understanding of mathematics right here at LP.  Unfortunately, there are forces at work which discourage and/or confuse those who would make a serious attempt to learn.  The most successful efforts are insidious, presented by people more literate than most.  I'm sure these efforts are not all conspiratorial; some are obviously the work of literate innumerates who believe what they say.  However, the ones that I think are the most successful at inhibiting learning are the ones that are much more easily explained by reflecting on the old admonition to, "Follow the Money."

                          --Jimmy4164

                            RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                            United States
                            Member #59354
                            March 13, 2008
                            3964 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 22, 2011, 10:41 pm - IP Logged

                            "I would futhure venture to say that not many Mathematicians hang here looking to improve ther academic skills, and because most

                            of them have no sense of hummor they would not visit even for a good laugh." 

                              Here, let me help and see if they have no funny bone; Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil!

                             

                            Wow
                            RL you got the Dunning-Krugar down. Notice it is spelled with an ‘a’.       I thought you were going to hammer me on an incorrect spelling; D-K. I estimated you were smarter, my D-K.

                            There would be no ‘legalized’ gaming if it were not for mathematicians. I do not
                            understand how you can say a mathematician would not buy a lottery ticket or
                            would not post here. It must have filled a need to have a mathematics forum as there
                            was a need for a mystical forum. Do you think a mathematician is meta cognitive
                            of the odds to the point that they will not venture a chance on probability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance

                            Winner-Winner, Chicken Dinner .Banana  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team

                            What is up with all the statistical mechanics at LP anyways? Are the people who make
                            those worksheets and software not aware that they violating your thoughts on
                            what a mathematician does? Someone is smarter than someone, so who is it?

                            How can you evaluate or define a mathematician if you are not one or have never been
                            a student of higher math? D-K suggests that the people under the stupid side of the effect have
                            issues trusting educated sources. Yet you will subscribe to myths and ones you
                            make up on the fly like the validity of a word: Innumeracy.

                            DD

                            DD

                            Wow, I have over 18 years in my education portfolio. I must have missed the phd in front of your DD. 

                            I scored in the top 99.96% on my sat's and have a IQ of 143,  but even with all that brain power and

                            education behind me I still feel stupid most of the time and can't begin to tell you what a pleasure it is

                            to know someone like yourself.  Many of the best and brighest can't spell worth spit so I don't hold that

                            against anyone.  I also suffer from severe dyslexia and this has lead me to use simple english to avoid

                            as many mistakes as possible.  I can't sound out a word at all so I am limited to a vocabulary of words

                            that I have memorized when writting.

                            It also takes me many attempts to write out anything mathematical. I would like to know how many true

                            mathematicans you know personaly, not just some one that is good at math but a real mathematican.  I

                            had a uncle that worked in aeronautics design and as smart as he was at least three or four people had

                            to go over his math before it was accepted. Their minds are always working on some problem which leaves

                            little time for conversing and when they do have something to say it is in terms of math.   The joke above

                            was probably someones attempt to poke fun at and was not the result of a mathematical mind.  They don't

                            think that way.   

                             

                            J. Robert Oppenheimer said of Einstein at his memorial "He was almost wholly without sophistication and

                            wholly without worldliness.   There was always with him a wonderful purity at once childlike and profoundly

                            stubborn."

                             

                            I got the stubborn part down to a Tee" 

                             

                            RL

                            Working on my Ph.D.  "University of hard Knocks"

                            I will consider the opinion that my winnings are a product of chance if you are willing to consider

                            they are not.  Many great discoveries come while searching for something else

                            USAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Base_Engineer_Emergency_Force

                              US Flag Trump / 2016 & 2020  


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 23, 2011, 12:33 am - IP Logged