Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
It doesn't get geekier than that
You all of course know about Erdős numbers. You might even be familiar with Bacon numbers.
But Erdős–Bacon numbers? This takes it to a completely different level. There are 23 people for whom the number is defined, including such luminaries as Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan and Natalie Portman.
I wonder if one of those will ever be up for sale...
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »
But Erdős–Bacon numbers? This takes it to a completely different level. There are 23 people for whom the number is defined, including such luminaries as Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan and Natalie Portman.
I wonder if one of those will ever be up for sale...
£139.50 a year for this?
How many billions are there in a billion? This is the top story on the BBC News website right now:
Next year I'll send them a check for £1.39. I'm sure they won't mind.
p.s. I would also comment on treating 'benefit costs and lost taxes' as a cost to the economy, but learning to count is a good starting point.
UPDATE: They have finally corrected the story. It took a while...
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »
Ill health 'costs economy £1bn'
Ill health costs the British economy over £1bn a year - the same as the cost of running the NHS for a year, a report is set to say.
The calculation will appear in an analysis by Dame Carol Black, national director for health and work.
Dame Carol's report will say the total cost of ill-health to the British economy is around £103bn.
The bulk of that - £63bn - is made of the benefit costs and lost taxes for people who are not working due to illness or disability.
The rest of the bill is made up the cost of the care given by family and friends, the cost to an employer of having someone absent from work and other additional costs.
Next year I'll send them a check for £1.39. I'm sure they won't mind.
p.s. I would also comment on treating 'benefit costs and lost taxes' as a cost to the economy, but learning to count is a good starting point.
UPDATE: They have finally corrected the story. It took a while...
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
If you listen to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, and a lot of people don’t, he’ll claim that mathematics can tell you the future. In fact, the professor says that a computer model he built and has perfected over the last 25 years can predict the outcome of virtually any international conflict, provided the basic input is accurate. What’s more, his predictions are alarmingly specific. His fans include at least one current presidential hopeful, a gaggle of Fortune 500 companies, the CIA, and the Department of Defense.
More here, via MR.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
A well written and well made movie, based on an extraordinary true story:
Having someone recite a frequency-ordered alphabet is, of course, not efficient at all - unless your sole purpose is to minimise the number of required blinks, a minor consideration in this case.
I can think of a hundred different schemes to arrange letters so as to make the whole process of communicating letters more efficient, ranging from morse code to a mobile-phone style categorisation of letters.
Keep in mind that Bauby's ability to see, hear and think were not at all impaired, and he could easily master any such scheme very quickly.
So, a little more thinking going into this would have allowed Bauby to increase his speed of communication with the outside world and, yes, his quality of life dramatically. As simple, and as sad, as that.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »
At the age of 43, on December 8, 1995, Bauby, editor of ELLE magazine, suffered a stroke. When he woke up twenty days later, he found he was almost entirely speechless; he could only move his mouth a little, grunt, and blink his left eyelid.
Despite his condition, he authored the book The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by blinking when the correct letter was reached by a person slowly reciting the alphabet over and over again. Bauby had to compose and edit the book entirely in his head, and convey it one letter at a time.
The movie reminded me of Mar Adentro, another true story, as well as the classic Johnny Got his Gun (and read the book, even if you disagree with it's politics. You can buy it for a pound here.)
And it might say something about me, but the thought that kept torturing me throughout watching The Diving Bell and the Butterfly had to do with the communication system devised by Bauby's speech therapist:The entire book was written by Bauby blinking his left eyelid. An amanuensis repeatedly recited a frequency-ordered alphabet (E, L, A, O, I, N, S, D ...), until Bauby blinked to choose the next letter. This made dictation more efficient. The book took about 200,000 blinks to write and each word took approximately two minutes.
Having someone recite a frequency-ordered alphabet is, of course, not efficient at all - unless your sole purpose is to minimise the number of required blinks, a minor consideration in this case.
I can think of a hundred different schemes to arrange letters so as to make the whole process of communicating letters more efficient, ranging from morse code to a mobile-phone style categorisation of letters.
Keep in mind that Bauby's ability to see, hear and think were not at all impaired, and he could easily master any such scheme very quickly.
So, a little more thinking going into this would have allowed Bauby to increase his speed of communication with the outside world and, yes, his quality of life dramatically. As simple, and as sad, as that.
Dr Datacharmer's Brain Training
The classic proof that 2 = 1 runs thus. First, let x = y = 1. Then:
x = y
x2 = xy
x2 - y2 = xy - y2
(x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
x + y = y
2 = 1
NB: x2 signifies x squared.
Spoilers at overcoming bias, via Chris Dillow.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »
x = y
x2 = xy
x2 - y2 = xy - y2
(x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
x + y = y
2 = 1
NB: x2 signifies x squared.
Spoilers at overcoming bias, via Chris Dillow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
