Comments on: Could I pass eighth-grade math?

By: Gardner Colmcille Ruari

Gardner Colmcille Ruari — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:11:27 +0000

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.

By: Techfoot » Blog Archive » I Passed College

Techfoot » Blog Archive » I Passed College — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:39:03 +0000

[...] Some time ago, Gardner proudly announced that he had passed 8th grade math. Soon, students at the nation’s 3000 universities may be able to display a little logo on their facebook or myspace accounts proudly documenting that they and passed their grade 16 test and were legitimately able to claim to be college graduates. [...]

By: Gardo

Gardo — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:57:39 +0000

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.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:45:18 +0000

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.

By: Gardo

Gardo — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:48:20 +0000

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.

By: Queenannelace

Queenannelace — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:51:55 +0000

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.”

By: Teresa Kennedy

Teresa Kennedy — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:32:26 +0000

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?

By: Gardo

Gardo — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:53:37 +0000

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.

By: Teresa Kennedy

Teresa Kennedy — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:09:15 +0000

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. . ..)

By: Gardo

Gardo — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:56:37 +0000

I’d say it’s both, Alan, but thanks for the 20hz-20khz vote of confidence!