What level of mathematics demands your career?

[sweetheart]

Poll question: What level of mathematics demands your career?

What level of mathematics do you use in your work? It seems Mr. bush
thinks that if people can do better math in schools, they'll be ready
for all those jobs requiring advanced maths.... so, that said, how much
math has your career required of you?

[imenja]

1. Where do I put this?

I do simple algebraic equations to calculate grades on Excel, as well as some simple statistics. That seems to fall between three and four--more than division yet definitely not calculus.

[Aviation Pro]

37. I work in the world....

...of lift equations, aerodynamics and speed polars. You bet I use math every single day. Those who don't learn math are doomed to the lower end of the economy.

[phylny]

72. *Really* Ahem.

I do no more than figure out percentages for my work, although I need to understand standard deviations from the mean for scoring and interpreting tests - and that's easily looked up in a book, and learned in psychology and communication disorder classes. All this lack of math much higher than algebra, and I'm DEFINITELY not at the lower end of the economy.

The MOST I understood was algebra, and that was barely, although I took Trig (yes, I'm old - now it's called PreCalculus in my kids' schools). I have two Bachelors degrees (Communication and Health Science) and a Master of Health Science.

[Aviation Pro]

83. But....

...you also learned how to think in a linear and systematic fashion. That's the true meaning of math.

[phylny]

84. To be honest, I sure didn't learn it in math class.

I was horrible in math. I used to count on my fingers well beyond what was normal. Didn't know how to multiply past five, seriously. I almost flunked the NYS Regents Algebra exam. Didn't understand a thing about trig.

The only math class I had to take in college was "Topics in Mathematics" and I couldn't tell you what the hell we learned. It was math for dummies.

So, anything I learned about thinking in a "linear and systematic fashion" wasn't learned in any math class.

[dsc]

2. You are leaving quite a bit out

I am a high school math teacher and have no real answer to your quiz. Since I don't teach calculus I don't directly use differentiantion or integration but I do use quite a bit more than sums, differences, ratios, etc.

[sweetheart]

3. What do you "use" in your job

I'm effecively asking what level of maths training was really necessary
to do your job... as you say.. it seems at least calculus and diff e...
as you're teaching that.

That said, some engineers who've taken advanced maths only use computers
and rarely do as much as a sum.

[dsc]

7. actually I don't teach that

which was my point. I do teach an advanced functions and modeling course which does require me to use algebra, statistics, and other higher maths than ratios and the like.

[imenja]

19. you and I seem to be about even there

I use that same level of math, but not with the frequency or expertise that you do. There is no place on that poll for either of us. He/she needs a category between three and four.

[thoughtanarchist]

8. even if the computers are doing the work

the engineer needs to know how to get the result. how to set up the equation. but that's beside the point. These white collar jobs are being increasingly shipped overseas to cheap foriegn labor markets.

so the trend will come closer and closer to "making change" for most of those entering the workforce.

[imenja]

13. incorrect

He said he didn't teach calculus. I agree that your poll is incomplete.

[Ms_Mary]

29. You forgot accounting, which covers more than one single answer

I use a cash register and count inventory but I also do all the accounting. I set up spreadsheets (used to teach Excel) to track sales by category, growth or loss, etc. There's also the banking for the business. You can set up automated calculations in a spreadsheet like I do but you have to know how the equation works before you can do that.

I don't use trig or calc.

[catzies]

76. Yup, that's me too. I like to say I do arithmetic, not mathematics

And what's really funny is I'm math-phobic. I'm fine as long as number are numbers but when they're turned into letters I go deer-in-the-headlights. :D

I'm not a full-fledged accountant; I'm a full-charge bookkeeper. I got the hives when I had to take statistics.

[Ms_Mary]

80. After my basic college requirements, I was never taking math again.

Instead, I got a scholarship to study business and wound up taking statistics, finance, two accounting classes, etc. I made good grades in them but beyond the scope of what I do now for work, I don't remember it. I've taught Excel classes before and I can do all the basic equations after looking them up so I remember how they go, but I just really prefer not to have to do it.

[Codeblue]

4. Ha ha

Guess I'm the only one who didn't...or hasn't...chosen a math related career.

Author. Don't need math at all. None whatsoever.

I'm so grateful.

[KaliTracy]

15. i don't use math anymore (used to be a waitress in another life) I'm

a Technical Writer for a small software company. Write Proposals, Manuals, Training Materials -- but don't have to go to the math side -- my stuff is all for the user -- not the programmer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. You don't count money?

You don't get paid?

You don't have a work schedule requiring to be there at a certain time or work a certain number of hours?

You don't count words or pages in what you write?

It's impossible to not need math.

[Codeblue]

43. Well

Once I actually get my career going I won't be counting money, or have to be at work on a certain time because I'll be my own boss...author.

However, seeing as how I'm still in college, I do have a job where I have to count money.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. You just can't go through life,

especially as a worker, and not ever need math.

[immoderate]

55. What about authors that use a formula?

Or "plot out" a novel?

See my definition of math downthread and how it applies to you.

Author? Deadlines? Royalties?...

--IMM

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Anyone who gets a paycheck

uses math.

End of debate :)

[CarpeVeritas]

75. not necessarily as a part of their job though...

the getting and cashing of a paycheck is generally not part of too many people's job description.

Not everyone uses or needs math as a part of doing their job.

I worked as a concrete laborer for awhile- carpenters use math, and some- but not too many, laborers do.
and it's a good thing- because some of the other guys were just plain dumb(in the academic sense). but they could shovel/rake concrete- and that's all they had to do.

[ChairOne]

5. Linear Algebra > ODE/PDEs ? ROFL

Um, linear algebra is a *prerequisite* for differential equations...

Sigh... I wish I could find one of those advanced-math-requiring jobs... He's just makin shit up again - recall the debates, where he wanted to send everybody to community college... not exactly advanced math coming outta there....

[sweetheart]

12. its a bit hard on a linear scale

I appreciate the humour. Generally in university programmes,
linear algebra is "after" differential equations.... perhaps as it is
used in designing graphics algorithms... and whatnot.

As well, there are the orthogonal dimensions of statistics, moments and
such... quite complex of their own right.

And geometry, software systems like mathematica and architecure using
such systems, even if the maths are implied.

[ChairOne]

20. It's not *that* hard tho....

Maybe what you describe is true where you are, but I don't think it's so any more than 50% of the time in the US (anyone out there know anything more specific?).

But to the extent that what you say is true at all, it only means either (a) the diffeq classes sans linear algebra are completely dumbed down, to the point of being nothing more than another term of calculus, or (b) the linear algebra is taught in the diffeq class itself.

Learning PDEs before linear algebra? Good luck! LOL.

In addition to getting DEs/linear algebra properly ordered, you probably should've included a category to the effect of "simple algebra" - several have mentioned something to that effect.....

[sweetheart]

56. descriptions of linear systems.

Lets say that you're writing the display driver for a hyperbolic
surface, and you're rendering it for the cartesian computer screen
and as your surface is in 3 dimensions, and is moving, you must determine
which pixel to change to which colour as your display driver is
controlling the whole screen. (This is what i mean by linear algebra).
It may be possible to have a PDE rendering the surface that you are now
trying to turn in to a linear image.

Of course i don't mean elementary algebra, and indeed it is omitted
but could be implied in "ratios", as well trigonometry roundabouts.

[yella_dawg]

14. When I was in college

a lot of non-science types did their math requirements in the local junior college. I bought a lot of books with the money I made off them as a tutor when they found out they still had to take real math courses to graduate.

[slutticus]

33. For some of it yes...

...but generally linear algebra is not always a prerequisite for the intro diffEq courses.

If you're doing systems of ODEs or PDEs, then obviously it is.

Also, the solving of ODEs and PDEs numerically requires linear algebra techniques.

I had a course on BVPs before I had my first course in linear algebra.

I do think however, that linear algebra should be taught before anything else.

[Osamasux]

6. I picked one, but I also use a whole hell of a lot of geometry.

[immoderate]

9. Wrong question.

People use the math they know. People who don't know math don't know what they missed.

Ask, who knows so much math they wish they could forget it? I'll wager you won't get many takers. Granted, there may not be jobs, but that is not the only reason for intellectual development.

--IMM

[imenja]

17. I've studied more math than I remember or use now

I once had a higher knowledge of math than I do now, since I don't use it much. To a certain extent, I imagine it is like a language. One gets rusty. If you don't use it, you lose the ability but it can come back with practice.

[immoderate]

21. I'll submit that because you know higher math,

it affects all your thinking. You may not use the formal processes, but if faced with a problem, you are more aware of resources.

--IMM

[imenja]

24. perhaps for others

but I am seriously deficient when it comes to math. I excelled in all other areas of school but could never get beyond algebra-trigonometry. My thinking is guided by logic and a search for evidence, always with a skeptical eye. I attribute that to my training as a historian. I wish I could claim a mathematical influence, but I don't think it's there.

[immoderate]

31. You say you use logic.

You might not be aware of the number of people that don't use logic.

When I taught math, I often started the semester by asking my students for a definition of math. I'd say, "Amazing how many years you've learned math and you can't tell me what it is."

Then I would reveal the definition of math that I use, which I got from a seventh grade math textbook by Dressler and Rich.

Mathematics is a system of manipulating symbols to solve problems.

Ponder on that definition for some moments and then think about how much math you do use.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

36. Too broad - that'd make lawyers mathematicians... /eom

[immoderate]

41. Let's define terms.

Lawyers and mathematicians have much in common. But the lawyer manipulates people. The mathematician defines and explores the characteristics of the system itself, and is interested in methods for determining truth.

Certainly there is a parallel in use of reasoning, symbols, deduction, "proof," etc.

Not enough to make a lawyer a mathematician.

The above are hasty and loose definitions, the one of math has stood the test of time. I'd trade it in if there were a better one though. Ya got one?

Remember, it has to be broad enough to cover all that is math.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

42. lol - Why would I have one?

rofl - I don't feel the need to *define* math? Are you worried about picking up the wrong book by mistake or something?

It's your game - I'm just pointing out that "playing with symbols..." is at once too broad and too narrow.

"the one of math has stood the test of time". Um, ok. I guess I skipped that day where they (would have) told me that my raison d'etre was to play with symbols.

If this Let's-Define-Math game is that interesting to you, you may want to take a long hard look at Frege's Grundlagen der Arithmetik. It will at least disabuse you of the notion that mathemticians play with symbols. They play with numbers, functions, spaces, and other things - rarely if ever are they interested in symbols.

[immoderate]

47. A sysmbol is something that stands for something else.

Words are symbols. They are sounds that stand for ideas, enabling communication. Letters are symbols: lines that stand for sounds.

Numbers, functions, and spaces that you speak of, are represented by numerals, notation, diagrams, maps, bytes in a computer, etc. These are symbolic systems. The idea is that its easier to work a symbol (stand in) than going to the actual object.

An example: Figuring your check book is (usually) easier than going down to the bank and counting your dollars. And though you may have thousands of dollars, a few squiggly lines can acurately tell you the balance. And when you add your paycheck, you don't have to count the whole pile again, a simple manipulation of a few symbols, not thousands of anything, gives the result. Consider that those "dollars" may never eeven exist except as sybolic tranactions. The dollars themselves, are symbols, that enable carrying out functions that would otherwise be very difficult.

I take issue with your using the term "playing" as a diminutive. I see what Einstein did as mind experiments as a form of play, but I don't think that's how you meant it.

True, it is (was) my game. I once had the job of getting people to learn math. Many of them (if you can believe it) were not asking to be taught math. I found that by explaining why they might use it, my job was made easier. And a definition would provide a framework to organize the knowledge. Though I don't think of that as trivial, I didn't go so far as to give them a raison d'etre. (They had parents, clergy, philosophers, and French teachers for that.) I told them that math is a tool for solving problems. You got no problems, you don't need math. That might apply to you.

I'll check out Frege's Grunlagen (sounds like a beer, hehe) but I doubt that it says that mathemeticians don't use symbols. Is that why you say it needs a "long hard look?" Maybe you could just quote the part that pertains to your point. What caused you to read it, since you say you have little contact with math? Perhaps, if one of your math teachers had explained it better, you'd have a better awareness now. I say awareness because you don't escape it. If you are determining whether you can make a left turn before the oncoming traffic reaches the intersection, you are doing a math problem, calculus. Somewhere in your head, symbols for the respective vehicles are playing out the time vs. acceleration problem. Yes you do it intuitively, but if you want to go any further with it, study it, transmit it, how are you gonna go without a system of symbols?

If you know about the math, you see it everywhere, hence my interest, I surely recognize that there are other ways to look at things though. That's part of the beauty. As I'd tell my students, if you know it, you'll see it, if you don't know it, you won't know what you missed.

Getting back to your original question of why you would have a definition of math. We're currently having a discussion about math. How does it serve our purpose if we don't know what we're talking about?

--IMM

[Hoping4Change]

95. Your students IMModerate are unbelievably fortunate.

As someone who through-out school struggled beyond words with Arithmetic let alone Math, I can say categorically that your students are truly fortunate to have you as a teacher.

My heart goes out you for understanding the Math is more than numbers.

Your posts remind me of a conversation I had on a first date with a Physics major. I practically fainted when he told me that the Cartesian graph was named after Descartes who devised the graph so (if I remember correctly) he could have another way of describing and manipulating geometric forms.

We started this conversation as I was bemoaning how difficult Physics and Math were for me and that I never understood why f was at x in the first place.

Well what an illumination it was to find out that Descartes came up with the graph because the current mathematical tools e.g. geometry he had at his disposal were inadequate for what he was trying to accomplish.

Another illuminating moment was during my third try at Grade 13 Calculus, having failed my other two attempts. My third Calculus teacher also taught English, he explained how Calculus was about a curved line coming close but never touching zero. This was more information than I had ever got about to goal of Calculus but it was enough of an insight to give me some idea of what I was doing and I passed. however I wish he had given the example you gave about Calculus being the calculation one does when approaching an intersection! WOW.

My third illuminating moment was my second attempt at Trig. Whereas my first Trig teacher never gave a clue as to the purpose of Trig, my summer school teacher explained how Sine and Cosine were part of a circle stretched as it were along a line to get that familiar wave. I aced that course. I had never done so well in Math as I did in Trig because the purpose of Trig was so clearly defined.

So my hat is off to you. Personally I think you should write a book. I think alot of people would love to know what that big picture is when it comes to Math and how each advancement in Math evolved to handle specific problems that the prevailing bag of tricks can't handle. (For instance what does a Differential Equation do that a polynominial can't.:D)



:toast:

[sweetheart]

66. Ok, smartipants, what do YOU say maths is?

Then what do you see at maths, vs applied maths. TO be honest, this
thread in discussing professional application is about the applied
aspect, but in its "pure" apriori form, how do you see it?

I see it as root to being able to discriminate knowledge, perhaps
a system of representation of knowledge. Lets hear it!

[ChairOne]

67. Whoa - so many big words - so scawy! lol

Math is what mathematicians do.

LOL - I don't expect you to care for this very much - you're way to fond of big, important-sounding-but-meaningless polysyllabic phrases. "... as root to being able to discriminate knowledge"? LOL - that's awesome.

Alternatively, if youu wanna know what math is, go learn some. Diagonalize a few operators, figure out Dirichlet series, and solve some combinatorics problems with them. Compute eigenfunctions for Sturm-Liouville DEs, and discuss their stability properties. And so on.

LOL "pure apriori form"..... Did I say *50* y.o. hack math philosophy? Shoulda said *150* years old... Ah, the ghosts of Kant and Carnap refuse to fade... sigh...

Again and again you mistake my responses. I'm not concerned to offer a "better" definition of math - or anything else for that matter. I'm clowning the uncontainable urge you have that makes you *want* to define this stuff. There's no problem that coming up with "the one true definition" solves for you - so why bother? Oh yah, you're laboring under an anachronism of philosophical thought.

For some basic, more up-to-date ways of thinking about math and definitions, feel free to see Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations", Belnap's "Tonk, Plink, and Plonk", and Lakatos' "Proofs and Refutations". The first two are just general break-free-from-an-idiot-way-of-thinking material. The last is topically the most relevant, providing an extremely good way to think about what a proof "really" is, what definitions are actually for, and so forth.

Come to think of it, one of the best ways to get over the Kant-hangover is to go through Phenomenology of Spirit... but that's prolly going to far for us here now...

OH NO! <aghast expression> We don't have a DEFINITION!! AAAGGGHHHH!!

rofl.

[sweetheart]

69. And all that, for a simple definition

For someone who feels i'm flaunting polysyllabic words! ;-)

So i'm to read 3 books and re-study my university eigenvalues and
other stuff... bollocks.

If you can't state it plainly, and beat about the bush so, it seems that
you are flaunting some knowledge you can't speak plainly. Surely
you can summarize these 3 texts you would have us read before continuing
the discussion.

I tell you, that reviewing eigenvalues is going to give me no new clues
as it did not the first time i learned them and forgot them... so that
is a dead end... just another method amongst infinite methods of
using symbols to ascertain knowledge.

I would hope the definition of maths to be timeless, dispite your
attachment to time-based knowledge... so what if its plato's forms.

I'm a big fan of zen, and if you've read all the tomes of philosophy
but can't be consise, then none of it was enlightening.

I write using the words that come to mind, that best communicate what
i'm asking or feeling. You give me toss over being polysyllabic, for
suggesting maths is indeed apriori, yet yourself produce squat but
some book references. Sorry. That is not knowledge, rather it is
pretending to know.

It seems your theme is that difining math somehow weakens it, as if
its mysterious like enlightenment... and then you suggest eignvalues
enlighten one... not. :-)

Perhaps i suggest philosophy of maths to see the difference between
pure and applied mathematics, the premises of measurement theory and
the fallacy of using picture proofs. So much of what is taught as
"maths" is actually an applied discipline, already departing from the
original considerations of how knowledge might be expressed in symbols,
and why, as so many in this thread have expressed, that such a thing
is relevant and important.

[immoderate]

73. Yep. This will go over big with 9th graders.

And when I teach Excel level algebra to office workers, they really want to hear me talk about eigenfunctions and Sturm-Liouville DEs. I really could never bring it off as gracefully as you. They'd think I was an asshole.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up about polysyllables; I'll watch it.

I would think that the same logic that gives you: Math is what mathematicians do," would allow that, "'what definitions are actually for,' is what you actually want to use them for."

Again, you have the benefit of reading all these books, is there anything at all helpful that you have distilled that you could communicate?

--IMM

[immoderate]

74. And as to definitions.

I'm not looking for the holy grail here. Everybody uses math all the time. A general description of this activity is "manipulating symbols to solve problems." Is this not so? If it's something else, what is it?

If the math you are referring to does not involve symbols and problem solving, what is its purpose?

--IMM

[sweetheart]

57. Thats a nice definition

I agree, that only in graduate school was i introduced to the philosophy
of mathematics, what i should have been exposed to from the very outset.
As indeed, to know whether a symbol represents knowledge, one must
as well know what knowledge is.

I was recently trying to calculate what the opimal 3 dimensional
rectangular container size to hold the most spheres, with the problem
already defined as "the knowledge" i wished to obtain. I ended up on
the web studying sphere packing algorithms, which were impractical
for a simple container, and i then went and made a model out of card
board and put marbles in it.

I would use this definition for maths:
Mathematics is a system of manipulating symbols to represent knowledge.

Some correlaries:
Mathematical results are certain
Mathematics is objective
Mathematics is wedded to classic logic
Mathematics is independent of sense experience

I really wish i had been exposed more to the root of what knowledge
was, in early maths, as what i really discuss in the poll is
"applied maths", and sadly, the deeper interest is glossed over.

[immoderate]

61. Thanks.

Funny that I found that definition in the geginning pages of the book that teachers usually pass over to get to the "examples." I realizd that manipulation of symbols covered all the different "maths."

It gave a theme to what I was dooing in the math class.

You bring in knowledge. I usually have my computer classes define knowledge, information and computer. Though knowledge is usually an undefined basic term for me.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

65. Bleech. Nothing but 50 years old hack math philosophy.....

without even the barest recognition of the (actual) history of the field....

It's conceivable that Lakatos' "Proofs and Refutations" would help you develop an alternate (and improved) viewpoint, but I wouldn't bet on it....

[immoderate]

68. So.

How would you summarize math to a general audience?

Why are you so sure that Lakatos would be so absolutely unhelpful? How about a hint of what you are talking about? Is it capable of being expressed, or just not by you?

There are worse things than 50 year old math hacks.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

81. lol - I would give illustrative examples...

I didn't say Lakatos would be unhelpful tout court, only that he'd be unhelpful for Kantian-Vienna Circle-type positivist thinkers. Similarly, Hegel was completely unhelpful to those particular people.

And of course it's capable of being expressed - by me (even!). It's just not very "compressible" information. You pretty much have to read the whole thing (~100 pages) - else so much is lost "in translation" as to have made the whole project worthless.

Sigh. There used to be a day where referring people to books was considered a *good* thing... Kinda makes one wonder why we have books *at all*, when all you guys want is the soundbite version of the shit...

LOL - summarize the First Critique. rofl.

[immoderate]

82. Oh, books are OK.

But depends on how you use them. Like hitting people over the head with them, for instance, is an abuse. And propping yourself up with them is unstable.

To sum up: I have an eight word definition of mathematics that I find facilitates the teaching of the topics I cover. (Nothing beyond calculus.) It helps motivate my students, for one. You don't like it for reasons that you can't explain without me reading through a few (dense) books. So I take it that its flaws whatever they be, are not too obvious. Like, my ninth graders won't hold me up to ridicule for being a "Kantian-Vienna Circle-type positivist thinker," will they? That's gonna be one of my nightmares now.

So, you like hyperbolas?

--IMM

[ChairOne]

86. You raise a valid point....

At a gradeschool level, the truth about mathematics isn't particularly relelvant - especially in American schools (cuz they're so far behind the rest of the civilized world). Better off just focussing on adding fractions.

My bad - I thought we were talking about math - not multiplication tables and whatnot...

Hyperbolas? Sure, insofar as they allow one to dray many parallels to a given line... ooops - that's actual math... Ok, Yah, complete the square, factor, and then look in the book for what kind you have. O hell - do they even know how to complete the square? Sheesh.

[UncleSepp]

88. Me!

I wish I would have not spent that semester beating my head against the wall to learn differential equations, and had taken another language class, or maybe judo, or something. Now I did go back after grad school to re-take calculus courses at a community college - just for grins and giggles and to actually get an A instead of just barely passing - so I'm not a math-hater.

The further I get from school, the more I realize that the courses which grew my mind the most were the ones I never expected to be taking. What helps me the most in my job from day to day wasn't any particular class in college, but the experience of being in college and of being confident that I could jump up to my neck in any given unfamiliar subject and just do it. As far as helpful organization of thought goes, translating Russian literature has helped me more than math. There are many ways to translate any given passage, some better, some worse, some wrong, none perfect. It's the same with problem solving in most professions.

[yella_dawg]

10. Bush is a fool.

Who would have ever guessed that?

The main benefit that most people get from mathematics (as opposed to arithmetic, which is something completely other) is problem solving skills and introduction to rigorous thought processes.

I don't understand why they don't explain this in schools. Maybe they do, but it needs more emphasis.

Very few people need differential equations solving skills on a regular basis. Everybody needs to know how to set about solving problems in a systematic and logical manner.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. My algebra/trig teacher explained that on the first day of class

Granted by the time students get to a calculus or trig class they're usually already have enough practice with problem solving. I guess that the idea at that point is to re-enforce the skills with new challenges.

[depakid]

11. All I have to say is

Thank God (or Alan Turing) for good software!

Doing some of what I need to do these days by hand calculator would be... to put it lightly... tedious.

Still, it's important to learn the basics by hand, to make the mistakes and see how the relations work... any fool can input data, but unless you know what you're looking for and why one stat or calculation is useful or better than another, what you get out is worthless.

[yella_dawg]

32. Alan Turing

was gay. I have always wondered if the reason he committed suicide had anything to do with prejudice against homosexuals in the `50's. I get pissed just thinking about it. How much would the world have benefited if he had lived out a normal life span?

Bastards.

[depakid]

40. It had everything to do with it

It was illegal to be gay in post WWII Britain and Turing was prosecuted for it. Since his work at Bletchley Park (cracking enigma) was still top secret, no one knew how just how much he contributed to England's war effort- and no one could vouch for him.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

scroll down to the bottom of the page-

[mike_c]

16. I answered DE for modeling work...

...but in reality I use more statistical analyses than anything else. I'm an ecologist, so data visualization and analyses is a big part of my job. On the modeling side I use mainly brute force methods-- a real mathmatician would be ashamed....

[DBoon]

18. You forgot Discrete Mathematics

for us computer folks

[yella_dawg]

28. Now THAT...

is strange and wonderful stuff.

That I use regularly. Factoring logical expressions weirds out people who didn't take Discrete.

[eg101]

22. I got an A in Lin Alg and a B in Diff Eqtns, but I never understood either

and never used either one, luckily. At least so far. Algebra, Basic Calc, Discrete math, sure. But Differential Equations and Linear Algebra were just so abstract to me....

[ChairOne]

26. lol - never heard diffeq described as *abstract* before - cool! /eom

[ret5hd]

23. trig, geometry, algebra...

machinist and CNC programmer

[Catbird]

25. Statistics and discrete mathematics

The math I use doesn't really fit into your list.

Bush needs to be careful about advocating math. If people had more background in basic probability and statistics, they would be in a better position to deal with data and reports on such things as abstinence-only sex education and global warming. They might even start taking discrepancies between exit polls and votes seriously .

[troubleinwinter]

27. Chimp doesn't know squat about math. Zero.

[fujiyama]

35. You're right

I remember his mindless rambling at those debates four years ago on "fuzzy math".

Fuzzy logic is actually a topic in engineering dealing with systems where there is ambiguous, vague, and noisy inputs.

Of course Bush didn't know that.

[Aviation Pro]

38. And this from a purported....

...pilot. I know he had to rote memorize stuff for his training (he has a knack for rote memorization - the lowest form of learning), but if you asked him to explain the vagaries of mach tuck, he'd probably give you an aw shucks grin on his stupid, moon face.

[Lisa]

91. a pilot friend told me that the F-102 has no onboard computer ...

... so to fly the thing, Bush would have needed to do long division in his head, very quickly (calculating vectors, etc.).

My friend, after hearing that Bush was obliged (for some unspecified reason) to fly trainers and simulators, a couple of years into his service, suggests that Bush started to get careless and made mistakes. And people noticed.



http://foi.missouri.edu/federalfoia/papersbush.html

"However, the logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 training jets and two more times on a simulator in February and March 1972 - nearly twice as many times as he had flown in training vehicles in the prior 18 months in the Guard.

In one week alone, he flew eight times in the T-33 training vehicle. On four of the trainer flights, Bush moved from primary pilot to co-pilot, the logs show."

"The logs also show that Bush, who throughout his career usually landed his jet with a single pass, required two passes to land the F-102A fighter simulator March 12 and a regular fighter jet April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot came six days later ."



We already know that Georgie doesn't have a good attention span and isn't very engaged -- possibly having to do all those repetitive calculations began to take its toll. And there's at least one report that he showed up for duty with a hangover, in no condition to fly.

I am wondering whether he had any close shaves that scared him enough to put him off flying for the rest of his life. (He rarely talks about flying these days, which is unlike most pilots I know.) Either that, or somebody is blackmailing him to stay out of the air -- or the press will be notified about what a menace he is.

[sweetheart]

64. i'll wager he knows the price of a gram of coke

He might be a zero, but i'm sure he knows what is important to him.

[Silverhair]

34. Probability & Statistics as applied to poker. NT

[abburdlen]

39. There are three types of people in the world

Those that can do math and those who can't.

[ChairOne]

45. Weak! lol - rofl - waaaay better: There's 10 kinds of people in the world:

Those who understand binary, and those who don't!

Cmon! You know that's funny! Laugh dammit!

<giggle>

[aePrime]

46. I have to TEACH binary math

And this semester, I'm going to put that quote on my worksheet.

I've written a couple of ray tracers, which are probably the most mathematical-intensive programs I've written. They require linear algebra, calculus, probability and statistics, geometry... (and basic physics). Thankfully, we just look at light as a particle, and ignore it's dual nature most of the time.

I am currently doing research in cryptography, but since that's not my career, I did not put that published research down as my answer. My real thesis research has to with evolutionary computation and neural networks, which can still be mathematically intensive, but not as much so as encryption!

[immoderate]

48. What level?

I may have a good problem for you to use.

--IMM

[aePrime]

49. University

It's the university level, but for non computer science majors. They usually don't enjoy having to learn binary. I, being a computer scientist, think it's great fun :).

Rumor has it that starting next semester I'll actually get to start teaching programming classes, in which I'll feel more comfortable. Programming I know, trying to tell them how to align images in an HTML page without teaching them style sheets frustrates me :).

[immoderate]

50. Here's the problem.

I teach computer classes, mostly apps, but some programming, A+, etc. If I think they will benefit from knowing the bits and bytes (and who wouldn't?) I give them this problem to kick it off.

The Balance Problem

You must buy a set of weights for a balance scale to measure any amount from 1 to 250. The weights come in any whole number denomination. They all cost the same amount, but because of their extreme precision, they are very expensive. What is the smallest set of weights to accomplish this? What are they?

Helps if people like brain teasers.

--IMM

[aePrime]

51. That is a great

That is a great problem! I may give that a shot.

Thank you!

[immoderate]

54. If you don't know this one, then it's mandatory!

You'll see why.

--IMM

[sweetheart]

79. is it...

1,3,5,10,30,50,100,300 ... presuming a balance where the weights can
be placed on either side?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. LMAO That's great!

[laylah]

58. As a social worker

I use little math except in my baselines. One of the reasons I became a social worker was because of the little need for math...that and the money, of course :silly:

Jenn

[amazona]

60. very limited business math

Sufficient to file my taxes and keep up with my book-keeping. All that advanced differential equations went for naught when I went into business for myself.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[supernova]

62. I'm an editor, very little

and I like it that way. I'm a complete word person.

[davsand]

63. Basic Math and Algebra with some Geometry.

I deal with averages, calculate volume and sq footage. I have a certain amount of statistical array as well...

I deal with property taxes and property valuation.

Funny thing--I hated math in school and took the minimum amount I had to. I almost failed Geometry in High School because I blew off the class all the time. I hated the instructor. I remember telling my parents in one particularly awful grades fight, "I'll NEVER use this stuff..."


Laura

[NoStinkinBadges]

70. 8% require no math?

That's hard to believe. I'm having a difficult time thinking of one career that requires no math.

[Skittles]

71. a lot of people don't realize they use simple math every day

nt

[NoStinkinBadges]

77. That's what I was thinking also.

[Karenina]

87. Reading music notation

is arithmetic in standard notation and calculus in other forms. :evilgrin:

[ZombieNixon]

78. DiffEQs, series and sequences...

My "job" at this point in my life is an AP Calculus II student and I program computers on the side.

[MsTryska]

85. math? that's what i've got excel for.

but then again, what does figuring stuff out in binary equal?


it's all based on 2.

[JanMichael]

89. I have a whole lot of statistical analysis in my job.

Mostly economic relationships.

[Lisa]

90. I don't have to do calculus, but I do need stats

Currently teaching a social science research methods course, so knowing the difference between descriptive and inferential stats, which tests are appropriate for which kinds of data sets, etc. -- these things are very useful.

I would like more advanced math experience, but I haven't had the time to upgrade (what with teaching 10 different courses per year). Time series analysis would be nice, for my research.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. i got upto calculus in college

i dont think it has had any career advantage

[Nikia]

93. I do stuff requiring high school math

I do basic statistical analysis. I do some Enligh to metric and vice versa conversions. I use some formulas. I consider this level of math easy. When I taught a couple other people how to do my job though, they were thoroughly confused by the math. This really frustrated me.
I do quality assurance in the food industry.

[Toronto Ron]

94. Other aspects of math:

1) Recognizing pattern & symmetry; discovering such where none was thought to have been. (Note that such patterns can take many forms: Numerical, symbolic, visual, etc.)

2) "Separating the wheat from the chaff", attention to detail, that sort of thing.

3) Placing theories or systems of ideas on firm foundations.

4) Spotting contradiction and sloppy argument.

5) (Similar to #1) Applying pure mathematics to "real world situations".