ACP

I know more about numbers than all of you, AMA

129 posts in this topic

Also keep in mind, that I teach a course called "Life Sciences Calculus", which as you might guess, is geared towards students who are majoring in biology variants. I imagine that a lot of these students want to go to med school, and yet they have trouble learning the most basic concepts in calculus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ACP said:

The national pass rate for Calculus I in America is 62%, which is pretty low in my opinion. 

 

welcome to TATA69, our course in multivariable calculus. U means not passing, 3 is lowest passing grade, 4 is another grade, 5 is highest grade. The other column is the number of students that got said grade at that instance of exam taking.

 

bd8db982dca6ff9f3a47e3279c607fa5.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, in America we would not allow pass rates that low. if you failed like 75% of your students, you would be fired before your next semester. The idea here is that "the customer is always right", and here is the customer is the student. If you're failing all of your students, then it must mean that you're doing something wrong as a teacher.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ACP said:

Holy shit, in America we would not allow pass rates that low. if you failed like 75% of your students, you would be fired before your next semester. The idea here is that "the customer is always right", and here is the customer is the student. If you're failing all of your students, then it must mean that you're doing something wrong as a teacher.

 

You can just retake it until you pass though, as you can see you get plenty of chances per year. I don't think the teaching on a general level is significantly better or worse here or there, but if someone can't derive polynomials or add fractions you don't just pass them because the customer is right. Or maybe you do because the universities have tuition fee instead of being state-funded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah things just work way differently here. Over there it's probably better, because you actually get to be honest with your students when they're not putting in the work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ACP said:

There's not a real answer to that question. Math isn't sexy. There is nothing that we study that is anywhere near cool enough to be compared to sorcery and spellcasting, and to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. 

well then, which forms of math do you personally find the most fun/enjoyable.

 

There's almost definitely an answer for this, because I don't think you're the type of dude to just dedicate your life to mathematics hating it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say I have some measured distribution (let's call it Y) and know that an unknown distribution (let's call it X) will transform into the measured distribution when X is multiplied by some matrix A (which I have).  Now, if I take the inverse of A and solve for X using A^-1 and Y, why is there an issue when the distribution Y is finite (aka it's a vector with size N)?  The issue is that after a certain point, the distribution X will start oscillating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Laser Cat said:

Let's say I have some measured distribution (let's call it Y) and know that an unknown distribution (let's call it X) will transform into the measured distribution when X is multiplied by some matrix A (which I have).  Now, if I take the inverse of A and solve for X using A^-1 and Y, why is there an issue when the distribution Y is finite (aka it's a vector with size N)?  The issue is that after a certain point, the distribution X will start oscillating.

This is an area of math that I have not really studied, so I am not even entirely sure if I understand the question. If Y is some vector, and A is a matrix, there is certainly no reason to believe that the values in the vector Y*A would oscillate. So I figure that you must mean something else?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 1:49 PM, ACP said:

There's not a real answer to that question. Math isn't sexy. There is nothing that we study that is anywhere near cool enough to be compared to sorcery and spellcasting, and to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. 

 

This is where you're wrong.

math-is-sexy.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha nice meme.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ACP said:

This is an area of math that I have not really studied, so I am not even entirely sure if I understand the question. If Y is some vector, and A is a matrix, there is certainly no reason to believe that the values in the vector Y*A would oscillate. So I figure that you must mean something else?

A is a fixed matrix. Y is a multi-dimensional random variable (unknown, but known data).  X is a known multi-dimensional random variable. Y=AX is known.  He wants to multiply both sides on the left with A^-1.  So it's a statistics problem as it's about distributions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't know shit about high level stats. Intuitively, I'm not sure why there would be any oscillation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im convinced the normal distribution is another thing we weren't supposed to know. if anyone doesn't see the parallel here to paganism and the demon summoning stuff that the natives were into, you're lost. our scientists are doing the exact same thing when they called this stuff out of the shadows to use it on us but bc they made it sound boring no one stopped them 

 

i fricking hate the dark arts... 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, buckwheatloaf said:

im convinced the normal distribution is another thing we weren't supposed to know. if anyone doesn't see the parallel here to paganism and the demon summoning stuff that the natives were into, you're lost. our scientists are doing the exact same thing when they called this stuff out of the shadows to use it on us but bc they made it sound boring no one stopped them 

 

i fricking hate the dark arts... 

The internet is also satanic. How does this shit even work? A bunch of scientists just put a bunch of tubes together and stuff? Witchcraft I tell you. The only way that you can be saved is to disconnect from the internet entirely. To do otherwise is to give into the temptations of satan.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i used to think buckwheat was ironic but now i know he is completely fucking serious.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Markus said:

i used to think buckwheat was ironic but now i know he is completely fucking serious.

He's not serious, but he's also not being ironic. We had this discussion on what irony is like two pages ago. He's just nuts/retarded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ACP said:

He's not serious, but he's also not being ironic. We had this discussion on what irony is like two pages ago. He's just nuts/retarded.

Yeah I use the meme definition of irony, I know it's incorrect but I use it that way still.

 

I don't think it's possible to get through to him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laser Cat said:

Let's say I have some measured distribution (let's call it Y) and know that an unknown distribution (let's call it X) will transform into the measured distribution when X is multiplied by some matrix A (which I have).  Now, if I take the inverse of A and solve for X using A^-1 and Y, why is there an issue when the distribution Y is finite (aka it's a vector with size N)?  The issue is that after a certain point, the distribution X will start oscillating.

Yeah come to think of it, this makes no sense. Why would a linear transformation applied to a non-oscillating distribution yield an oscillating distribution? A linear transformation should preserve most of a distribution's fundamental properties, like whether or not it oscillates. You'll either need to clarify or provide an example or something, because based on the way that I'm interpreting your question, this should just never happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you getting your Masters in Mathematics? If so, what type of career are you planning on getting into?

 

We had a class together last year, but I honestly don't know what you'd ever use that for unless you were going into the education field (and even then, that's quite a stretch). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know who you are. I'm assuming that we had History of Mathematics together?

 

Yes, I'll be finishing my Master's this semester. There are lots of career paths available to mathematicians. The finance industry loves us. Virtually all investment banks today run off of trading algorithms invented by mathematicians. The national defense industry loves us. The nation's largest employer of mathematicians is actually the Department of Defense. The gambling industry also loves us. Any new slots and tabletop games are designed and have their odds verified by mathematicians. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shackleford aka "The Wizard of Odds." I've actually been applying for jobs in all three of these sectors. I don't plan on teaching as a career.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but I gather that he invented boolean algebra. That's pretty cool.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah. yeah hes pretty good. kinda redundant sometimes but you're bound to get that in a complete and exhaustive work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.