Anyone good at math?

[wet_suit_one]

Tell me why this professor is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D

The video is about an hour long, but the math I am concerned about is in the first 3 parts.

I'm pretty sure he's wrong (everyone in the media tells that he's wrong) but I can't figure it out.

Can anyone here help me out?

Fucking math illiteracy bugs me!!! Sigh, why didn't I learn this better in high school and first year math????

 

[Gyaos]

I reviewed the video/s.

His math is correct, but he uses incorrect terms. The terms he says incorrectly are "arithmetic" and "doubling". He should use the words "summation", and that which cannot be "reducible". I won't teach the math from that point. You get what you pay for when getting professors in math classes.....the idea is to pass them mathematically. The reason you didn't learn this in high-school is because those are college level concepts (like the partitions of a chess-board). Now attend and pass a class from someone who actually proved mathematical concepts beyond what he is teaching......then you have an issue with the mind.

In addition, this professor in the video link that you provided only assumes those news articles are stating the truth, when in fact they are neutral and are only portraying what someone else said. The guy is just using the math to state a point of the examples.

When the media proclaims that Google infringes all copyrights and trademarks, then they will be stating the truth too.

Gyaos Baltar

 

[Thunderballs]

*cough* NERD *cough*

 

[JohnLarue]

He forgot to carry the 1

 

[benstt]

The math is fine, and he works to present it in a simplified manner. For example, the doubling time at 5%, as he describes it, is approximately 14 years, not 14 exactly. Close enough.

It comes from 2=(1.05)^t, which can be solved by taking the logarithm of both sides. 2 represents 200%, and 1.05 is 5% compounding annually, t is the number of years to compound. Means t=ln(2)/ln(1.05) when you solve it, or about 14.2 years to double your investment at 5% per annum.

This kind of material would have been introduced in grade 12 and 13 in years gone by, perhaps as material on arithmetical series in calculus, or as showing how to do compounded interest.

 

[Adam_hadam]

Tell me why this professor is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D

The video is about an hour long, but the math I am concerned about is in the first 3 parts.

I'm pretty sure he's wrong (everyone in the media tells that he's wrong) but I can't figure it out.

Can anyone here help me out?

Fucking math illiteracy bugs me!!! Sigh, why didn't I learn this better in high school and first year math????

Don't sweat it, you'll have your staff doing math for you.

 

[69Shooter]

Tell me why this professor is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D

The video is about an hour long, but the math I am concerned about is in the first 3 parts.

I'm pretty sure he's wrong (everyone in the media tells that he's wrong) but I can't figure it out.

Can anyone here help me out?

Fucking math illiteracy bugs me!!! Sigh, why didn't I learn this better in high school and first year math????

As if kids today are really learning math! Try this the next time you're in a check out line... once your total has been keyed into the register - let's say $3.54 - give the cashier $5. After they've keyed that in the register to get the amount of change you're due back - $1.46 - give them .04. Most of the time they'll just look at you dazed and confused.

 

[assholee]

As if kids today are really learning math! Try this the next time you're in a check out line... once your total has been keyed into the register - let's say $3.54 - give the cashier $5. After they've keyed that in the register to get the amount of change you're due back - $1.46 - give them .04. Most of the time they'll just look at you dazed and confused.

I don't get it. They still owe you $1.42. Am I missing something here?

 

[slider2]

they owe you $1.46 and you give them an extra $0.04 to make it an even $1.50 coming back to you (better to have 2 quarters in your pocket instead of a pocket full of change)

 

[new36jack]

Lol.... I do this all the time!!! It's hilarious. And they look at me like I'm the stupid one!

 

[assholee]

they owe you $1.46 and you give them an extra $0.04 to make it an even $1.50 coming back to you (better to have 2 quarters in your pocket instead of a pocket full of change)

Shit...

 

[blackrock13]

As if kids today are really learning math! Try this the next time you're in a check out line... once your total has been keyed into the register - let's say $3.54 - give the cashier $5. After they've keyed that in the register to get the amount of change you're due back - $1.46 - give them .04. Most of the time they'll just look at you dazed and confused.

I remembered when a long time banker friend of mine turned around to me from his desk at home and said, 'what's 7% of $14.50?' Then decided to enter it into a calculator beside his note pad to confirm my answer..

 

[69Shooter]

they owe you $1.46 and you give them an extra $0.04 to make it an even $1.50 coming back to you (better to have 2 quarters in your pocket instead of a pocket full of change)

Thanks for taking care of this for me slider.

I remembered when a long time banker friend of mine turned around to me from his desk at home and said, 'what's 7% of $14.50?' Then decided to enter it into a calculator beside his note pad to confirm my answer..

The problem, IMHO, is that kids are no longer taught to think (i.e., develop their "brain" skills). I hope I don't live long enough to see where this ultimately leads.

 

[Cassini]

Tell me why this professor is wrong: ... I'm pretty sure he's wrong (everyone in the media tells that he's wrong) but I can't figure it out.

The math strikes you as incorrect because he is using an approximations. He is using several popular approximations used in economics. For instance, the 70 / x% = years to double rule is an approximation. The professionals change the 70 slightly to deal with the prevailing interest rates of the time. The basis of the approximation is a bunch of 1st year university calculus.

The 70/x% rule is a very useful approximation when attempting to price GICs, or when analyzing returns in a business.

Another approximation he is using is to assume the underlying shape of a rapidly growing function is exponential. Most statistical distributions (like the normal distribution) appear to be exponential in the first portion of the curve. As such, businesses grow exponentially at first. When market saturation effects occur, the growth levels off. When the decline happens, it is often very quick and composed of modified exponential curves too. People confuse exponential growth with other shapes of functions routinely in business, because the first phase of the business (rapid growth) appears exponential even though the exponential growth cannot be sustained.

In reference to Gyaos, the term arithmetic is archaicly used to describe exponential. Most modern scientific jargon attempts to clarify the distinction, because it is horrendously confusing. This professor is using older nomenclature.

 

[Yoga Face]

I remembered when a long time banker friend of mine turned around to me from his desk at home and said, 'what's 7% of $14.50?' Then decided to enter it into a calculator beside his note pad to confirm my answer..

$1.015 by my head calculation

.07 *10.00 = .7
.07 *4.00 = .28
.07*.5 = .035

.7+.28 + .035 = 1.015

That is how I do it

 

[blackrock13]

$1.015 by my head calculation

.07 *10.00 = .7
.07 *4.00 = .28
.07*.5 = .035

.7+.28 + .035 = 1.015

That is how I do it

Well mentally for me, it 7x14's + 7x1/2's=1.015 or 1.02 rounded up. Always been able to handle money faster than calculators or cash registers.

 

[Yoga Face]

Well mentally for me, it 7x14's + 7x1/2's=1.015 or 1.02 rounded up. Always been able to handle money faster than calculators or cash registers.

But when you multiply 7*14 do u not break it down to 7*10 + 7*4 = 70+28=98 ?

 

[Yoga Face]

The professor has not considered technology as a savior

Either we spend billions creating technology today or trillions in energy wars tomorrow
(this we also help reduce the overpopulation)

Consider what the population would be if we never had wars ?

 

[blackrock13]

But when you multiply 7*14 do u not break it down to 7*10 + 7*4 = 70+28=98 ?

Well I'm old enough to remember doing my times table and know that 7x14 =98. I don't have to break it up. Just like 15x15 =225 and 25x25= 625. It's easy magic numbers.

 

[buttercup]

Tell me why this professor is wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D
The video is about an hour long, but the math I am concerned about is in the first 3 parts.
I'm pretty sure he's wrong (everyone in the media tells that he's wrong) but I can't figure it out.
Can anyone here help me out?
Fucking math illiteracy bugs me!!! Sigh, why didn't I learn this better in high school and first year math????

No, he's right. Anyone with a university math, science, engineering, education soon realises the awful implacable inevitable truth behind on-going growth. We're doomed! Doomed, I tell you!

If there is no further growth in consumption, the oil and coal situation looks quite rosy. But factor-in the growth of consumption as the third world becomes more prosperous, and we're looking at The End within a few decades. And its all the earth's resources, not just fuel.

The notion of "sustainability" is a cruel joke we're playing on our grandchildren. The earth will curb our consumption of resources, soon, no matter what we do. But we might be ok for a few lifetimes if we can just stop the growth.

What we need to do is send for the genius who will tell us how Toronto can be made to stop its steady, year by year, increases in consumption, and can be made to do it while still maintaining democracy and the freedom to make a living how we wish.

When we've figured how to do it in TO, we could then consider applying that the whole world. Or not, of course.