Youtube are consistently inconsistent. As much as I admire some youtubers and think making short films would be a great way to make a living, I am so glad my income is not dependent on the increasingly arbitrary whims of google.

For example, Brady Haran of Numberphile made a video about "derangements", a concept in combinatorial mathematics. Fairly dry stuff unless you're a math geek. YouTube flagged the video and even when he submitted it for "manual review" it was still deemed inappropriate for advertisers.....

although the problem has apparently since been resolved. Nothing to do with Brady also having an immensely popular podcast where he complained about it, I'm sure. (For the record, Hello Internet is awesome!)

Liberia bitch using liberal media slant describing The Federalist Society.. How how funny to watch.

Please re enlighten me the 3/5 clause...

It was to limit the racist southern politicians ( all Democrat)from getting more voting power. This was a provision that was not directly about race but about status and the allocation of political power. Free blacks were counted in exactly the same way as whites. The clause did not say that a slave was three-fifths of a person. The clause said nothing about free blacks, who were treated by the clause exactly as free whites were.

Rather, the clause provided a mathematical formula that allowed for the allocation of representatives in Congress that factored in the slave population. No slaves could vote in the country (although free blacks could vote in a number of states), and the clause did not provide a voice for slaves. This was about the distribution of political power among the states.

So yes you can thank Republicans for limiting the power from the racist KKK loving political south.

@drradon: I agree with you 100% on teaching both and teaching basic arithmetic first and then leading on to proper math once that foundation is established.

@dannym3141,

I was first blindsided by it when my kids came home with multiplication homework and were adamant they couldn't answer it the way I was showing them because it would be marked wrong, it was the wrong way to do multiplication.

The link to the full Manitoba math curriculum is below. The worst sections are under 'Mental Math' with the idea being that you should be able to add/subtract/multiply/divide all numbers in your head with a dozen pages worth of tricks. The tricks being what newtboy was calling 'proofs'. Our curriculum calls them 'techniques' though and I've included an example from the Grade 3 curriculum verbatim after of how it is supposed to be 'taught'.

Overall Math curriculum:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/index.html

Grade 3 example:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/support_gr3/number.pdf

From page 56:
Describe a mental mathematics strategy that could be used to determine a given basic fact, such as
-doubles (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 7 + 7)
-doubles plus one (e.g., for 6 + 7, think 6 + 6 + 1)
-doubles take away one (e.g., for 6 + 7, think 7 + 7 – 1)
-doubles plus two (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 6 + 6 + 2)
-doubles take away two (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 8 + 8 – 2)
-making 10 (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 6 + 4 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 4)
-commutative property (e.g., for 3 + 9, think 9 + 3)
-addition to subtraction (e.g., for 13 – 7, think 7 + ? = 13)."

Now before you think me and observe there's nothing wrong with showing kids some extra tricks to help them, that is NOT how this is supposed to be used. If you read further, students are REQUIRED to "explore" multiple methods of calculating answers and must demonstrate they know and can use all these 'tricks'. So instead of providing assistance for difficult calculations as it should be, it's used to make ALL calculations difficult, and create extra work, AND makes kids just learning the concept completely overwhelmed with everything you MUST know to get a right answer to 2+2=4.

And here's the link to the Grade 11 review of the basic arithmetic:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/ess_mm_gr11/full_doc.pdf

And for the Grade 11 students and teaching them to add/subtract/multiply and divide, the teacher's guide describes this like a subjective discovery process with quotes like this:
"Consequently, mental calculation activities should include periods for thought and discussion.
During these periods, the teacher should encourage students to
-suggest a variety of possible solutions to the same problem
-explain the different methods used to come to the correct answer and their
effectiveness
-explain the thought process that led to an incorrect answer"

An important note is we are not talking about solving complex word problems here or anything, but specifically for calculating a basic arithmetic operation with the different methods being those described from back in Grade 3 already outlined above.

I don't disagree with that. I don't understand how one could do any advanced mathematics without knowing arithmetic, so clearly it should be taught first.
As far as I was concerned, proofs were just demonstrating an understanding of arithmetic and how numbers and functions can be deconstructed in different ways. I hate showing my work, and almost failed that portion of algebra 2 because I just refused.

Interesting discussion here. This is what comes of awarding PhDs in university Education departments: "must make simple complex", "must make simple complex", "must make simple complex", "must make simple complex"... keep repeating until PhD is awarded. I disagree with both newtboy and bcglorf to a degree - one approach to teaching is arithmetic and the other is math. There is a place for both in the curriculum: teach arithmetic to enable students to gain facility with numbers; in the higher grades, introduce concepts of mathematics theory so that they understand why arithmetic works and extends to higher math...

Bob i hate to break it to you, but America has started to become a little bit of a joke in the rest of the world... Your rude, pig headed and frankly severely lacking in intelligence and personal skills president is taking you backwards. But that's no indictment on Americans, because many states have thankfully backed the climate accord, and if non-Trump aligned Americans are to blame for anything, it is only not being able to force the correct candidate through to beat Trump. If we want the drift of American political opinion in Europe these days, we have to watch late night talk shows rather than listening to the president.

Three things happened RE: Paris accord.
One - the American president has used a European stage to demand spurious money from Europe and turned them publicly into opponents rather than allies. Even the worst Brexiteers had the good grace to make that claim on smaller stages where they could be laughed at - it's banter, not a serious political point, except to Trump! Apparently friendship is now an issue of economics, so if Russia decided to start a war, America's involvement might depend on how much it costs to be involved (or who Trump's personal mates are, or what Russia has on him) despite being a key cause of war.
Two - other countries including China all came together to show international brotherhood *against Trump*. This is now Trump's position in the eyes of worldwide public opinion; Trump stands opposed to the entire rest of the world save two countries Syria and Nicaragua! America has *stepped away* from the rest of the world. So now the rest of the world is by definition leading America, showing her the way.
Three - Trump has shown us that he is not interested in listening to the best logical reasoning, the best mathematical models, from the combined talent of the best minds that this planet has produced. So he's completely unreliable.

I think even Trump's fiercest proponents must now start to admit, in private, that they didn't get what they thought they were getting. He is a psychological child with the arrogance of a rich grown man.

*doublepromote the magic of the mathematics of nature.

I dunno about that. There's lots of scientific evidence for quantum mechanics. It was disagreement between experimental results and theory which lead to the development of quantum mechanics in the first place. There have definitely been repeatable experiments demonstrating quantum entanglement, for instance.

String Theory, now, that's where you've got your unprovable assumptions. Whereas quantum mechanics at least has a big "we don't know why this is" hole in the middle, the string theory guys would just posit the existence of a bunch more dimensions to make the equations work.

Not that I actually understand the mathematics of any of it, mind you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_eversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morin_surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Morin

I found a longer version of the video which elaborates further. It's not really about engineering something useful with actual materials as it is a mathematical wizard theory. Who knows what applications it could have, plenty of things that seemed next to useless suddenly find real world applications years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKqt6e7EcCs

We'll have agree to disagree on the merits of Clinton and Trump.

As for the rest....

I haven't been "duped" by the media. The dem primary is over in all but name. Yes, it's not mathematically impossible for Bernie to win, but it's also highly improbable.

I've done the math.

Ignoring the super delegates, Clinton has 1768 vs Bernie's 1494.
There are 714 delegates still up for grabs, so Bernie would need to win 495 of them to be the popular pledged delegate candidate. That means Bernie needs to win 69% of the remaining delegates.

The vast majority(66.6% \m/) of those delegates are in the California primary where Bernie is projected to lose. Even the most optimistic poll has him losing by 2 points. If that happens it is mathematically impossible for him to win. Even if he manages a miracle and wins California by a few points, it's STILL mathematically impossible for him to win. He would have to win at least 53% of the vote in California to even stand a chance.

Finally, you're preaching to the converted. AFAIC, Bernie is so blatantly the obvious choice, I really can't understand why anyone wouldn't vote for him. Well, I can, it's because "boo! SOCIALISM!!! Oh teh noes!", but I find it depressing to accept. I've said before that in a sane political system, you would have a choice between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and Bernie.

And yes, Bernie beats Trump more than Clinton, but the democrats don't seem to have gotten that message.

I say that it's impossible to say that Trump is much worse or more evil....but you can make the assertion that his STATED PLANS are much worse than her STATED PLANS. It's important to note, however, that neither of them are at all likely to stick with anything they've said so far. Trump has already come out and said to ignore the entire primary season, it was all bluster and hyperbole to get him the nomination, and Clinton has a clear history of changing her position at the slightest breeze. Now we get a second season of different bluster and hyperbole (from both sides) to try for the presidency. Only once they're in office will we have any idea what they really plan on doing with their power. Neither Trump or Clinton have a record of consistency, so comparing them is impossible until after the fact.

The reason you don't see other candidates is that the primaries aren't over. Only the Democrats and Republicans play this game of 'the race is over...don't go vote, it won't matter' before the vote is over, even mathematically (which it still is not, BTW, contrary to your assertion. It is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that Sanders could win despite the super delegates being in Clinton's pockets and the fix being in by the DNC, with only California's delegates, but they've duped you like millions of others into thinking it's been over for months now, and Clinton is our only remaining choice, and supporting Sanders now is like a vote for Trump, which is outrageously insulting BS).
Because Sanders has ALWAYS polled better than Clinton against Trump, if it's really a fear of yours that we might elect Trump, you should all be shouting at everyone possible to vote for Sanders on June 7th (EDIT: and warn them to not allow the poll workers to give them a provisional ballot which aren't counted, but insist on a democratic crossover ballot which will be). Clinton VS Trump is at best a toss up at this point (and she's not even indicted yet), Sanders VS Trump is consistently a landslide for Sanders. Just DUH, people. It's like...come on.

I don't see how this is hacking. More like applied mathematics and a dash of desperation.

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.

OK....I don't have much faith in the HuffPo to be unbiased...so I checked the other link, and the second poll they list has Trump winning by 2%. Scrolling down, a number of polls have Trump winning, and a significantly larger number have them statistically tied when you count the margin of error....but the numbers are not what I thought, which was a purely statistical tie between Trump and Clinton, slightly in favor of Trump (or at least so it seems, the margin of error is missing from the averaged data for no reason, making the stat shown completely meaningless mathematically).

The best stat I noticed was the 'newest polls' on the side, where in New Hampshire, Trump VS Clinton has Clinton win by 5% (notably with the margin of error not listed)...but Trump VS Sanders has Sanders win by 21%....but still the (clearly false) claim that 'Clinton is the best candidate to beat Trump' is repeated ad-nauseam by her supporters and the media.

The saddest part was I also noticed only 2 of all those polls had >1500 people polled, most were about 1000 people, but they claim their margin of error is only 3%?!? Statistics class was a while back, but that doesn't seem right when they are meant to represent full states or even the entire country based on 1000 people's answers.