Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | December 9, 2011

## A tale about long division

… as told by me, last week, to my students.

An innumerate executor of a will has to divide an estate of 12,345 pounds between 11 heirs. He calls  a meeting and tells the heirs: “The estate is about 12 grands, so I wrote to each of you a cheque for 1,000 pounds.”

The heirs answer: “Wait a second. There is more money left” — and write on the flip chart in the meeting room:

“Ok” — sais the executor – “there are about 13 hundred left. So I can write to each of you a check of 100 pounds”:

“But there is still money left in the pot” — shout the heirs and write:

“Well,”–  says the executor, — “it looks as if I can give extra 20 pounds to each of you”:

“More! More!” — the heirs shout. “I see” — said the executor — “here are 2 pounds more for each of you”:

“I deserve to get this remainder of 3 pounds and buy myself a pint. And each of you gets 1122 pounds”:

After finishing my tale on this optimistic note, I commented that the whole calculation, which looks like that:

is usually written down in an abbreviated form:

And we say that

12345 gives upon division by 11 the quotient 1122 and the remainder 3

which means

$12345 = (11 \times 1122) + 3$

As simple as that.

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | December 1, 2011

## Expressive power of natural languages

I will follow discussion of that question on the Foundation of Mathematics mail list with great interest:

Alex Nowak:

I was wondering if there is any (at least semi-)conclusive view about the expressive power of a natural language like english resulting in a statement like “whatever it is, it is a language of at least 2nd order”. Of course, I know of Tarski’s comment suspecting natural languages to be somehow (semantically) universal. But what I’m interested in is a hint pointing me in a direction what to look for, i.e. is the fact that one quantifies over classes in a natural language enough to label it higher order? Can there be anything wrong to take it to be at least a many-sorted first-order language?

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | December 1, 2011

## Can you crack it?

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 30, 2011

## Axiom of Choice

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 29, 2011

## Quantum Magazine on Google Books

Quantum Magazine gave Google permission to let the public view all the issues of Quantum they have indexed in Google Books. A few years are missing, but there’s a lot there. See direct links:

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 28, 2011

## Ian Livingstone: Computer science is an essential part of our children’s education

Ian Livingstone, life president of the British video-game publisher Eidos, published a article in The Independent. A quote:

The National Curriculum requires schools to teach not computer science but ICT – a strange hybrid of desktop-publishing lessons and Microsoft tutorials. While Word and Excel are useful vocational skills, they are never going to equip anybody for a career in video games or visual effects. Computer science is different. It is a vital, analytical discipline, and a system of logical thinking that is as relevant to the modern world as physics, chemistry or biology. Computer science is to ICT what writing is to reading. It is the difference between making an application and using one. It is the combination of computer programming skills and creativity by which world-changing companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Zynga are built. Indeed, in a world where computers define so much of how society works, I would argue that computer science is “essential knowledge” for the 21st century.

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 23, 2011

## The shortest ever abstract of a research paper?

Title: Can apparent superluminal neutrino speeds be explained as a quantum weak measurement?

Authors: M V Berry, N Brunner, S Popescu & P Shukla

Published: November 11 2011, J.Phys.A 44 492001

Abstract: Probably not.

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 23, 2011

## Open book examinations in the Internet age

There is an interesting discussion on the Association for Learning Technology mailing list: shoud student be allowed to use Kindle in open book examinations? It sterted with a question:

I have been asked whether a student can bring her kindle into an open book exam, as she has e-copies of the relevant set texts. Logically I’d be worried about saying no, as it isn’t unreasonable for a student to buy set books in e versions. However, there are clearly problems in controlling what else might be on the kindle.”

Someone wrote:

Rather than consider how Kindles might affect the present system of open book exams (now about 40 years old) we might consider how Kindles (and, perhaps, Google) might affect how and what we examine. It is possible that an open book exam, under time pressures, might incorporate an internet search as part of its testing, with the requirement to reference findings as appropriate. Limiting the role of technology could be seen as rather like Canute.

In my opinion, the new technology makes obsolete the very concept of standardised and controlled assessment because anything which can be standardised can be much better done by a computer. For example, there is software — easily available on the Internet — which not just solves standard school and undergraduate level algebraic, trigonometric, logarithmic, differential equations, it produces a complete step-by-step verbal write-up of the solution, with a detailed explanation of every step; if the user wishes, more mundane symbolic rearrangements could be kept hidden, or, on the contrary, unrolled.

However, the solution to the challenges of new technology had been known for at least 70 years now, and used in educational establishments working at the cutting edge of technological progress of their time, say, in physics and mathematics university departments involved in training of researchers and engineers for the Manhattan project in the USA, and in similar establishments in Russia. This solution was an open book public oral examination, where a candidate was allowed (and actually encouraged) to consult books and records of his choice, while examiners reserved the right to ask any question — and many, if not most, statements were distinctively non-standard. Also, it was at examiners’ discretion to decide whether the candidate had to answer particular question on the spot or given a couple of hours for thinking. If the Internet existed in 1940-s, it would be instantly and painlessly adopted into the open book examination procedure.

Of course, such examinations are not allowed under the current legal framework which regulates British univerisites. But this is a sign of a real technological change: it does not necessarily fit in the existing legal set-ups.

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 13, 2011

## The Lancet on Bayesian statistics

The Lancet, of all journals, published a review of a popular book on Bayesian statistics.

With thanks to muriel.

Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | November 7, 2011

## Herman Cain: “My mathematical training”

On page 6 of this NYT article, search for words “my mathematical training”.

By T. A. FRANK
The end of the Cain campaign has been at hand for months. And yet the end doesn’t arrive. And the end isn’t about to arrive now either.

With thanks to muriel.