6 ms·

The same logic applies to teachers, and can be applied against your own question. As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the

The same logic applies to teachers, and can be applied against your own question. As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you. I agree with your sentiment however, i just dont think its a powerful retort.

NDizzle 2y ago
Well, you were technically wrong. Which is wrong. var wholeNumber = 3.0; - what type will be assumed for that value?
- JohnHaugeland 2y ago
  The class is mathematics. In mathematics, numbers do not have types. You also shouldn't try to mention INT_MAX, negative zero, rounding error, or other computer science topics which do not exist in mathematics.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Type theory comes from math. Numbers in math do in fact have types. Most of the time we ignore it but numbers in math have types. math also has the concept of max number rolling back to zero ogain something anyone who has studied types in math would know. Rounding error is studied in several different math fields. negative zero isn't in any math I know of. It is only in obsolete computer science though.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Mathematicians generally work with sets, not types. The first thing you do after defining the reals is agree that the naturals, integers, and rationals are subsets. From a type theory perspective, they are all type ℝ, and, roughly, the naturals satisfy the proposition "n:ℝ is a natural number".
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Mathematics has a lot of different theories and some small branches have different rules. I've done mod math for example (it was maybe one week of classes) where you don't get an infinite set of possible numbers. It isn't nearly as interesting as far as mathematicians are concerned (for good reason) so it isn't looked at much but those theories exist.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Contemporary mathematics is duck typed.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Usually but when it matters (which is rare) the can use types.
        anon291 2y ago
        So, what was the purpose of the conversation then? In the vast majority of cases, in most normal mathematical manuscripts, '3.0' is '3'. There is no distinction.
        bluGill 2y ago
        The point is to refute the claim that math never uses a bunch of computer concepts like types - those concepts all have roots in formal math theories and so the claim is false. That that theory is not of much use in the vast majority of math doesn't mean there is no math behind it.
        anon291 2y ago
        You said: > The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. In contemporary mathematics, 3 is 3.0 . Both 3 and 3.0 belong to the set of integers. There is no additional precision being demonstrated by adding a 0 at the end of the 3. This is simple notation, not refering to a new concept.
    - hilux 2y ago
      I am no Terry Tao, but I do have a degree in mathematics. Other than possibly in a class on numerical analysis, I don't remember anything resembling types. We definitely spent more time discussing different kinds of infinity than we did discussing rounding error! I can believe that the situation might be different in "applied mathematics" or definitely in "engineering mathematics" - but at least at Berkeley, the latter degree is in the College of Engineering, not under the Math Department at all.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        There is a lot of math never taught. types in math are mostly a dead end and so rarely taught - particularly since computer science moved to a seperate department. Even before then it was mostly applied math.
vel0city 2y ago
>>> a = 3.0 >>> b = 3 >>> type(a) == type(b) False The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding. You didn't give the right answer and apparently kept complaining about it instead of trying to figure out why you were wrong to the point they threatened suspension. I imagine your complaints based on your assumption you couldn't be wrong were causing quite a distraction. For example, 10 / 3 = 3.333... right? We're then asked to round to the nearest whole number, and the answer should be 10 / 3 = 3. It is not correct to then say 10 / 3 = 3.0, because that is just wrong. I'd end up siding with the teacher on this one. Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.
- cloverich 2y ago
  > adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding. If you round 3.05 down to 3, 3.00 is not arbitrary precision, its explicit precision that's reflective of the rounding operation you did. I wasn't claiming that `type(3.0) == type(3)`. I was claiming that: >>> round(3.0) == 3 True And that such a representation was valid within the context of the question. This was long before I was wise enough to understand that sir, this is a public school, just do what the book says and don't make me talk with the students more than I need do.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    It's incredible despite multiple additional individuals telling you that you're wrong you continue doubling down on it. 10 / 3 != 3.000000000000000000000000 no matter how many times you refute it. You should really learn to accept it and continue on and look deeper inside yourself into this. It's sad you still haven't learned this lesson from elementary education. Maybe they should have suspended you. In no world does 10 / 3 = 3.0. This is just a falsehood as much as 2 + 2. = 5. I don't care about your large values of 2.
JohnHaugeland 2y ago
> As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you. I got threatened with suspension on protest once. It was about the meaning of a word, but still. Luckily, I'm a university brat, so I just waited a couple days until my dad was keeping me at his office, then I wandered down the hall, and I asked some professors for a detailed and referenced way to push back. I brought candy and tums, because that's what professors want from children who can't bring beer. About a week later, I went in with a 30 page computer printed essay. As a nine year old. It had six phone numbers in the back, four to PhDs, which could be called for further detail if needed. It was addressed to both the teacher and the principal. An opening note was "please look into how Marilyn vos Savant was treated when she explained the Monty Hall problem, when considering whether teachers are permitted to threaten students for disagreeing politely. Are you really so afraid of being incorrect?," written by an internationally renowned mathematician. I was carrying an etymological breakdown that to this day I can barely read, stretching all the way back to the hypothetical proto-indo-european roots. Professors don't like kids being threatened. I did not hear about that teacher doing that again while I was in that school.

NDizzle 2y ago

Well, you were technically wrong. Which is wrong. var wholeNumber = 3.0; - what type will be assumed for that value?

JohnHaugeland 2y ago
The class is mathematics. In mathematics, numbers do not have types. You also shouldn't try to mention INT_MAX, negative zero, rounding error, or other computer science topics which do not exist in mathematics.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Type theory comes from math. Numbers in math do in fact have types. Most of the time we ignore it but numbers in math have types. math also has the concept of max number rolling back to zero ogain something anyone who has studied types in math would know. Rounding error is studied in several different math fields. negative zero isn't in any math I know of. It is only in obsolete computer science though.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Mathematicians generally work with sets, not types. The first thing you do after defining the reals is agree that the naturals, integers, and rationals are subsets. From a type theory perspective, they are all type ℝ, and, roughly, the naturals satisfy the proposition "n:ℝ is a natural number".
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Mathematics has a lot of different theories and some small branches have different rules. I've done mod math for example (it was maybe one week of classes) where you don't get an infinite set of possible numbers. It isn't nearly as interesting as far as mathematicians are concerned (for good reason) so it isn't looked at much but those theories exist.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Contemporary mathematics is duck typed.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Usually but when it matters (which is rare) the can use types.
      - anon291 2y ago
        So, what was the purpose of the conversation then? In the vast majority of cases, in most normal mathematical manuscripts, '3.0' is '3'. There is no distinction.
        bluGill 2y ago
        The point is to refute the claim that math never uses a bunch of computer concepts like types - those concepts all have roots in formal math theories and so the claim is false. That that theory is not of much use in the vast majority of math doesn't mean there is no math behind it.
        anon291 2y ago
        You said: > The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. In contemporary mathematics, 3 is 3.0 . Both 3 and 3.0 belong to the set of integers. There is no additional precision being demonstrated by adding a 0 at the end of the 3. This is simple notation, not refering to a new concept.
  - hilux 2y ago
    I am no Terry Tao, but I do have a degree in mathematics. Other than possibly in a class on numerical analysis, I don't remember anything resembling types. We definitely spent more time discussing different kinds of infinity than we did discussing rounding error! I can believe that the situation might be different in "applied mathematics" or definitely in "engineering mathematics" - but at least at Berkeley, the latter degree is in the College of Engineering, not under the Math Department at all.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      There is a lot of math never taught. types in math are mostly a dead end and so rarely taught - particularly since computer science moved to a seperate department. Even before then it was mostly applied math.

vel0city 2y ago

>>> a = 3.0 >>> b = 3 >>> type(a) == type(b) False The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding. You didn't give the right answer and apparently kept complaining about it instead of trying to figure out why you were wrong to the point they threatened suspension. I imagine your complaints based on your assumption you couldn't be wrong were causing quite a distraction. For example, 10 / 3 = 3.333... right? We're then asked to round to the nearest whole number, and the answer should be 10 / 3 = 3. It is not correct to then say 10 / 3 = 3.0, because that is just wrong. I'd end up siding with the teacher on this one. Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.

cloverich 2y ago
> adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding. If you round 3.05 down to 3, 3.00 is not arbitrary precision, its explicit precision that's reflective of the rounding operation you did. I wasn't claiming that `type(3.0) == type(3)`. I was claiming that: >>> round(3.0) == 3 True And that such a representation was valid within the context of the question. This was long before I was wise enough to understand that sir, this is a public school, just do what the book says and don't make me talk with the students more than I need do.
- vel0city 2y ago
  It's incredible despite multiple additional individuals telling you that you're wrong you continue doubling down on it. 10 / 3 != 3.000000000000000000000000 no matter how many times you refute it. You should really learn to accept it and continue on and look deeper inside yourself into this. It's sad you still haven't learned this lesson from elementary education. Maybe they should have suspended you. In no world does 10 / 3 = 3.0. This is just a falsehood as much as 2 + 2. = 5. I don't care about your large values of 2.

JohnHaugeland 2y ago

> As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you. I got threatened with suspension on protest once. It was about the meaning of a word, but still. Luckily, I'm a university brat, so I just waited a couple days until my dad was keeping me at his office, then I wandered down the hall, and I asked some professors for a detailed and referenced way to push back. I brought candy and tums, because that's what professors want from children who can't bring beer. About a week later, I went in with a 30 page computer printed essay. As a nine year old. It had six phone numbers in the back, four to PhDs, which could be called for further detail if needed. It was addressed to both the teacher and the principal. An opening note was "please look into how Marilyn vos Savant was treated when she explained the Monty Hall problem, when considering whether teachers are permitted to threaten students for disagreeing politely. Are you really so afraid of being incorrect?," written by an internationally renowned mathematician. I was carrying an etymological breakdown that to this day I can barely read, stretching all the way back to the hypothetical proto-indo-european roots. Professors don't like kids being threatened. I did not hear about that teacher doing that again while I was in that school.