Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: A Point on Understanding
Replies: 66   Last Post: Jan 6, 2013 11:07 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
GS Chandy

Posts: 7,587
From: Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered: 9/29/05
Re: A Point on Understanding
Posted: Jan 2, 2013 9:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Joe Niederberger posted Jan 2, 2013 6:48 AM:
>
> PT III says:

> >To provide the reader with some context so that he
> or she can see Keith Devlin meant, to see that he is
> not confused at all, here is part of what Keith
> Devlin actually wrote:

> >"What Exactly is Multiplication?"
> >http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_01_11.html

>
> This is pretty funny and I can't pass it up.
> Following the above ref. to one of Keithe's columns,
> we find:
> Keith D. says:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------
> --
> The MIRA fallacy becomes very apparent when you
> u consider my second example, where I take an elastic
> band of length 7.5 inches and stretch it by a factor
> of 3.8. The final length of the band is 28.5 inches.
> But what are the units? What goes after the number
> 3.8 in the calculation
>
> [3.8 - - -] x [7.5 INCHES] = 28.5 INCHES ?
>
> The answer is nothing. It has no units. In this case,
> the 3.8 is a dimensionless scaling factor.
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
> He is writing far too fast here to consider his
> words. If no units are involved ("it has no units")
> then stretched inches of rubber band and un-stretched
> must be exactly the same to any commercial buyer.
> Same with puffed rice and uncooked rice. An inch is
> an inch. A cup is a cup. If I sell you 1000 yards
> stretched inches of rubber band you have no recourse
> if you expected 1000 yards UN-stretched. The very
> "nature of multiplication" declares you have no case!
>
> Very funny indeed.
>
> Cheers,
> Joe N
>

I really don't at all see anything that's wrong (/funny) with Keith D's argument (though he seems, to me, to be stating something quite obvious and not something terribly profound). Consider the following, taken from the examples you've provided:

Rubbber band:
- -- unstretched: 1"
- -- stretched: 3".
These are NOT the same thing at all!

If I, as a commercial buyer, buy a rubber band - and the shopkeeper, as a commercial seller, sells me a rubber band - I guess we would both know whether we are transacting a stretched or an unstretched rubber band?

The 'stretching of the rubber band' occurs because some degree of force - of some appropriate units - is applied to the rubber band: the units of force are, in fact, quite different from the units of length, and the force units do not enter into the commercial transaction at all! The 'stretched rubber band' is entirely a different product, as a matter of fact.

Similarly rice:
- -- uncooked: volume 1 unit
- -- puffed: volume 3 units
Presumably I'd know what kind of rice I was seeking to buy in the first place? The puffed rice is, in fact, an entirely different product.

A cup:
- -- whole and unbroken
- -- broken
I guess I would generally be in the market specifically for a whole and unbroken cup? Then I probably would not accept the broken pieces of the cup - that's a different product entirely! - and the shopkeeper would generally NOT present me with the broken pieces as representing a 'cup'.

On the other hand, if I actually needed some amount of broken glass or ceramic for some strange purpose, I'd be going out to buy precisely that - and the units I'd be dealing with would be quite different.

(I have not looked at the original Devlin column and I don't know what the 'MIRA fallacy' might be).

In India, some ration shops have the reprehensible practice of diluting milk with water - then adding some kind of petroleum product to bring the mix to an appropriate density so that they can sell it as 'milk': I guess the water and the petroleum product together would cost less than an equal volume of real milk.

Doing this is in fact a punishable offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC): those shopkeepers are actually misrepresenting the product as 'milk': that's probably the least serious of their offenses. I believe there are a whole lot of sections of the IPC under which they'd be charged.

Some shopkeepers pay the food inspectors off and manage to get away with it for a while. That's a whole different slew of offenses. Some do not get caught at all.

One of the leading pharmaceutical companies I understand was charged with doing substantially the same kind of thing with one of its expensive drugs (in a much more sophisticated way, of course). I guess that was the one that got caught: as noted, some never get caught at all.

GSC


Date Subject Author
12/15/12
Read A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/17/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/18/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/17/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Haim
12/18/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/26/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/26/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/26/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/28/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/28/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/28/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Louis Talman
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Domenico Rosa
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Richard Strausz
12/27/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Domenico Rosa
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
1/2/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
kirby urner
12/30/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
12/31/12
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Haim
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Louis Talman
1/2/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
1/1/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/2/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Paul A. Tanner III
1/2/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/2/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/4/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Joe Niederberger
1/5/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/5/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy
1/6/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
Robert Hansen
1/6/13
Read Re: A Point on Understanding
GS Chandy

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.