NY Times Cancellation Torture

Today I went on the web to cancel my NY Times digital subscription. I decided it was no longer worth the cost. So I went to the web and logged on and clicked on "cancel subscription".

That is where I saw the message that in order to cancel I had to call a special number.

I called. Ten minutes on hold. Then silence.

I called again. More time on hold. More silence.

I then looked for "customer care" on line and found a different number. I called, played the phone tag, and got forwarded. This time I was told the wait would be 9 minutes. I waited.

A gentleman came on the line. I had to give him my email address so he could enter it. I told him what I wanted to do. Twice he wanted to put me on hold so he could talk to a supervisor about a better rate. Twice I had to tell him I was calling to cancel, not get a better rate. He then proceeded to ask me about how I was using the subscription. Twice he tried. Twice I had to tell him that was irrelevant, as I was calling to cancel.

Finally, a full 45 minutes or more after my first attempt at calling, the message got through and he went to cancel my subscription.

I was about to cancel my subscription to the NY Times crossword, but I had an "aha" moment: My credit card expires before my next renewal date. This time they will have to come to me, and then I can be the one in control!

Have you ever....

Have you ever wondered how business like UPS or FedEx pick their routes? Identifying the most efficient way to deliver packages is a massively complex mathematical problem, but all complex solutions begin as small solutions to simpler problems.

Here is a simple variation in which the shortest route from "start" to "end is in red. Drag the points around and you will see the route change. This file was created using the free GeoGebra software.

Note: lines that cross below without a point labelled can be thought of like those interstate bridges, where two roads cross without actually intersecting.

I put this same file on the web at geogebratube. Click here

.
 

UPS is in the process of rolling out a massive program to help deal with its efficiency. You can read about it at FastCompany.

Search for info on the Traveling Salesman Problem and you will be amazed at what you find.

Stupid or not?....

Ezra Klein writes a blog at the website www.vox.com, and his April 6 entry "How Politics Makes Us Stupid" is worth reading. Just make sure that it is not the only article you read on this topic.  You can find it here. In it he addresses the interface between the "more information hypothesis" and politics.

I must admit that I had never heard of Ezra Klein until this morning. A little blurb at the top of the Perspective section of today's Albany Times Union makes mention of him and the above-mentioned blog, although not mentioning the vox.com site, so finding Klein'a actual blog took a bit of searching.

Having read Klein's blog entry, some things seemed a bit unsettling, so I did my usual further search, and came across an entry at thefederalist.com called  "How Vox makes us stupid". In this article, David Harsanyi makes mention of author Caleb Crain's analysis of Kahan's column. Crain's work is titled "who's Wonking Who", and it, too, is worth reading. Find Crain's work here.

This whole debate just keeps bringing me back to the distinction between that which we know and can do without deep thought and that which we know and can do only because of deep thought. Notice I do not refer to what we "believe".  I consider beliefs and knowledge as distinct, even if only distinct insofar as they are different places on a continuum, far enough apart to be considered unique. (We seem to accept that with the naming of Europe and Asia as two continents.)

With all this debate going on, I cannot help but wonder what we would all think about global warming if there were no such things as huge power and oil companies and automakers. Could our opinions on the science be effected by our feelings about the economics?

Have You Ever Been Deceived?

Eat Forever!!

Here is a graphic that could easily explain our tax situation here in New York state.

If you look closely, you see that a way has been found to take an item (in this case a candy bar), divide it into 20 pieces, rearrange those pieces into the same candy bar, and have a piece to eat as well.

Now, you may say, "that is not possible!"  To which I could reply that at a time in history a spherical earth was also considered impossible.

You could say that this defies all the rules of logic as we know it. To which I could reply, do we really know logic.

Now, the idea the whole being more than the sum of its parts has been around for a long long time, at least going back to Aristotle.  Could it be that Hershey has proved it?

Watch this https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=567945656588131

(I am not a Facebook user, so the best I could do is supply the link.)

12 or 13?

Here is another case where people seem to appear out of nowhere (or disappear to nowhere) for no apparent reason.

I would like to think that all of you out there believe that both this pictures are illusions of things that are really and truly impossible.  But I do not know that.

In color here you can see an illusion where a white square seems to be unaccounted for. An Algebra 1 student should be able to rectify this situation. At least they should have the mathematical tools necessary.

We should all be aware that only the conscious mind can reason its way through such illusions. We fall victim to illusions all the time without even knowing it.

  

Here is one that is great. I remember it whenever I hear stories better known as "eyewitness accounts. 

What brings all this to mind is that as a culture we are so willing to admit the existence of optical illusions and so willing to admit that we can get tricked, yet when it comes to politics we are so convinced that we are correct and that others are deceived or ignorant.

More later...

The Fuzziness Continues

Taken from  the New York State Testing Guide’s Educator Guide to the Regents Examination in Geometry (Common Core)

Students will be expected to know grade-level mathematical content with fluency and to know which mathematical concepts to employ to solve real-world mathematics problems. Students will be expected to know grade-level mathematical content with fluency and to know which mathematical concepts to employ to solve real-world mathematics problems.

Upon reading this statement I immediately became focused on the word “fluency”.  Just to check my vocabulary, I went to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluency and found two definitions.

1)    the ability to speak easily and smoothly; especially : the ability to speak a foreign language easily and effectively

2)      the ability to do something in a way that seems very easy

I suspected that definition #1 was not relevant (unless the regents Exams will be oral exams), so definition #2 has to be the meaning intended. But is it? Imagine the mathematical content in a Geometry course actually being described as “easy” by the end of the year. What a goal! What a target! Is it realistic as an expectation? Being a natural skeptic, I went searching for more information. I checked the NYS Testing Guide for Algebra 1 (here) and found this: Students will be expected to know grade-level mathematical content with fluency and to know which mathematical concepts to employ to solve real-world mathematics problems. In both documents, the statements were attached to categories labelled Shift 5: Application and Shift 6: Dual Intensity.  So naturally I needed to delve more. When I wade through the http://www.engageny.org/ site I find that “Shift 6: Dual Intensity” is the tag for this:   Students are practicing and understanding. There is more than a balance between these two things in the classroom – both are occurring with intensity. What does that mean? I get the practicing and understanding, but what do “more than a balance” and “occurring with intensity” mean?  I find these phrases being used all over the country in all kinds of “Common Core” related documents. This is scary stuff. Do a google search on this statement: “Students are practicing and understanding. There is more than a balance between these two things in the classroom – both are occurring with intensity.”  It’s an education in the making.

As a sample, this is from El Toro High School in California:

Shifts in Mathematics
Shift 1	Focus	Teachers significantly narrow and deepen the scope of how time and energy is spent in the math classroom.  They do so in order to focus deeply on only the concepts that are prioritized in the standards
Shift 2	Coherence	Teachers carefully connect the learning within and across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years.
Shift 3	Fluency	Students are expected to have speed and accuracy with simple calculations, teacher structure class time and/or homework time for students to memorize through repetition, core functions.
Shift 4	Deep Understanding	Students deeply understand and can operate easily within a math concept before moving on.  They learn more than the trick to get the right answer.  They learn the math.
Shift 5	Application	Students are expected to use math and choose the appropriate concept for application even when they are not prompted to do so.
Shift 6	Dual Intensity	Students are practicing and understanding.  There is more than a balance between these two things in the classroom – both are occurring with intensity.

Note these are called “shifts.” The implication is that it is all new and different. Some are not new, but some might be, depending on the meaning of the words used. What is the meaning of “Teachers significantly narrow and deepen the scope of how time and energy is spent in the math classroom”?  I can guess at what it is supposed to mean: fewer concepts so those dealt with can be handled better.  But does it mean that? I cannot tell.  I do know that the authors of that statement did not display much fluency with it.

The more I delve into Common Core documents at the state, district, and school levels the more I see a strange and unfortunate gathering of words. Delaware even says “Mathematics is not a list of disconnected tricks or mnemonics.” That can be found here.

 

Oops! Sorry Delaware! That idea was previously written as “Mathematics is not a list of disconnected topics, tricks, or mnemonics; it is a coherent body of knowledge made up of interconnected concepts. Therefore, the standards are designed around coherent progressions from grade to grade.” This appears in Key Shifts in Mathematics in the original Common Core postings. 

I find it insulting that such a statement appears. Thinking it is fine, even encouraged, but to find it relevant and meaningful enough to place in a formal document is an insult to all the people who have been teaching mathematics. If you need to insult some, so be it. But to insult all? That’s terrible.

Am I against the Common Core? Absolutely not. Am I pleased with it as it is? Absolutely not. 

Math Test or Reading Test?

I ask you to carefully compare two test questions. (You do not have to solve them.)

#1

From the top of an apartment building, the angle of depression to a car parked on the street below is 38 degrees, as shown in the diagram below. The car is parked 80 feet from the base of the building. Find the height of the building, to the nearest tenth of a foot.

#2

Solve for length x:

What's the big difference? Well it's twofold.

First, the second problem is a trig question. The first problem is a trig question embedded in, ummmm.., words?  Ignoring random error, more students should get the second one correct than the first one. Why? Less reading!!!!

The second difference is that the first problem was question 36 on the NYS Algebra Regents from this past January. the second was not on that test. 

Is there any reason why, on a math test, questions would be buried in verbiage?  NYS already has massive amounts of reading tests. Why turn a math test into a reading test?

Thinking Fast and Slow

I am only a third of the way through this book, but it is time to recommend it.

Any review I might post will wait.

For now, just read it!