Math Hysteria
We've heard from several readers who've let us know that our discussion of math, animal husbandry and the editorial we, all prompted by our innocent remark about geometry, has made them nostalgic for our old "It's the Eponymy, Stupid" feature. Well, let that be a lesson: Instead of complaining, learn to appreciate what you have before it's gone. We'll probably run out the string on this one pretty soon too, so savor it while you can.
Reader Brett Thorn has an application of geometry for really bored couch potatoes:
Believe it or not, the 3-4-5 rule is useful for one other insipid stupidity in the world. TV and monitor makers give you size as the diagonal size rather than the horizontal size. The fact that these TVs have 4:3 aspect ratios and (roughly) square corners means that the diagonal is the "5" in a 3-4-5 right triangle. So divide the size they give you by 5 and then multiply by 4 to get the horizontal size and by 3 to get the vertical size. So a 25-inch television screen is 20 inches across and 15 inches top to bottom.
Of course, with wide screens, they chose 16:9, which is not a perfect square proportion (they could have chosen 15:8 from an 8-15-17 triangle).
Then again, our set has a 27-inch screen, so it's 16.2 inches tall and 21.6 inches wide. Or is that 21.6 inches long and 16.2 inches wide? This is almost as confusing as the metric system.
Reader William White thinks reader Jami Lynn was too literal-minded in her remarks on boar mammaries:
I can't believe that a reader is caviling over the phrase "useless as mammary glands on a boar." Sigh. I assume you original reader was paraphrasing an earthy expression I once heard: "That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull."
Now, in my mind, "mammary glands on a boar" is a pretty gosh-darned funny euphemism--along the lines of "Boy, if that Michael Moore just ain't the west end of a horse walking east!" Anyway, kudos to your reader if "mammary glands" is his own formulation.
Heck, while on the subject, allow me to suggest another suitable-for-mixed-company phrase regarding objects of tenebrous utility? "Well, bucko, that's gonna do us about as much good as a football bat." I forget where I first heard that, but years later it still cracks me up.
Oh, by the way, getting back to the original Q&A the good governor found himself in, IMHO he missed an opportunity. He should have answered the the student: "Gosh, you've got me stumped there, smarty-pants. What's a triangle?"
Reader Steve Miller picks up on the Michael Moore theme:
I did find it interesting that one of your readers has an advanced degree in meat science. Wow! Could you ask her to take a look at Michael Moore's head? Being a hog farmer would probably also enable her to provide additional insights. I just hope Moore has a small number of mammary glands.
And an unnamed reader seeks more information:
The usefulness of mammary glands on a boar hog has already generated a discussion in your column. Can we have some undersea mariners debate the usefulness of a screen door on a submarine?
We've never been on a sub, but we're guessing a screen door would not be of much use underwater, since most screens are not fine enough to block water molecules. On the other hand, if your sub were parked in, say, Colorado Springs, a screen door would be quite useful for keeping out mosquitos and other pests. But maybe we're out of our depth here, so let's let the experts dive in.
Reader Ben Orlanski makes the case for the editorial we:
It is more dignified and keeps attention on your column, where it belongs, and not on you personally. If you started using I, I would have to think about you--James Taranto--and, without the slightest offense intended, I really don't want to when I'm reading the column.
We think we, James Taranto, have just been insulted. Anyway, reader Bill Sneed offers a mathematical proof that one can be simultaneously singular and plural, and thus the editorial we is grammatically correct (note to text-only subscribers: "a2" means "a squared"):
Let a=1
Let b=1
Therefore a=b
Multiplying both sides by a gives a2=ab
Subtract 1 from the left and b (which equals 1) from the right: a2-1=ab-b
If you remember your quadratic equations, this factors to: (a+1)(a-1)=b(a-1)
Dividing both sides by a-1, we have a+1=b, or 1+1=1
Therefore 2=1
To be sure, this is a counterintuitive result, and math purists will no doubt find fault with it. Well, we just have three words to say to them: E pluribus unum. Got a problem with America, Math Boy? |
