First years say the darndest things.

I have just finished marking 1/4 of the questions of a first year exam. But before I begin on what little meat there is in this story¹, perhaps a little explanation is in order about the paper² in question. It is a 'discrete mathematics and linear algebra' course. There are two such courses (covering exactly the same material) running simultaneously. One takes a year, and the other one half a year. The half year version begins half way into the full year version. The reader is perhaps under some misapprehension that the latter course, covering the same material in half the time, is full of the really bright and/or hard-working people. This is, sadly, not the case. In fact it is full of individuals who originally enrolled in the previous course who then took a long hard look at their assessment results and, looking down the barrel of an epic fail, decided to drop out of the full year version and enrol in the half year version instead. The reader is perhaps also under the misapprehension that they tend to put more effort into their second attempt.

Anyways, I want to talk to you about question 3 a): Write down the definition of a rational number. Most people answered this incorrectly, and here are some of the responses I received:

1. Any number that is not a fraction.
2. Any number which can be expressed as p/q where p,q ∈ ℝ and p ≤ q. ³
   
3. A number that exists rationally.
4. Any number that is not irrational.
5. A number that makes scence(sic).
6. Any number that doesn't believe in fairy tales⁴.
7. Definition of a rational number. There is a chap in class who I always thought was an ace but he has written less than I. I guess I am not the only person who was either stumped by this course or who didn't work on it hard enough & is now compelled to write Ramayamas in the answer sheet. Yay! 15 minutes to go. Actually 20 mins but I think I am going to make a run for it. Have no clue what I am writing and I think am simply allowing all thoughts to spill out onto paper. Possibly my constant scribbling is leading the guy next to me to get very worried as he isn't writing anything either. I wish I could go home for a bit. Really wish I could go home if only it wasn't 18 hours away.
   

¹Which may be safely characterised as being to world literature what a ham bone stew is to world cuisine. P.S. Fuck you, yes, this is a footnote. Despite your endless pay-outs on this front, I still like the fucking things.

²In New Zealand Universities 'courses' are called 'papers'. This caused some confusion for me when in casual conversation a great number of people started casually talking about papers they did in first year. I thought I was surrounded by geniuses. P.S. Yes, this is another footnote. Go to hell.

³I had to at least acknowledge internal consistency here. When asked to prove that √3 was irrational they said: √3 = 3/√3 and, since 3 > √3, √3 is irrational. The correct answers were kind of cute, too, actually (& not the way I've ever seen this answered). They reasoned as follows: Let p,q ∈ ℤ. Then the prime factorization of both p² and q² contain an even number of terms. Thus p²≠ 3q ² and so √3 ≠ p/q.

⁴This guy got marks.

In praise of the term "Douche Nozzle"

Why, oh why can't more political advertising look like this?

A brief message for Anita

DO YOUR TAXES!!!!!

The end is nigh? Don't be silly.

There's an election a-comin' up in New Zealand which, I have to confess, I have neither been following nor thought about all that much. This is, as my office-mate points out to me, rather silly in that it is probably going to have more of a direct effect upon my life than that of the upcoming U.S. election which I have been following, and which scares me a great deal. Or at least, it used to dear reader. And, strangely enough, it was Andrew Bolt who made me see the light on this one.

You see, up until now, my sympathies very much lay with Sam Harris' appraisal of the situation. I found, amongst other things, the thought that a half-witted pentecostal who looks rapturously forward to the end of days is reasonably likely to, in a few short years, possess nuclear launch codes to be a little disquieting. But Bolt has forced me to re-think my opinions on Sarah Palin. Yesm. Allow me to illustrate. Take, for instance, the following (and I beg some indulgence here) video:



Now, if you're like me, you probably thought that Kellie Pickler was pretty stupid based on this video. Be honest, now, you did. Well then, Mr Clever-Dick, feast your eyes upon this one.

Pretty confronting, right? Clearly, Kellie Pickler isn't stupid at all.

Feel better now? I know I do......

I'm not one for hyperbole........

...... but¹ and this .... is like Nazi Germany. First, dear reader, they moved my office 10 metres down the hall for no good reason at all - and you did nothing, for it was not your office. Then they took away our coffee beans for Christ's sake²!!! - and you did nothing, for you did not drink our coffee. I'm not sure exactly what they're going to do next .... but I'm sure we can all agree that the writing is on the wall and that my entire readership is .... well, don't be expecting me to stick up for your rights when things turn really nasty, O.K.? Basically, you've let me down. I am currently drinking the very last cup of free, real coffee as supplied by the school of mathematics, statistics and computer science to graduate students on up. It is a sombre moment marking the, I think we can all agree, first step down that slippery slope towards nuclear Armageddon. It's been nice knowing you all......

But moving along ..... this does seem like a good place to ask the question: What makes people vote republican? I do not pose this question in a topical "Dear god how could anyone want to risk giving Sarah Palin the nuclear codes?" kind of way - but in the more general sense as posed by the author at said link. See also an online book here. On the one hand, well, surely what makes people vote the way they do is as valid an area of social research as any other.... and, well, I tend to agree about the existence of people of a certain mindset to actively vote for parties who are demonstrably acting in manners contrary to said voter's interests and that there are substantial numbers of conservative voters that fall into this category. On the other hand, though ...... I get an uncomfortable feeling that someone approached a grants committee and said something like "basically, my research will be on how people who vote Tory suck more balls than Annabelle Chong - slip me some dough, brother". How would Today Tonight deal with this, I wonder? How do I feel about the fact that I just asked that question? It's a thorny one.

DISCUSS!

¹Happy, Dave?

²Bean-counters are stealing our beans, if you will. My office mate and I have thoroughly scoped out the administration building to find out where they hide theirs (it being our solemn duty to return the favour) ... but thus far to no avail.