Eight years ago, I ended that sentence with the word, “sad.” Eight years of minor and not so minor health problems. Eight years of increasingly ill golf buddies and relatives. Eight years of friends and relatives passed. I have the sense that I am intently clinging to those activities and those people who give me the most pleasure. Now I marvel at those few new ideas that enter my brain. I am paying closer attention to my friends, my students and my wife and sometimes reel in amazement at their creativity, their humor and their courage. I am still looking forward and striving to improve, though now there is a sense of impending limitation and fear of not finishing my small projects. So, I’m glad and grateful that I can still play and think and enjoy other’s company. As you can see, I am no longer measuring or judging my performance. I am intentionally and self-consciously paying attention. I love living on the Earth in an Earth-designed body with an Earth-responsive brain and it makes me glad.

]]>I first used their tic-tac-toe example to get all the Python parts running. The output, as I found out, was a set of rules defining what a win looked like. Then I decided to see if the method could generate the rules of the game of Set in the same way. Set is played with a deck of cards. Each card has a symbol or symbols having four characteristics – number, shape, color, and fill type, each with three different possibilities. A set is three cards that have either all different or all the same possibilities for all four characteristics. To make the resulting rules from the program a little easier to understand, I chose to do the simulation with just three characteristics called a, b and c with three possibilities 0, 1 or 2 for each.

After messing around with random deals for a while, I found that the proportion (4%) of natural hits was too low for the program to handle. In my struggle, since nothing seemed to be working, I had added logical summaries to the input data columns. In essence, I preprocessed the information. Each deal of three cards was now accompanied by six columns describing whether each of the characteristics were all the same or all different. This felt like cheating. Since I had known what I was looking for, I set up columns that summarized those exact traits. For a while, I experimented with just this summary information. I had started by using all permutations of the deals, then changed to just all combinations since the program did just as well without the redundancy. The four percent success rate was not enough for the program to learn the distinctions so I turned the problem on its head and defined hits as non-sets. This lead to a succinct set of rules arrived at quickly. There were the three rules for non-Sets, to quote, “(‘cAllDifferent_neg’, ‘cAllSame_neg’) (‘aAllDifferent_neg’, ‘aAllSame_neg’) (‘bAllDifferent_neg’, ‘bAllSame_neg’)”. This translates as characteristic c can’t have all different traits and characteristic c can’t have all the same traits or characteristic a can’t have all different traits and characteristic a can’t have all the same traits or characteristic b can’t have all different traits and characteristic b can’t have all the same traits. This is exactly how a human might describe the game of Set’s rules. Next I added columns for the specific characteristics on each card. The program properly ignored the more detailed information and reverted to the summary information since they gave a more compact set of rules. Finally, I eliminated the summary rules. The list of rules was longer than it needed to be and had evident overlap. It was tricky to parse, i.e., explain to myself. Anyway my learning curve has flattened out. Now I want to explore real data. This is in the works.

What have I learned? 1) The method of assigning added negation columns saves time and gives fewer, shorter rules. 2) Looking for rules that define non-hits is sometimes more efficient. 3) It is sometimes useful to preprocess the data into partial summary logical new columns. 4) Using someone else’s program without a understanding every line leaves a residue of uncertainty.

Also, a shout out to the Jupyter notebook system which made working with Python much easier and more organized. This type of notebook is particularly useful for the kind of casual experimenting that I did. Each time, I copied portions of the program’s run results and pasted them with some comments into a new HTML cell as documentation. The result was a crude narrative which I drew on for the above.

]]>They were taken from solutions to some physics exercises and intended to give more practice on multi-variable systems. Afterwards I shared a copy with our science people accompanied by an apology. I had stripped the problems of meaning. They just sit there lifeless, without any scientific justification or reasoning. Our students will still benefit from seeing problems that are closer, if only in notation, to the ones they will see in their science courses. Anyway, if you think about it, the problems are least one level above the algebra abstraction where all variables are x and y.

I just got an email from our physics professor. He asked me to reword the first problem to emphasize that the tangent of theta is a function of several variables. What a good idea. This is a point of view that we introduce too late in mathematical curricula. I can’t wait to discuss this stuff with my students tomorrow.

The function is specified in this python code.

# Hilly Landscape Function

def T10X(x):

x = x +.2

y = -(512*x**10-1300*x**8+1120*x**6-400*x**4+50*x**2-1)+1*x**12+.4

return y

def T10Y(x):

x=x-.1

y = (512*x**10-1285*x**8+1120*x**6-400*x**4+50*x**2-1)-1*x**12 – .2

return y

def func2dplot(x,y):

f = -T10X(x)*T10Y(y)

return f

In the course of this investigation I found these images of awesomely weird functions and learned about python’s scipy library of optimization methods. I tried one of them, “basinhopping,” on my function. Hence the garish ball locating the “optimum” on the graph above. It is evidently not the global maximum. Thus I “broke” that particular optimization method.

All this was an excursion in the middle of excursions. I was working on a machine learning application. Then Emily came in with an interesting problem. Before I could think through that problem, a biology professor had a question about curve-fitting survival curves. I got that one lined out, then returned to the optimization. Now I can get back to my machine learning application but who knows what other interesting problem will walk through the door.

By the way, the Jupyter system of interspersing python code and HTML has been highly useful for all these types of explorations. Recommended.

]]>This was a choice. When I talk to individual youngsters about math, I try to build an argument. For example, to show that multiplying by eight is easy, I might ask this series of questions.

In the example above, I wasn’t going for the basic structure. If so, I would have asked them to solve

next. Instead I asked for the solution to

thinking that they would have to perturb the previous answer (and use fractions) or maybe try adding the right sides and dividing by two. My next problem would have been

Most of this was done unconsciously since I was handing out papers and tending to other aspects of class management.

]]>A good test

- has students emulating reasoning patterns.
- has students supplying reasons for steps.
- has students grabbing the best tool for the job.
- has students display what they learned doing their homework.
- has students combining, not concatenating, concepts.

On a first level, having effective websites and transparent simple procedures for registering for classes, changing classes, paying bills, etc. would reduce a student’s intellectual load and save them time – time that would be better spent studying. This is a known problem, often unaddressed. Just check any random universities website with a specific question in mind.

The second level, entails the intellectual load imposed by varying academic standards across campus. Often students have to think through what is acceptable in different courses – typed or handwritten, polished or rough, spelled correctly or who knows, all steps shown or the important ones or none. One gets the sense that students sometimes are just testing for the particular course’s standards or worst, disregarding said standards – still a choice. If the faculty, even by department, spoke as one voice, students’ intellectual load, and for that matter stress, would decrease.

There is a third level that I am exploring this term. I teach college algebra to a cohort of students that are taking both introductory biology and chemistry. I have reordered my curriculum so that I am going over the math that I know they will be using at the same time in their labs and on their exams. For instance, teaching straight line math early, using significant digits and decimal calculations early and consistently, and making up examples that come directly from their labs using the same units. If one thinks about it, most math students in precalculus and higher will not be math majors but will be STEM majors. This sharing of common problems among the disciplines can only help reduce a college student’s intellectual load. Looking over biology and chemistry labs and seeing the keys for their exams have given me good examples and changed the way I discuss issues in class. No longer just “You will see this technique in calculus class” but “The behavior of this graph will be important in your spectrometer lab”. I now know, even, that mixture problems in algebra II are much more important than the usually phrased motion applications.

I also see the glimmer of a fourth level. Thinking as such is not usually taught on campus, at least, in the sense of Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke and How to Think by Alan Jacobs. These thinking skills and sensibilities apply to all disciplines and also to life. Using their structure to teach introductory critical thinking and problem solving in all programs would reduce a student’s intellectual load. We know that skills often don’t transfer across disciplines but they might if we work at it.

]]>At best, students leave Stat 101 able to define and use p-values. They understand sampling variability and the role of the central limit theorem. They can correctly state confidence interval and hypothesis testing conclusion by the end of the course. They can use a calculator and/or spreadsheet and/or statistical software to do tests and can dutifully interpret p-values. For most, a few months later, all they will remember is, p<.05 is “good.”

Thus, Stat 101 students finish their course having learned an increasingly rejected statistical paradigm which will propagate into their science labs, advanced statistic courses in the social sciences and business, into their capstone papers and beyond into who knows what after they graduate. We are placing the vast majority of our students in a “statistical” hole.

So here is my plea for somebody somewhere to do something. Not that people haven’t tried, and failed by their lights. My interpretation of such efforts is that the authors tried for too much – include too much explanation, too much background, too complicated of models, too complex model checking.

Take a look at an elementary statistics textbook such that it is. The explanations are limited. The types of questions/problems are simple and the subsequent analysis can be written in a sentence. This is appropriate for these students. Why not, instead of a p-value conclusion, have a modeling conclusion based on model sampling. Stat 101 students can just as easily be taught to state conclusion properly in modeling language as in p-value language. Since most students treat calculators or statistical software as a black box anyway, using provided p-value results or model sampling results will make no difference to them. The situations are simple – inferring population parameters from a sample, comparing two populations from samples, using normal or binomial distributions. These simple problems cover most of the cases they will confront in their college career.

So my plea – someone, somewhere write a elementary statistics textbook for non-majors using Bayesian models. Get it underwritten by a major publisher. Most of the content will be like the traditional text. The changes will be just in how the problems are worked out using Bayesian capable software and how the conclusions are stated. this would be good start.

Note: No links in this post. It is just my general sense of the field. I am not an expert in the field of statistics. I have avoided teaching elementary statistics for many years now because I disagreed with the content. I could do this because I am department chair and past retirement age.

]]>One: U.S. academics are shaken by the current political situation. They are looking to their research for solace, hope, and/or solutions. Creativity as it relates to wisdom and ethics is now a hot topic. The social-cultural aspects of creativity are being described.

Two: I found many presentations tinged with bravery and sadness. Bravery because many of the presenters were at the beginning of their professional life and putting a significant part of their work out there for critical questioning (Though most people were nice.). And sad because this consuming work was dismissed with a desultory question or two and a polite clapping. Many times I wanted to engage them, as the interesting people they are, in a detailed conversation, really out of curiosity, but I was off to the next section. And anyway, attention from me would not have enhanced their career or research.

]]>- Creativity can be taught.
- Creativity can be measured.
- Creativity is good.
- Creativity is trans-disciplinary.
- Creativity is thinking.
- Creativity produces artifacts.
- Creativity is resisted in college.
- Creativity involves empathy.
- Creativity needs permission.
- Creativity can be embedded in a story.
- Creativity requires overcoming fear.
- Creativity requires discipline.
- Creativity takes time.
- Creativity is hard to transfer.
- Creativity is a process.
- Creativity is domain specific.

]]>