🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep24.222349.7583@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
#
#My view, and probably Savant's view, is that the discussion about the
#problem being ill-posed is really a way of avoiding admitting that a
#lot of mathematicians and statisticians screwed up a problem that she
#got right.  Did all those Ph.D. mathematicians and statisticians who
#sent the wrong answers while patronizing her and treating her like a
#child because she didn't have a Ph.D. (or possibly also because she
#was a woman) get the problem wrong because it was ill-posed?  No, they
#got it wrong because they screwed up in spite of their Ph.D.'s.  And
#now they want to deny that they screwed up by saying that it was
#ill-posed.  Maybe a few got it wrong because they saw a different
#problem, but I don't think very many.  And I think the proper response
#to Savant should have been a little respect instead of some technical
#diversion to slake some male egos.

Well, no. After her first article was published, I
wrote her and pointed out that (1) her problem was
ill-posed, but (2) if posed more carefully (it only
required changing a few words, for God's sake) then
she was correct. I never received the courtesy of
a reply. I think there is more than mathematicians'
and statisticians' egos involved. MvS's ego is
equally involved, and her response to a critical
article in (what?) Journal of Mathematical
Education (?)--the reference was posted recently--
shows this very clearly.)

Bill