🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 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.


I tend to agree with this ; lots of people get the wrong answer, then
cry "ill-posed" when the correct reasoning is presented.

Of course, Savant is a very, very bright woman. But even she has been 
known to slip up. Try this one out :

"Brain Power" Page 105, M. Vos Savant and L.Fleischer

<< Here's an example of a number series:

	4   9   25   49   81   ?

The correct answer is 121, that is , 11 * 11. And here is how to arrive at
that solution.
	The first successful step you take in your scanning process -
your first insight into solving the problem - is noticing that the above
numbers are all squares: 4 is 2 * 2 ; 9 is 3 * 3 ; 25 is 5 * 5 ;
49 is 7 * 7 ; 81 is 9 * 9 . Therefore, the square root number series
would read :

	2   3   5   7   9   (?)

Scan _that_ series and your second insight will be that the above are all
prime numbers, numbers which can be evenly divided _only_ by themselves
and by 1. Logically, then, the next number in that series would have to be 
the sixth prime number, 11. Going back to the original series, the answer
would be 11 squared or 121 . >>

Whoops. Never mind, we all make mistakes. This is NOT a flame of
Ms. Savant of course : her intellectual powers are beyond dispute.
( According to the Guinness Book of Records, she has an IQ of around 
230 ). The book is well worth reading, incidentally.

	The usual disclaimers apply.

	PB