Current Events > Pwnt the shit out of the president of the local news media.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wtf is mathematics disorder
---

DezCaughtIt posted...

Wtf is mathematics disorder

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001534.htm


Mathematics disorder
Email this page to a friend Print Facebook Twitter Google+
Mathematics disorder is a condition in which a child's math ability is far below normal for their age, intelligence, and education.

Causes
Children who have mathematics disorder have trouble with simple mathematical equations, such as counting and adding.

Mathematical disorder may appear with:

Developmental coordination disorder
Developmental reading disorder
Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder

Symptoms:

The child may have trouble with math, as well as low scores in math classes and on tests.

"Problems the child may have are:

Trouble with reading, writing, and copying numbers
Problems counting and adding numbers, often making simple mistakes
Hard time telling the difference between adding and subtracting
Problems understanding math symbols and word problems
Can't line up numbers properly to add, subtract, or multiply
Can't arrange numbers from smallest to largest, or the opposite
Can't understand graphs"



I have to count on my fingers still.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsvUho4na_o
---

So they made up a disorder for people like TC who failed math because they didnt listen in class?
Is this another "real" disorder like affluenza?
---

^You can add multiply most any combination that isn't 3, 6, and 9 by the way and its digital sum usually equals 3, 6 , or 9 still rather than when using just 3,6, or 9, you get a digital sum of 9..
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

^You can add multiply most any combination that isn't 3, 6, and 9 by the way and its digital sum usually equals 3, 6 , or 9 still rather than when using just 3,6, or 9, you get a digital sum of 9..

Combination of what? I mean, numbers divisible by 9 seem to have the integers add up to multiples of 9, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
---

Huh. TIL
---

Kineth posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

^You can add multiply most any combination that isn't 3, 6, and 9 by the way and its digital sum usually equals 3, 6 , or 9 still rather than when using just 3,6, or 9, you get a digital sum of 9..

Combination of what? I mean, numbers divisible by 9 seem to have the integers add up to multiples of 9, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

It could be. I don't know why it is. Most of the time when you multiply any random combination of numbers the digital sum will be 3,6 or 9. Very rarely it will not be when done with random numbers. I just see patterns. I suck at math.
---

Any random combination of numbers? Surely there are more conditions than that?

11*11 = 121 which is 4, not 3, 6 or 9.
---

Kineth posted...

Any random combination of numbers? Surely there are more conditions than that?

11*11 = 121 which is 4, not 3, 6 or 9.

Use the longest numbers you can. Longer the better. Try doing it with 10 random long numbers.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

I have to count on my fingers still.

Gee how surprising
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Kineth posted...

Any random combination of numbers? Surely there are more conditions than that?

11*11 = 121 which is 4, not 3, 6 or 9.

Use the longest numbers you can. Longer the better. Try doing it with 10 random long numbers.

125,978 * 56,843 = 7,160,967,454 -> 49 -> 13 -> 4
645,122 * 92,488 = 59,666,043,536 -> 53 -> 8
68,243,246 * 489,242 = 33,387,462,159,532 -> 61 -> 7
---

A digital sum of 3, 6, or 9 by the end one could argue only make up 30% of the outcomes because the end result would be in the range of integers 0-9 inclusive. Though only 0 has a digital sum of zero so in the infinite set of integers ignoring zero - to give nine outcomes on 1-9 - would be more reasonable, yielding a proportion of 1/3. I could this out practically in an Excel sheet perhaps but that'd have to wait until morning. I don't see why what you're suggesting be a thing though beyond confirmation bias.

Let's assume that the end result is 3/6/9. Consequentially the number they were summed from is a multiple of 3 (since multiples of 3 have digital sums that are a multiple of 3). And likewise this continues all of the way back to the original product, implying the original sum is a multiple of 3.

Thus this occurs 33.33...% of the time since I believe a good measure for the numbers that are evenly divisible by a number n is 1/n (here n = 3). 1/3 of numbers are multiples of 3 and therefore 1/3 of numbers have a digital sum of 0.
---

*of 3/6/9, I should say
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Kineth posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

^You can add multiply most any combination that isn't 3, 6, and 9 by the way and its digital sum usually equals 3, 6 , or 9 still rather than when using just 3,6, or 9, you get a digital sum of 9..

Combination of what? I mean, numbers divisible by 9 seem to have the integers add up to multiples of 9, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

It could be. I don't know why it is. Most of the time when you multiply any random combination of numbers the digital sum will be 3,6 or 9. Very rarely it will not be when done with random numbers. I just see patterns. I suck at math.

Stop smoking so much marijuana
---

It seems like a grossly irresponsible, massive oversight and failure of social work systems/processes/whatever that tc is still living on his own honestly


Dude is literally incapable of not destroying himself
---

Eevee-Trainer posted...

A digital sum of 3, 6, or 9 by the end one could argue only make up 30% of the outcomes because the end result would be in the range of integers 0-9 inclusive. Though only 0 has a digital sum of zero so in the infinite set of integers ignoring zero - to give nine outcomes on 1-9 - would be more reasonable, yielding a proportion of 1/3. I could this out practically in an Excel sheet perhaps but that'd have to wait until morning. I don't see why what you're suggesting be a thing though beyond confirmation bias.

Let's assume that the end result is 3/6/9. Consequentially the number they were summed from is a multiple of 3 (since multiples of 3 have digital sums that are a multiple of 3). And likewise this continues all of the way back to the original product, implying the original sum is a multiple of 3.

Thus this occurs 33.33...% of the time since I believe a good measure for the numbers that are evenly divisible by a number n is 1/n (here n = 3). 1/3 of numbers are multiples of 3 and therefore 1/3 of numbers have a digital sum of 0.

That sounded like the implication of what you originally said but I get that result more than1/3 of the time. I'd say slightly more than half. Maybe even 3/4. Best way to test would be to do it with a bunch of random numbers and see how often the digital sum is 3,6, or 9.
---

Yeah, I did a practical example and got 5/9 (55.555...%). I'll show results later, but yeah most products are multiples of 3 / have digital sums of 3, 6, or 9.
---

So what I did was threefold - I first generated a multiplication table that was 250 x 250 (using the integers 1 - 250), then iterated some functions to get the digital sum, then tallied their frequencies.

Multiplication table:


Digital sum of the respective products table (with results of 3, 6, and 9 highlighted in blue):


Frequency chart:


Now, why does this occur? After thinking on it, there can be two reasons or ways to approach this and resolve the query.



- We know digital sums of 3, 6, or 9 correspond to numbers which are multiples of 3. Ergo, we're trying to assert that given two numbers at random, the number 3 will have some chance of going into their product evenly. What is that chance? Going by what I stated previously, there's a 1/3 chance of picking a number at random that is a multiple of 3. Ergo, there's a 2/3 chance of picking a number that is not. The probability of picking two numbers at random that is not a multiple of 3 in each case is thus 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9 -- implying that the product is a multiple of three (1 - 4/9), or 5/9, of the time.

(To show that a multiple of some number n times another number b, where c is the scalar multiplying n into whatever multiple of n it is, just note that cn x b = (cb)n, meaning that if you multiply a multiple of 3 - where our n would be - times some other number it is still a multiple of 3. Just in case that didn't make sense.)



- Alternatively, look at the digital sum table I generated. Consider the set of multipliers on the axes from 1 to 3, or 1 to 6, or 1 to 9, or 1 to 12 ... or 1 to 3n, where 3n is some multiple of 3. Count the number of digital sums of 3, 6, or 9 in that square, relative to the total number of numbers enclosed by that square, then divide the two.

n = 1 (3x3) --> 5 / 9
n = 2 (6x6) --> 20 / 36 = 5 / 9
n = 3 (9x9) --> 45 / 81 = 5 / 9

...and so on. Obviously this does not hold quite as well if the table does not have dimensions which are neither square nor a multiple of 3 - thus a part why my percentages in the frequency table above are not clearly 5 / 9 or whatever - and thus fluctuates over time but overall it trends towards 5 / 9 seems like.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

, like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call

", like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call"

I don't respond to trolls which is why that person is on ignore. As far as the "why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call" this has been mentioned. He did not answer my questions so I was not going to answer his questions until he answered mine as I asked first. I even mentioned this in the call.

I know you are a giant troll but do you really think kindergartener logic of "I asked first" is a legitimate thing?
---

Conflict posted...

When did this topic become about math all of a sudden

Because I'm a nerd and can't resist a challenge.
---

Eevee-Trainer posted...

Conflict posted...

When did this topic become about math all of a sudden

Because I'm a nerd and can't resist a challenge.

You're challenging a self admitted person who's handicapped in that...
---

thelovefist posted...

Eevee-Trainer posted...

Conflict posted...

When did this topic become about math all of a sudden

Because I'm a nerd and can't resist a challenge.

You're challenging a self admitted person who's handicapped in that...

The challenge being the digital sum thing, not necessarily the person involved positing it. Math can be really unintuitive and paradoxical sometimes.
---

Eevee-Trainer posted...

thelovefist posted...

Eevee-Trainer posted...

Conflict posted...

When did this topic become about math all of a sudden

Because I'm a nerd and can't resist a challenge.

You're challenging a self admitted person who's handicapped in that...

The challenge being the digital sum thing, not necessarily the person involved positing it. Math can be really unintuitive and paradoxical sometimes.

Well self flaunt all you like but TC is genuinely disabled so you seem to be engaged in narcissistism
---

Eevee-Trainer posted...

thelovefist posted...

Eevee-Trainer posted...

Conflict posted...

When did this topic become about math all of a sudden

Because I'm a nerd and can't resist a challenge.

You're challenging a self admitted person who's handicapped in that...

The challenge being the digital sum thing, not necessarily the person involved positing it. Math can be really unintuitive and paradoxical sometimes.

That was pretty cool but I don't understand how it's 5/9 but that's because I suck at math. I did notice the pattern and without the math I was pretty close at how often it comes out which I think is kind of cool though, as I said more than 50 and maybe as much as 75%.
---

ToadallyAwesome posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

, like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call

", like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call"

I don't respond to trolls which is why that person is on ignore. As far as the "why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call" this has been mentioned. He did not answer my questions so I was not going to answer his questions until he answered mine as I asked first. I even mentioned this in the call.

I know you are a giant troll but do you really think kindergartener logic of "I asked first" is a legitimate thing?

It had nothing to do with logic and everything to do with respect.
---

You don't deserve respect son.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

ToadallyAwesome posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

, like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call

", like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call"

I don't respond to trolls which is why that person is on ignore. As far as the "why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call" this has been mentioned. He did not answer my questions so I was not going to answer his questions until he answered mine as I asked first. I even mentioned this in the call.

I know you are a giant troll but do you really think kindergartener logic of "I asked first" is a legitimate thing?

It had nothing to do with logic and everything to do with respect.

Nothing you've done remotely resembles anything that could be called logical.
---

thelovefist posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

ToadallyAwesome posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

, like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call

", like that one, as well as why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call"

I don't respond to trolls which is why that person is on ignore. As far as the "why you wouldn't tell the newspaper official you were recording the call" this has been mentioned. He did not answer my questions so I was not going to answer his questions until he answered mine as I asked first. I even mentioned this in the call.

I know you are a giant troll but do you really think kindergartener logic of "I asked first" is a legitimate thing?

It had nothing to do with logic and everything to do with respect.

Nothing you've done remotely resembles anything that could be called logical.

Or respectful
---