GingerAle
Oct 14, 2018

#9**0 **

*“I think he simply used the "Formula 1" from this site under "distinct Balls into distinct Boxes" :*

I think you are **SIMPLY** an **ASSHOLE** Mr. BB!!

Why yes, it’s very obvious that everyone accesses **careerbless.com** for combinatoric theory and formulas.

It couldn’t possibly be any of these:

http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/gfry/210/DistributeDifBallsDifBoxes.pdf

https://math.berkeley.edu/~evans/Combinatorics

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/probability_book/Chapter3.pdf

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/focs/ch04.pdf

...all of which are years older than the careerbless.com post.

It couldn’t possibly be the **diligent study and practice in** high school and the two or more years of university (probably in Tennessee); demonstrated by four years of practice in posting coherent solutions to questions on this forum.

Also, what makes you think Tertre is a “*he*”?

If you actually read her posts, you’d clearly see a feminine writing style. This may be lost on you, Mr. BB. You have very narrow, unfocused observational skills.

Yep, you are **SIMPLY** an **ASSHOLE** Mr. BB!!

GA

GingerAleApr 7, 2020

#14**+1 **

Jfan17 wrote:

*First of all, if I was really talking from an unknowledgeable perspective, what is your rationale behind me not noticing the logical fallacy presented by Cal? This makes no sense whatsoever. ** ... ... ... Your assumption here is just blatantly false.*

Of course, it *makes no sense whatsoever***;** I have no rationale, because that is **not** what I said.

You DID notice the logical fallacy; however, you __could not__ have noticed it from an **uneducated perspective** or **unknowledgeable** **perspective**. (In your current post, you use “*unknowledgeable* perspective,” in your original post you use “*uneducated* perspective.” I assume you intend the same meaning for *unknowledgeable *and* uneducated*.) I noticed that you noticed it, so my assumption cannot be *blatantly false. *You implied that Cal should explain this as if your observation point was from an** uneducated perspective. **

Consider some analogous examples:

“Cal, I’m adopting the **perspective of a blind person, **now explain to me the colors of a rainbow.”

“Cal, I’m adopting the **perspective of a** **deaf person**, now explain to me the decrepitating sounds of a fart.

“Cal, I’m adopting the **perspective of an amoeba**, now explain to me the meaning of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116, ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments.’”

Like your “uneducated perspective,” these perspectives are more suited for Zen philosophy than science or math.

*If I really had no knowledge of Legendre's formula like you so eagerly recommended, how would I have known anything about this kind of reasoning?*

You wouldn’t have ... and that was my point. That is not doable. However, you could be __ignorant__ of the answer to this problem, and still know that Cal’s logic is fallacious or correct.

----------------------

*Secondly, sure, say I buy your argument that there are many solutions on this forum presented from a knowledgeable perspective. Does that mean we should present all of our solutions from "a perspective that requires knowing the answer*"?

OK... I’m seeing a pattern here. It seems that some of the nuances of the English language are escaping your attention. There is a big difference between *a knowledgeable perspective* and *a perspective that requires knowing the answer to the question. *Maybe you are unknowledgeable of these nuances, but you don’t seem uneducated...

**I wrote**,* There are many solutions on this forum (and elsewhere) presented from a perspective that requires knowing the answer to the question to create the logical steps to the answer.* * I sometimes refer to these as Math Magic, Pixie Dust solutions. *

These Math Magic, Pixie Dust solutions only appear to work. The answer may be correct but solution gives only an *illusion* that the answerer solved the problem.

This forum has more than few answers like this. Here are some examples.

Here’s a *Fluff and Blarney* example. https://web2.0calc.com/questions/nice-question#r6 Melody says this is “intuition.” There may be some intuition in this, but it is so disordered and chaotic it is functionally the same as a *Math Magic, Pixie Dust** solution*. Mr. BB(_{1}) is notorious for these *Blarney* solutions; he continues to use them, though I’ve trolled him and *ripped him a new one*, many times over the years. Here’s a recent example.

Here’s an example of a *Magic, Pixie Dust solution* for a math question that isn’t a math question –it’s just BS. https://web2.0calc.com/questions/easy-but-hard-question#r27 The question and “answer” originated from a YouTube channel. The “solution” and it reasoning is consistent with something any of the BB brothers might use.

Here’s a student visiting the forum who is actually looking for “magical solutions” for her question. Specifically, the student wants the logical process of the solution to convey to her an understanding of the required prerequisites –without the required study, of course.

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/statistics-please-help-ive-gotten-different-answers#r2

Here I troll a Mr. BB-like observation that uses *Pixie Dust* to give confidence, credibility, and priority to a personal expectation rather than a mathematical expectation. https://web2.0calc.com/questions/two-standard-dice-are-rolled-what-is-the-expected#r3

In this post, I use my cat’s *telekinetic powers *to troll Mr. BB for his analysis using *magical incantations* *and charms*. https://web2.0calc.com/questions/rolling-dice#r14

This one is quite funny... A troll post full of metaphors: Generating functions that seem magical, magical detections of unique patterns, and a god with the power to change mathematical and physical constants. https://web2.0calc.com/questions/combinations-and-permutations_5#r6

---------

... *we should go through each step and explain the logic behind it. I'd argue that this is comparatively better than making them "learn the rote mechanics, and then the logic behind the process" themselves as you advocate for, because when we show question-askers the logic and decision-making calculus behind our steps, that allows them to go forward with more knowledge to tackle different types of these problems, which they can always combine with a bit of self-learning. We shouldn't just post the answer with logical leaps and expect our readers to understand.*

Rote learning is an optimal first step in structured learning, and it is a time-honored method for teaching young minds. It’s natural for most minds to develop at least a minimum logical reasoning behind the process, and some will completely figure out the logic. That is,* they go forward, *anyway. In any case, it is much easier to teach a mind the abstract logic behind a process after its exposure to the rote mechanics. To dumb-it-downed with an analogy, a wet sponge absorbs water much more easily than a dry sponge.

Consider a non-human mind –a chimp. This chimp uses a rock to smash hard nuts, and slobbers on a twig to fish for termites in a terminarium . This chimp probably learned this from another chimp. I doubt the teaching chimp related the classical, Newtonian physics, mass-energy equations of Gottfried Leibniz, Johann Bernoulli, and Lord Kelvin, before sending the chimp out to crack nuts. Nor is it likely that the student chimp received instruction on the use of Young-Dupré adhesion equations before going out to fish for termites.

[However, we Genetically Enhanced Chimps, as a matter of course, teach these equations to our infants. They are expected to learn these, and much more before five-years of age, else they are sent off to join a troop of non-genetically enhanced Chimps. ]

--------------

*Thirdly, it was a mistake on my part to not fully explain Legendre's as you mentioned, however, I'm not trying to rip "Cal a new one for her incompetence", I'm trying to help her so she doesn't post misleading solutions that she doesn't fully understand; that just causes confusion for the question askers and everyone in general.*

That’s excellent. [That’s one of the main reasons why I troll someone. As for *ripping them a new one*, I used to be a proctologist in a previous life, and old habits die hard.]

We Genetically Enhanced Chimps also have an instinct to give cautionary warnings to our children to “be careful” while playing. When children are playing with math and science, a general warning should always be “Do not embrace the philosophies of the brain-dead and intellectually disturbed. It’s OK to entertain yourself and others with this drivel, but embracing it will alter your perception of reality and make it easier to accept the next cup-full of drivel.”

I’ll add that probably Cal will eventually learn the logic behind the math. She’s eleven, so there is more than enough time for progress. Also, considering her age, Cal is rather a wonder to behold, in comparison to the notably older, moronic junior and senior high school students that are now the forum’s collective centerpiece of *counterintelligence*, relentlessly mooching for homework answers for often brain-dead and repetitive questions.

Even so, Cal can definitely cause *confusion for the question askers and everyone in general*, but the magnitude of her effect is relatively minimal. While there should never be a free pass for anyone crossing the Troll Bridge, a *discounted* pass for academics, (not plagiarism) for student youth may be an acceptable compromise.

By contrast, the BBs are (senior) adults and relentless screw-ups. I doubt the BBs will ever learn, and I hope they never do. The BBs are the bane of web2.0calc and that makes them great and worthy troll bait –a stable ancient staple, in perpetual disparity to the other screw-ups on the forum who come and go.

*Mr. BB, the stubborn, relentless, intractable Blarney Banker of lore: a pseudo intellectual with a multiplicity of advanced dimwit degrees in arrogant stupidity; a professor of misinformation, who teaches with authority and irritation. ...*

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/kim-has-10-identical-lamps-and-3-identical-tables#r11

-----

With all the new brats on here, this forum needs another troll, even more than it needs another mathematician. You seem well educated, skilled in basic mathematics, with good communication skills, and you have natural trolling talent. You have all the ingredients to be an excellent troll on here. I hope you continue to use __all__ of your talents on this forum.

GA

GingerAleMar 29, 2020

#9**+1 **

Well I have something to say... **jafan17**, if you were *talking from an uneducated perspective,* you would __not__ have noticed the logical fallacy. However, if you were speaking from an educated perspective, but ignorant of the answer then the logical fallacy would be apparent.

There are many solutions on this forum (and elsewhere) presented from a perspective that requires knowing the answer to the question to create the logical steps to the answer. I sometimes refer to these as *Math Magic, Pixie Dust* solutions. There is a guest member (Mr. BB) who is notorious for using *Math Magic and Pixie Dust *logic as a solution process to justify his answers. They are worthless, time-wasters for students needing to learn the concepts and process for solving equations and deriving answers.

An easy method to confirm the invalidity of such logic is to solve a similar question using this derived logic. If the method does not lead to a solution, then the logic is invalid and untenable.

Learning mathematics is usually a gradual process. With students, first, leaning the rote mechanics, and then the logic behind the process. The mantra of “ours is not to reason why, but to invert the divisor and multiply” is mostly universal up to the higher levels of mathematics.

----------

**jafan17, **now that you’ve ripped Cal a *new one* for her incompetence, you could demonstrate the correct, logical process, to educate Cal and others who will read this in the future. A simplified explanation of Legendre’s formula would probably be the optimal choice.

GA

GingerAleMar 25, 2020