#Math in Common

[necromimetics]

This has caused great debate among my math friends so I think it needs tumblr's input

[cannibalisticdespair]

So, humanity is at over eight billion people. Time for a bit of statistics education for y'all, because I feel like it.

Okay, take a group that's around 1%. At least officially, it could possibly be higher. So like,

BPD: 1.6% officially

DID: 1.5% officially

Trans: 1.14% officially

Schizophrenia: 1.1%

These are American statistics, but presuming that overall none of these have some sort of strong cultural cause, they should be representative of the norm of humanity. Now, let's get the raw number estimate out of this. What we're going to need to do is multiply 8,000,000,000 by 0.016, 0.015, 0.0114, 0.011 respectively.

128,000,000

120,000,000

91,200,000

88,000,000

So, this a rough estimate for the number of people in each category respectively. Bit bigger than you might assume when you hear "approximately 1%", right? When you hear "approximately 1%", you're liable to think something is super rare. And in proportion, yeah, sure.

But plot twist, I'm discussing misinformation and bad propaganda. Did you know the internet allows disparate groups of small populations to connect and form larger communities than was ever possible offline due to how irl populations are distributed? Now, imagine a community of just 25% of trans people. Using the prior information, you can do this calculation yourself.

Done it? Did you get 22,800,000 people? Good job. If not, the calculation should have been 91,200,000 x 0.25. Now, imagine a community online of 22,800,000 people. That's a pretty damn big community online, right?

And this here shows how false claims of the level of visibility of various groups online being the result of "fakers" and "trenders" is. Those claims rely on your inability to understand that even 1% of humanity is 80,000,000 people. You aren't seeing anywhere close to 80,000,000 different people posting about it. You aren't even seeing 1,000,000 people posting about it. You are seeing a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of humanity posting about it. Social media just enables that itty bitty bit to find each other and interact.

[tiredandoptimistic]

Shout-out to Cassandra Clare for appreciating the intimacy of characters calling each other by their full names when everyone else uses a nickname for them

[trolley-problem-memes]

this is actually a common core math problem

[communistkenobi]

like can’t I just give every student a 73 or something and tell them good job make sure you keep doing the readings. why do I need to grade this like who care

[river-gale]

i think non-STEM people beat themselves up too much for being bad at math. partially i think this bc shame will never help you learn and everyone is capable of improving at math with patience and practice

partially i think this bc i’m still grading these applied calculus exams from a class of 3rd-5th year engineering students and several of them have said 1 - 6 = -4. two of them have said it’s -7

[shitty-proendo-blackout-posts]

my blog is evil :)

[baddog-nobiting]

i honestly love that the stancest tag is like 8 people all reblogging each other. it feels... incestuous 👀

[yrrtyrrtwhenihrrthrrt]

I live for the dynamic of "Both Goldenloin and Blackheart are very smart and competent in their respective fields but they are also both very fucking stupid"

[andy-kuramy]

Did a little something bc i miss school (having social interaction, not the homework ew)

I tried my best 😔 I still figuring out how to create the young designs for the rest of the guys, but @cherrytasticc is helping me in the shadows alongside @melikedraw, they feed (unintentionally) my desire to draw this mini Au, and who I am to complain?

(love you girlys, I swear I will draw Both Gao and Rama next)

[lyxchen]

I feel like I'm digging myself deep into a hole and finding nothing, trying to figure out more about In-ho's family

[bubbloquacious]

How do you guys like this very convoluted proof of the Pythagorean theorem I just made

[goldstargloww]

jimmy: wait– isn't your soulmate.. doing soulmate things, with another person? martyn: yep! i've been cheated on! martyn: they thought i was cheatin, and then they went and cheated, but actually i never did cheat, so actually, they're the cheaters! martyn: [enters drama mode. voice gradually gets louder and thicker with emotion] martyn: look at them buildin their happy little home, and oohhh, i'm in love with scott, and oohh i'm in love with cleo, and– we're best friends, and we have FLOWERS in our hair, and WE BUILD BRIDGES, and– stuff like that! WHEN IS SHE GONNA THINK ABOUT MENDING OUR BRIDGES? jimmy: … jimmy: [amused] bro, i reckon you build like a little bridge connecting– [trails off with laughter]

[antisocialxconstruct]

was there ever actually any proof that socmed sites suppress posts with words like "commission" or "shop" in them, or is that just the boogeyman we all collectively invented to explain away the fact that people simply do not interact as much with posts where you ask them for money

[intrinsically-disordered-proxein]

this one is for my 12 other homies out there who have been on both sides of this meme

[lipshits-continuous]

I think what annoys me more than saying the Dirac delta distribution is a function is when people say it's 0 everywhere except when x=0, it is infinity. Like that is just not compatible with the fact it's integral over ℝ is supposed to be 1. Suppose we did define an extended function that way:

δ is a Lebesgue measurable since {x∈ℝ:δ(x)<a} is empty for a≤0 and ℝ\{0} for a>0 which are both Lebesgue measurable sets. δ is non-negative so we can calculate the integral via

where the inequality is pointwise.

Now since δ is 0 except at x=0, we require any simple measurable function φ≤δ must also be 0 except at x=0. This leaves us with a constant times an indicator function:

where a>0, and

Then we have

So taking the supremum over a we get

So δ cannot be the Dirac delta distribution. You really need the theory of distributions to talk about the Dirac delta.

P.s. I know this isn't the typical notation for an integral with respect to a measure but this was the notation I had in my lectures