MATHEMATICS: eHow : How to build a math model in your spare time

Who are you?
You are a professional who would like to build a mathematical model in your spare time.

Why?
You have spare time, don't you? Yes, the time between arriving at the bus stop and getting on to the bus. And the time between getting to the train station and actually boarding the train. And also the time between getting to the shuttle stop and actually boarding the shuttle. Well, this is your opportunity to use your spare time for practical purposes. This post will outline how you can build a mathematical model in all that spare time that you have. This spare time would otherwise be used up making pointless Facebook posts. Well, now you have options. No, not stock options. You have to do actual work for that.

How?
This post is inspired by Hal Varian's remarkable paper "How to build an economic model in your spare time". Like the author of that paper, we believe that it is the simple lack of the availability of a post such as this one that has made it difficult for people to develop mathematical solutions to hard problems. Please note that, as is obvious, extensive research on mathematical work done in far-flung countries like Russia and Japan has been done as part of background reading for this post.

For those new to building mathematical models, this post will provide you some practical tips and expert guidance on the steps you can follow to build a math model - all in just your spare time. Which, after reading this little piece, you will have none left of. Because you will be so busy either solving mathematical problems - like Prof. Shankar - or resting on your laurels - like Prof. Manikutty - knowing that you don't have to do any more research. But remember that Prof. Manikutty knows that, in Japan, he is already a "prominent person". Prominent because he is the tallest person around for miles and miles.

Shashi Tharoor on the English language - some errors in his analysis

This article by Shashi Tharoor in the New York Times came up on the BAQC Facebook group earlier today.

An English friend of mine says that he nearly had a heart attack on a flight in the United States when the American pilot announced that the plane would be airborne "momentarily.' 'In British English, the language my friend speaks, "momentarily" means "for a moment," and he thought the pilot was suggesting an imminent crash soon after takeoff. In American English, however, "momentarily" means "in a moment," and the pilot was merely appeasing the impatient passengers.

I had my suspicions that Shashi Tharoor was not, in fact, accurately representing the subject matter. I had my suspicions, that's all. This is not intended to be a commentary on Shashi Tharoor himself. Although I hate to miss out on any opportunity to call into question a politician's motives.

Some of it was pretty clearly false.

A British linguist once told a New York audience that whereas a double negative could make a positive, there was no language in the world in which a double positive made a negative. A heckler put paid to his thesis in forthright American: "Yeah, right."

So, yeah, this is an old joke. "Yeah, yeah" and "Yeah, right" are two instances of usage in the English language where two positives seem to make a negative. But it occurred to me that, besides that problem, Shashi Tharoor was mistaken in ascribing this to the differences between British usage of the English language versus American. It is, in fact, a matter of context. (This would be studied as part of what is known as pragmatics in linguistics.) Even a British speaker of the English could say 'yeah, right' (and also 'yeah, yeah') to imply disagreement. The tone of voice is what would give away the context in this case. Unless, of course, the speaker is a teenager. Those fellows give nothing away.

As for Shashi Tharoor's point on the usage of the word "momentarily", it turns out that Mark Liberman has written up an entire post on this topic.

Cavett wrote: 

When the flight attendant would say, “We will be landing in Chicago momentarily,” I used to enjoy replying, “Will there be time to get off?” But I see the forces of darkness have prevailed, and this and many wrong uses are now deemed acceptable by the alleged guardians of our language, the too-quickly supine dictionary makers. Are they afraid of being judged “not with it”? What ever happened to, “Everybody does it don’t make it right”? 

I chose the quotation because it's an especially clear example of the sentiment that usage, no matter how widespread and how authoritative, doesn't outweigh the peever's sense that a certain usage is somehow morally wrong. But having chosen the passage, I felt in duty bound to check the implication that the evil sense of momentarily is a recent development, limited to ill-educated flight attendants and similar corporate drudges.

It was my understanding too that the word 'momentarily' should be used in the sense of 'for a moment'. People who use the word 'momentarily' in the 'soon' sense may strike some as ill-educated or under-educated but that usage, in fact, has some history to it. It is merely a deprecated usage of the word. It has little do with the differences between British and American English. So, anyway, Shashi Tharoor is quite mistaken on many points in this article. I don't believe much of the other stuff he has written as well. Poor Mr. Tharoor. The trouble with being a politician is nobody believes you even when you are being sincere. Because it is just so hard for anybody to tell.

Nobel Prize Winners don't get fat

No, I am not joking. I was on a discussion with a professor and company on the Classical Sanskrit Diet and given my recent meeting with Nobel Laureate Prof. Brian Kobilka, the moniker 'Nobel Prize Winners don't get fat' emerged over the course of several conversations.

It is worth noting that the Classical Sanskrit Diet is not based on Classical Sanskrit. I don't expect anyone to learn Classical Sanskrit in order to go on this diet. The adjective 'Classical' is a modified for the noun 'Diet', not for 'Sanskrit'. The term is deliberately chosen to point out one of the problems with Sanskrit, namely, the fact that a lot of Sanskrit words have multiple meanings. The problem is a significant one because the plethora of meanings for even commonly used Sanskrit words makes it impossible to unambiguously parse even simple Sanskrit phrases. This problem exists even for phrases that people in India may commonly know about (such phrases as 'karmanye vaadhikaaraste') and even ones that have entered into government and corporate booklets (e.g. 'yogakshemam veahaamyaham'). For that reason, the discussion on the diet will be conducted not in Sanskrit but in English.

Now, for a comment on Nobel Prize winners. In face of the armies of Marketing people in the Twinkies Marketing department and the scads of Marketing people in the McDonalds French Fries Marketing department and the cohorts of Marketing people in the Pizza Hut Cheese Pizza Marketing department, you would think that these few - these solitary few - would have no chance. But these solitary few do well. They emerge triumphant in face of considerable odds and remain defiantly non-obese. I believe that the reason that they are able to do well is that they are able to quickly quantitatively sift out the Market-ese (spewed out by Marketers in various Marketing departments) from the truth in making food choices and are, thus, able to maintain their weight.

Anyway, if Frenchpeople and Francophiles can take pride in the fact that Frenchwomen don't put on weight, then why can't we as Americans celebrate these people who not only don't get fat but also win the Nobel Prize? Anyway, here is looking forward to more thoughts and ideas on diet. It will be over to Prof. Manikutty on this topic. He will joining us on this blog and will be making food- and nutrition- related posts.

P.S. Paul Krugman? Don't even get me started on Paul Krugman. Brad DeLong? Do not speak to me about Brad DeLong's diet.

A slight miscalculation

Time to look back at all the people who were busily preparing for the Mayan Apocalypse -- and laugh. The prediction that the world would end on Friday, December 21st, 2012 appears to have been a case of a slight miscalculation.

In Moscow 1,000 people who had packed into Josef Stalin's bunker were able to go back home after Armageddon was averted. 

Chinese authorities dismissed outright rumours that Jesus had reappeared as a woman somewhere in the middle of the country, and also denied that they had built an "ark" as a contingency plan. 

At Pic de Bugarach, the French mountain some had believed to be a place of salvation, the sun came out from behind the clouds and a flock of birds flew past as the official end of the world struck after 11am GMT. 

The mountain had been identified as an "alien garage" from where a vast intergalactic flying saucer would emerge to rescue nearby humans.