Another belly shot to appease the family and friends. 😉 Only TWO more weeks to go! Hopefully…
|
Imagine my surprise (and gall) to have actually enjoyed the Pocket Guide despite my predisposition against it. The Pocket Guide is a survey of the protestant Christian scriptures, extremely condensed, streamlined, and humorized for quick consumption. Boyett also includes a glossary of bible terms and notable bible people, as well as a brief but enlightening discussion of how these particular scriptures were determined canonical, translated, and distributed. Jason writes with a breezy sarcasm that would seem at home in a Daily Show segment. In fact, the tone of the Pocket Guide is not dissimilar to Jon Stewart’s America: a Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction. Jason scatters pop culture references and drops into pop dialect throughout the book. I was tempted to criticize the book for this – saying that it won’t age well, or that it reminds me of ESPN’s Stuart Scott (only briefly, thank God) – but I think those criticisms are misplaced. The Pocket Guide seems to have the same goals as the Daily Show: to amuse the reader and to encourage deeper study, both of which it does very well. When you read the Pocket Guide, you will laugh. If you want joke spoilers, feel free to browse Jason’s Amazon reviews for a list of some notable one-liners. Between and during laughs, you will also read passages that will make you want to crack open the actual bible and see what’s there. I found myself asking, “that’s in the bible?” several times. For example, I had no idea that books of canonical scripture made explicit reference to books that had been judged non-canonical. That strikes me as an interesting authority issue that deserves further study. Jason’s irreverent tone, and a few of his stances, are likely to displease various brands of Christians, but overall, the Pocket Guide seems to try pretty hard not to draw denominational conclusions. I especially enjoyed the description of the various translations of the bible as well as the process by which scriptures made the cut to become canon. Because those issues implicate a lot of denominational issues, I propose that Jason begin work immediately on The Pocket Guide to the Reformation (a Little Book about a Big Schism). Our recommendation: Read it. Prior book reviews. I’ve been getting a lot of requests for belly pics and so here ya go! These aren’t the most flattering photos of yours truly. This is the unshowered, glasses version of me, but you get the idea. 😉 I’m officially 36 weeks which means I’m full term and could deliver with essentially no worries. I can’t believe I’m having another baby. It’s so surreal how fast this pregnancy has gone. If you want a break from thinking about infinitely repeating decimals, why don’t you work on the Monty Hall problem? Imagine that you are on Let’s Make a Deal. You have three doors to choose from: A, B, and C. Behind one door is a bar of gold and donkeys are behind the other two. You choose a door, say A, and Monty Hall opens one of the doors you did not choose, we’ll say B, to reveal a donkey. The question is: knowing that the gold is definitely not behind door B, should you switch from your original choice and now go with whatever is behind door C? Intuitively, my first guess was that it doesn’t matter: that there is now a fifty-fifty chance that the gold is behind either A or C. That’s not how the numbers work, though. In reality, you vastly increase your chances of winning if you switch doors, in our case to door C. The explanation is that you made your original guess without knowing anything about the three doors. There are two donkeys and one gold bar, so your odds of winning (if you don’t switch) are 1/3. If you do switch, you’re taking advantage of the fact that Monty has taken one of the donkey doors out of play. The only way you lose, if you switch, is if you happened to pick correctly the first time. Because the odds of that happening were 1/3, by switching, you’ve increased your odds of winning to 2/3. Those are fantastic odds. Here’s a link to a good representation of the Problem.
June 22, 2006 - 1:15 pm
can you apply this same probability theorem to "Deal or No Deal" as well? if so, please contact dave and carri
June 22, 2006 - 7:41 pm
I saw this explained by Marilyn vos Savant a long while back, who reported that it was one of the most criticized puzzle responses she had put up. It's not intuitive, but it does make sense.
June 24, 2006 - 4:54 am
Looking at the linked explanation (the color wheel) it does statistically make sense (fighting my intuition). Of course, a key assumption that I missed initally is that Monty knows the location of the prize. It reminds me of some of the families that come to L&D at the hospital. They think (errantly) that since they had 4 girls already, then this pregnancy will have a greater chance of yeilding a boy. Thanks to you, I am now constructing a color wheel illustration to show to pregnant couples. -Fred
June 25, 2006 - 4:47 am
I do see your point, Matt. If Monty happens to open a door that has a donkey – regardless if he is in the dark like the contestant – you are in the same situation from that point onward. Man, I really am having a difficult time accepting this. There must have been a million letters sent to the author… Do you ever stop to think about the fact that “.9 repeating” is just another way to say 1? I have to admit that I do, so I found this wonderful. If you’re a nerd like me, be sure to browse the hundreds of comments on that guy’s site. As fun as .9-repeating is, it’s not as wonderful as the fact that neighboring numbers in the fibonacci sequence tend toward the golden ratio, phi. Sally thinks of me as a math nerd, but I’m really not. I don’t know very much about math, so when I do think about it, simple things like the two facts above fascinate me. It doesn’t take long before I’m out of my depth.
June 21, 2006 - 4:16 am
Sally, it's okay
June 21, 2006 - 2:45 pm
Very interesting (another math nerd here). At first I was taken by the explanations on the blog, but I think his number line theory is his undoing. .9 repeating must be a separate number from 1, admittedly in order to perform mathematical functions with such a number it must be rounded and rounding .9 repeating anywhere before infinity will produce 1. However, .9 repeating must have its own place on a number line and that place is the position infinitely close to 1 without quite reaching 1. His algebraic "proofs" are interesting, but the fraction example in particular only works because the numeric representations of the fractions are imperfect. Dave here btw.
June 21, 2006 - 2:50 pm
If you accept that 1/3 is equal to .333…, then I don't see why you have a problem with 3/3 being equal to .999….
June 22, 2006 - 2:14 am
test
June 22, 2006 - 3:36 am
i would like to consider this in terms of the beloved and long-running television gameshow, "The Price is Right." 0.999… is the closest without going over, or in this case, without equalling one. admittedly, although not always apparently, however, i am an English–not a math–nerd, so i have no way of supporting my assertion. one question: if, 0.999… IS, in fact, equal to 1, then is 1.000…1 also equal to 1? just asking. and, please, i really do not want to know.
June 22, 2006 - 3:50 am
Trace – I know it's completely non-intuitive, but .999… is actual equal to one. It's not the closest you can get without equaling one, it's actually one. And yes, 1.0 is also equal to one. It's another way to write the same thing, just like 3/3. I think there are two general ways of looking at it. One is that if 1/3 = .33…, then 3/3 = .99… . The other is based on number density: the idea that every two distinct numbers has a number in between them. If 1 and .99… are distinct numbers, then what number is in between them?
June 22, 2006 - 4:39 am
did i mention that i don't care? just checking. it is truly shocking what gets people goin on these blogs. and by the way the number between .99 and 1 is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000 ok, i get your point. it was just a theory, jeez…love y'all
June 22, 2006 - 1:13 pm
all is forgiven…. |
|
© 2024 MattandSally.com|ProPhoto Photography Website by NetRivet, Inc.
by Sally
Drew, Amber and Megan - I love you for always being you. You have such a great sense of who you are. You just have this "Sally" look. You look amazing. I CANNOT grasp the fact that you are having a little boy, yet alone another baby. I am so excited for you, now let's get ready and have that baby!!
Steve and Amy Lou - Sally, as I keep saying to you, you look GREAT! You make pregnancy look so hip and easy. You are gonna be a great mom to baby boy Gulde (and Francis and Scout, of course), I just know it!!! And to add my midwife 2 cents, your gonna do great in labor. I love you, chica! Aim
ERIC WELLS - Sounds like you have had your hands ful "momma" I must say I'm a little jealous,having two little girls I cant help but wonder what it would be like to have a boy…anyway,you look great,same ole sally just with a belly,and I dig the glasses….see ya
Fulmer Fam - Can I just say if that is your unshowered look I never want anyone to see my unshowered look! Oh, and you look amazingly like your mom for some reason, maybe what she looked like when you were waiting to join the world as well! BOYS are the BEST, Boyz Rule!
katherine petillo - you look awesome. all baby as they say. thanks for posting some pics. it's amazing how pictures make you feel a little more connected and a little more involved. kinda like knowing what someone's office or house looks like gives you a mental picture of where they are when you talk. we love you! can't wait to meet that little fellow in there.