## Saturday, November 12, 2011

### Small Minds are Easily Amused

Over at Uncommon Descent we learn the most amazing things about mathematics:

Take the last two digits of the year in which you were born and the age you will be this year and the result will add up to 111.

It works for everyone this year.

Shshsh! Don't tell Denyse about people born in 2001. It might upset her world view.

I don't know which is more pathetic, the Toronto Star for printing this drivel, or Denyse O'Leary, for thinking it was interesting. Or maybe me, for thinking it is worth pointing out the mistake.

Harriet said...

I've got even better: for those who this trick works for, the same process will yield 112 next year, 113 the year after that...a perfect arithmetic progression!!! :-)

Barry said...

Of course the right algorithm is "Take the year you were born, subtract 1900, add the age you will be this year...".
Or, after simplifying: 2011 - 1900 = 111. It's a place to start for some people I guess.

Schenck said...

Now why is it that they don't cite this as evidence of design? What are the chances of randomly picking a few numbers and having them equal 111? If you change one of the numbers in the age-year sequence, you loose that information, so, aren't they /practically/ forced to conclude that there's a Designer involved here?

Anonymous said...

Apparently this is what constitutes as "News" on UD. Admittedly it was flagged as "off topic", but it seems typical of most of the "News" Items on UD that they have little to do with ID.

Makes me wonder if Denyse O'Leary has some quota of articles to fill everyday - certainly the approach seems to be to throw as much up against the wall and hope something sticks. Never mind the quality, feel the width...and of course by posting 9-10 blog entries a day, the stupid stuff soon gets forgotten below the fold.

And exactly how did Ms O'Leary come to effectively take over this web site anyway? Dembski seems to be nowhere in sight nowadays. Is this really the best they can do for a resident "science writer".

Takis Konstantopoulos said...

She's a complete buffoon, isn't she?

The link to the Toronto Star article doesn't work. Can you please post it again? I'd be very interested in reading her original masterpiece.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Try

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/1085221--the-luckiest-day

Agatha Kristi said...

Anonymous writes: "Apparently this is what constitutes as "News" on UD."

Umm, and Recursed?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Recursed?

Congrats! It's hard to be so incompetent you get the name of the blog wrong.

Agatha Kristi said...

Is your site not RECURSED.blogspot.com ? "Recursed" is how I nickname your site.

I think this is but another case where you can say, "I don't know which is more pathetic... maybe me, for thinking it is worth pointing out the mistake."

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Oh, dear, a poor reader who cannot tell the difference between a URL and a blog's name.

Agatha Kristi said...

Nicknames are for a purpose, y'know.
You can keep digging a bigger hole for yourself if you wish.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Sorry, Agatha, you're just too boring.

KeithB said...

The "Tuesday Birthday" problem (as discussed by Jason Rosenhouse )is much more interesting:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/the_tuesday_birthday_problem.php