You probably wouldn't be shocked to learn that our math skills decline sharply once we leave school. Anyone that had to help their grade-school child help learn fractions will attest to that.

Is it the top number that's the denominator? Why can't they just call them the top number and bottom number?

We all need to brush up on those math skills so I am here to help. I got three word problems at different grades of difficulty. The first 'rackers that can post a correct answer I will award with a Pirate hat that is left over from the defunct 13 line hook challenge (I got loads of 'em).

1) Grade school
Why was the math book sad?

2) High school
Why can't the circle ever win an arguement with the triangle?

3) Advanced algebra (for my friend from Ohio)
If you were to meet a pessimistic Patrick James, how could you be sure he wasn't real?

2) Hmmm. Not sure.

quote:

---

1) It has a lot of problems.

---

First hat gone!

quote:

---

3) Take his square root. You could also divide him by zero.

---

Wrong, but nice effort. Patrick James' roots are square? Must really hurt to pluck them gray hairs.

quote:

---

2) High school
Why can't the circle ever win an arguement with the triangle?

---

quote:

---

3) Take his square root. You could also divide him by zero.

---

Alas, you don't have to be rational to be real.

My literal answer:

3) Because Patrick James cannot be constructed as the convergence of a sequence of rational numbers (regardless of his own rationality).

My attempt in keeping with snapper's game (and if you get this, you ARE a math dork):

3) Because the real numbers aren't his Field.

[This message has been edited by Kitti (edited March 29, 2009).]

because the circle never had a point

I like your answers, Kitti, a true math dork. A hat for you because I like how you think. The real answer is even dorkier.

3) If you were to meet a pessimistic Patrick James, how could you be sure he wasn't real?

because negative squares are imaginary

Being the math genious I am I wa a little disappointed that none of my answeres were right.

1. The math book was sad because it would never amount to anything. (lame I know, but all I could come up with.)

2. The circle can't ever win an argument with the triangle because its arguments are cicrlular and the triangle is so good at coming to a point.

3. If you were to meet a pessimistic Patrick James, how could you be sure he wasn't real? All I could think of here was a joke. Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender walks up to him and says, “Would you care for a drink?” Descartes replied, “I think not.” and disappears.

Anyway, Descartes was wrong. If cogitation were a prerequsite to existence there would be no population problem.

Starting with Michigan(raspberry). And I don't have grey hairs! Go OSU!

P.S. Kitti(warning dirty joke ahead.), Patrick James may not be able to be constructed by the convergence of a sequence of rational numbers (regardless of his own rationality). But he may be constructed by the convergance of two rational people--or irrational ones, if you prefer.