Number (non)sense & flatulence!

by | Wednesday, December 16, 2009


Numbers are a gas! (Image credit: Phillie Casablanca)

Numbers are seen as being critical to developing our understanding of a subject. As Lord Kelvin, (1824-1907) said:

… when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.

More succintly he said, “To measure is to know.” Numbers provide us (particularly academics) with credibility.

Of course this dependence on mathematics and numbers can often be misplaced. I am always impressed how we use numbers mindlessly – sometimes to levels of accuracy that don’t really convey much. I was reminded of this while reading a recent NYTimes article A Deluge of Data Shapes a New Era in Computing.

In this article, the author attempts to explain the size of one petabyte of data. They say that,

A petabyte of data is roughly equivalent to 799 million copies of the novel “Moby Dick.”

It was the 799 that caught my eye. Why 799? Do we know for sure that 798 million would be completely off base? Wouldn’t 800 be better – at least from the point of view of being easier to remember. Where did that number come from anyway? I spent a bit of time trying to recalculate it and depending on the kinds of approximations I made, and the assumptions about the size of Moby Dick I kept coming up with somewhat different answers. Now others have tried to explain the size of a petabyte with different analogies. Here is one, and another.

But the point I am trying to make here is not as much about calculating a petabyte but rather about how we often thoughtlessly assign specific numbers where such specificity is not warranted. I captured a great example of this in an elevator in India. Take a look at this picture.

What struck me, when I walked into this elevator were the precise weight that this elevator could carry, 1768 kilograms!! Where did this number come from? A bit of backward calculation reveals that 1768 is 26 (the maximum number of people the elevator could carry) times 68. Of course this bit of back-calculation doesn’t answer anything. The source of these numbers is still a mystery. I guess the assumption is that an average person weighs 68 kg. How valid is that? What if there were 25 people who weighed 68 kg and one who weighed 69 getting into this elevator? Would the whole system go kaput? Would it not have been safer to go with 70 kilograms as being the average weight? That would give us some margin here just in case. Providing some margin for error maybe important given that people don’t usually read these signs. And if there is an error margin, why this weirdly specific maximum weight restriction, 1768?

What these two examples have in common, in my mind, have to do with how we make approximations, rounding up, rounding down, only to end up with highly specific numbers which are quite fictional in their accuracy!! Hmmm….

Of course this is no way negates the importance of numbers in our lives. Numbers as Lord Kelvin said, ensure that we know something about the topic at hand. Support for his position comes from an unlikely source, the author Samuel Beckett (of Waiting for Godot fame).

Here is a quote from his novel Molloy which to me is just a perfect example of how mathematics can help us understand phenomena that on the surface seem quite incomprehensible. And it is hilarious to boot (and also explains the use of the word flatulence in the title of this post). Enjoy:

I can’t help it, gas escapes from my fundament on the least pretext, it’s hard not to mention it now and then, however great my distaste. Three hundred and fifteen farts in nineteen hours, or an average of over sixteen farts an hour. After all it’s not excessive. Four farts every fifteen minutes. It’s nothing. Not even one fart every four minutes. It’s unbelievable. Damn it, I hardly fart at all, I should never have mentioned it. Extraordinary how mathematics can help you to know yourself.

I don’t think any scientist could have said it better!

A few randomly selected blog posts…

The degradation of Matt

A rumination on goofy sketches, the perils of reproduction as it plays out in a children's game, a B-list Hollywood movie, and botany textbooks I read when in high school, all leading up to some thoughts on the history of scientific illustration. If this sounds even...

TPACK Game On (or Precocious us)

I just discovered that Learning & Leading with Technology had an article, back in 2010, about the TPACK game. The TPACK game is something Matt, Judi Harris and I had come up with for the National Technology Leadership Summit in Washington DC, back in 2007. Matt...

Principled innovation in hiring

Principled innovation in hiring

We, in the Office of Scholarship and Innovation (OofSI), have never been big fans of the typical interview and hiring process. We are not sure that the process helps us identify the right people, and more importantly, we find the process to be unnecessarily opaque and...

An Euclidean coincidence

An Euclidean coincidence

FYI, this is a somewhat pointless blog post around a somewhat funny coincidence that popped into my life the other day. I was reading a recent article in the NYTimes with the provocative title: Microsoft Says New A.I. Shows Signs of Human Reasoning, clearly a topic of...

TPACK newsletter #35, March 2018

TPACK newsletter #35, March 2018

The latest version of the TPACK newsletter (#35) is now available and can be  found here (pdf). All previous issues are archived here. As always, thanks to Judi Harris and her team for all the work that goes into this.

Chatting Alone: AI and the (Potential) Decline of Open Digital Spaces

Chatting Alone: AI and the (Potential) Decline of Open Digital Spaces

Note: The image above is inspired by the cover of Time Magazine's 1983 Person of the Year issue - at the dawn of the personal computer age. Created using Adobe Photoshop and composed in Keynote Angela Gunder reached out to me recently about a project that she is...

When Tools Become Culture

When Tools Become Culture

In my doctoral seminar last Monday, I started class as I always do - with a "This Day in History" moment. Essentially Nicole Oster and I spend a bit of time digging through that date’s Wikipedia page finding interesting nuggets that connect with topics we are...

9/11/2001 – 9/11/2011

For Whom the Bell Tolls — John Donne No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manner of thine own Or of thine...

TPACK Radio/Video Show, now on Vimeo

The TPACK Radio/Video show that we had created for ISTE is now available on Vimeo. I think this version is easier to embed and view (as opposed to a 21MB download, as it was the previous time around). TPACK Radio/Video Show ISTE 2010 from Punya Mishra on Vimeo. A fake...

0 Comments

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Mathematical insight on reality & you (yes, you!) – Punya Mishra's Web - […] As I had written elsewhere, about how we sometimes indiscriminately and “thoughtlessly assign specific numbers where such specificity is not…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *