Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Math A Sport?

Comments Filter:
  • definition: (Score:1, Informative)

    by akincisor (603833) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:44PM (#9726559)
    sport n.

    1.
    1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
    2. A particular form of this activity.
    2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
    3. An active pastime; recreation.
    4.
    1. Mockery; jest: He made sport of his own looks.
    2. An object of mockery, jest, or play: treated our interests as sport.
    3. A joking mood or attitude: She made the remark in sport.
    5.
    1. One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game, or of a difficult situation: a poor sport.
    2. Informal. One who accepts rules or difficult situations well.
    3. Informal. A pleasant companion: was a real sport during the trip.
    6. Informal.
    1. A person who lives a jolly, extravagant life.
    2. A gambler at sporting events.
    7. Biology. An organism that shows a marked change from the normal type or parent stock, typically as a result of mutation.
    8. Maine. See summercater. See Regional Note at summercater.
    9. Obsolete. Amorous dalliance; lovemaking.
  • Re:Absolutely (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:48PM (#9726588)
    You are wrong, on most of your accounts.

    sport Pronunciation Key (spôrt, sprt)
    n.

    1.
    a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
    b. A particular form of this activity.
    2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
    3. An active pastime; recreation.
    4.
    a. Mockery; jest: He made sport of his own looks.
    b. An object of mockery, jest, or play: treated our interests as sport.
    c. A joking mood or attitude: She made the remark in sport.
    5.
    a. One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game, or of a difficult situation: a poor sport.
    b. Informal. One who accepts rules or difficult situations well.
    c. Informal. A pleasant companion: was a real sport during the trip.
    6. Informal.
    a. A person who lives a jolly, extravagant life.
    b. A gambler at sporting events.
    7. Biology. An organism that shows a marked change from the normal type or parent stock, typically as a result of mutation.
    8. Maine. See summercater. See Regional Note at summercater.
    9. Obsolete. Amorous dalliance; lovemaking.
  • The answer is no! (Score:3, Informative)

    by toetagger1 (795806) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:56PM (#9726644)
    Math [reference.com] by definition is not a Sport [reference.com].

    Math:
    The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

    Sport:
    An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

  • Re:The answer is no! (Score:2, Informative)

    by toetagger1 (795806) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:59PM (#9726665)
    And don't even think about saying that Chess [reference.com] is a sport!

    Chess:
    A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the objective of checkmating the opposing king.

  • by TitanBL (637189) <brandon.titan-internet@com> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @05:09PM (#9726737)
    Math is interesting, math is fun, math is usefull, but math is not a sport.

    From WordNet (r) 2.0:
    sport
    n 1: an active diversion requiring physical exertion and
    competition [syn: athletics]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @05:26PM (#9726841)
    X*(X) = X*(Y)

    Right.

    X^2 - Y^2 = XY - Y^2

    Right. 0 = 0

    (X+Y)*(X-Y) = X*(X-Y)

    Right. 0 = 0 again.

    (X+Y) = X
    X + X = X
    2*X = 1*X


    If X = Y = 0, yes.

    2 = 1

    Wrong. You can't divide by 0.
  • Re:Takeshi's Castle (Score:4, Informative)

    by wwest4 (183559) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @05:30PM (#9726865)
    Many people cite it as a "non-sport," but synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult, both athletically and otherwise. Here's a way for you to find out:

    swim 60 meters underwater.
    stay underwater 3 out of 5 minutes.
    train in a pool 7 days a week in addition to a periodized weight regimen and plyometrics.

    Those things are just auxiliary. As a prerequisite, you must to have incredible overall swimming skills, cardiovascular and muscular endurance, great strength, agility, balance, discipline and superbly-honed technique.

  • Re:Sure! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Free Bird (160885) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @07:27PM (#9727489)
    1 - 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/3 - 1/6 - 1/8 + 1/5 - 1/10 - ... (i.e. the sum of an infinite series)

    In this series, the negative terms are increasing twice as fast as the positive terms.
    [1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - ...]

    In this series, the negative and positive terms are increasing at the same pace. Since they are infinite, the series are thus not equal - they converge to a different value.
  • Re:No. (Score:3, Informative)

    by GodOfNothing (675212) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @07:33PM (#9727524)
    As a British Junior Invitational Mathematical Olympiad (Yes, really.) I must say, unequivocally, no.
  • Re:Sure! (Score:2, Informative)

    by dookiesan (600840) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @10:19PM (#9728283)
    Just a guess here...

    The problem isn't that x = 0. If it continued as written, every group of 3 terms ( (1,2,3) (4,5,6) , etc...) would sum to something strictly positive.

    The problem is the exact definition of 'x'. Try to expand out the series for x just a little bit further and still get the identity x = x/2 to work out after adding the brackets. I think that you're going to have some trouble.
  • Re:Sure! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ghoser777 (113623) <fahrenba@ma[ ]om ['c.c' in gap]> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @11:18PM (#9728509) Homepage
    Your deduction assumes that if

    x = 1 - 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/3 - 1/6 - 1/8 + 1/5 - 1/10

    then

    x = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - ...

    as that's what you do in your substitution step. But those two infinite sums are totally different. Rearranging numbers in an infinite sum is not allowed without very careful consideration. It be like saying:

    1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 - 1/2 + 1/8 + 1/9 + 1/10 + 1/11 + 1/12 + 1/13 + 1/14 - 1/3 + 1/15...

    was the same as 1 + 1/2 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/3 + 1/4 - 1/4....

    The idea is the same - your are promoting the subtractions well before they would ever happen. Before you ever reached the -1/4, you would have already added up between 1/1 to 1/28 and only subtracted out 1/1 to 1/4, leaving a pretty significant sum. In fact, the sum should become roughly sum 1 + sum(1/(k+1) to 1/n) s.t. k = n/7 using integer division (rough meaning it's 10PM here and I'd rather go to bed than be precise). In fact, I think this sum goes to infinity, while the other goes to 1!

    In short, alcohol and calc do not mix: do not drink and derive.

    Matt Fahrenbacher
  • Re:Sure! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 18, 2004 @01:47AM (#9729238)
    This isn't using divisions by zero. This particular "proof" relies on the fact that rearranging the terms of a nonabsolutely convergent series does not necessarily give the same sum. In fact, such a series can be transformed into a series with any given sum simply by rearranging the terms.
  • Re:Sure! (Score:5, Informative)

    by andi75 (84413) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @02:05AM (#9729294) Homepage
    I have no mod points right now, so I'll throw in my +1 modifier...The correct explanation for the above result is (from AC:):

    This isn't using divisions by zero. This particular "proof" relies on the fact that rearranging the terms of a nonabsolutely convergent series does not necessarily give the same sum. In fact, such a series can be transformed into a series with any given sum simply by rearranging the terms.

  • Re:Sure! (Score:2, Informative)

    by HiLander4237 (591167) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @10:04AM (#9730589)
    No, that's not the correct explanation. Yes, it's true that a conditionally convergent sequence can be rearranged to converge to any real number. But that particular "rearrangement" has partial sums that are a subsequence of the original series' partial sums. So one of three things must have happened:

    1) The series diverges, and the algebraic manipulations of its "value" were meaningless.
    2) The series converges to 0, and there was division by 0.
    3) This particular series doesn't follow that pattern past the first few terms, and the equation 2x=x doesn't follow, even if it does converge.

    In any case, Riemann's rearrangement result is unnecessary.

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...