Predicate Logic and Popular Culture (Part 193): Randy Travis

Let T be the set of all time, and let L(t) be the proposition “I am going to love you at time t.” Translate the logical statement

\forall t \in T (L(t)).

This matches a chorus of the famous Randy Travis song.

Context: Part of the discrete mathematics course includes an introduction to predicate and propositional logic for our math majors. As you can probably guess from their names, students tend to think these concepts are dry and uninteresting even though they’re very important for their development as math majors.

In an effort to making these topics more appealing, I spent a few days mining the depths of popular culture in a (likely futile) attempt to make these ideas more interesting to my students. In this series, I’d like to share what I found. Naturally, the sources that I found have varying levels of complexity, which is appropriate for students who are first learning prepositional and predicate logic.

When I actually presented these in class, I either presented the logical statement and had my class guess the statement in actual English, or I gave my students the famous quote and them translate it into predicate logic. However, for the purposes of this series, I’ll just present the statement in predicate logic first.

My Stanford Story: Madeleine Gates

I enjoyed this video about Madeleine Gates, who is both a middle blocker for the Stanford women’s volleyball team (ranked #2 in the country at the time of this writing) and also a graduate student in statistics. There aren’t a whole lot of graduate students who play NCAA sports (which would necessarily mean finishing their undergraduate degrees in three years or less), let alone play at an exceptionally high level, which pursuing an advanced degree in a field as demanding as statistics.

The IRS Uses Geometric Series?

I recently read the delightful article “The IRS Uses Geometric Series?” by Michelle Ghrist in the August/September 2019 issue of MAA FOCUS. The article concerns a church raffle for a $4000 ATV in which the church would pay for the tax bill of the winner. This turned out to be an unexpected real-world application of an infinite geometric series. A few key quotes: According to the IRS rules at the time,

…winnings below a certain level [were] subject to a 25% regular gambling withholding tax…

My initial thought was that the church would need to pay 0.25 \times \$4000 = \$1000 to the IRS. However, I then wondered if this extra \$1000 payment would then be considered part of the prize and therefore also subject to 25% withholding, requiring the church to give 0.25 \times \$1000 = \$250 more to the IRS. But then this \$250 would also be part of the prize and subject to withholding, with this process continuing forever.

I got quite excited about the possibility of an infinite geometric series being necessary to implement IRS tax code. By my calculations… [gave] an effective tax rate of 33-1/3%.

I then read more of the instructions, which clarified if the payer pays the withholding tax rate for the payee, “the withholding is 33.33% of the FMV [Fair Market Value] of the noncash payment minus the amount of the wager.” It was satisfying to discover the behind-the-scenes math leading to that number…

In any event, I am glad to know that the IRS can properly apply geometric series.”

Here’s a link to the whole article: http://digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com/publication/?m=7656&l=1#{%22issue_id%22:606088,%22page%22:%2214%22}

Note: The authors notes that, in January 2018, the IRS dropped the two above rates to 24% and 31.58%.

Solving a Math Competition Problem: Index

I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series on an interesting math competition problem. This series was actually written by my friend Jeff Cagle, department head for mathematics at Chapelgate Christian Academy, as he tried technique after technique to solve this problem. I thought that his resolution to the problem was an excellent example of the process of mathematical problem-solving, and (with his permission) I am posting the process of his solution here. (For the record, I have no doubt that I would not have been able to solve this problem.)

Part 1: Statement of the problem.

Part 2: Initial thoughts on getting a handle on the problem.

Part 3: Initial insight.

Part 4: Geometric insight with a Riemann sphere.

Part 5: Roadblock.

Part 6: Getting past the roadblock.

Part 7: Insight.

Part 8: Proof of insight.

Part 9: Alternate solution (now that we know the answer).

 

Facebook Birthday Problem: Index

I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series on what I’m calling the Facebook birthday problem, a simple variant of the classic birthday problem in probability.

Part 1: Statement of the Facebook birthday problem.

Part 2: Solution for expected value.

Part 3: Finding the variance (a).

Part 4: Finding the variance (b).

Part 5: Finding the variance (c).