From the Wikipedia article "Golden ratio":
In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities.Do the math!
In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities.Do the math!
27 comments:
Ugh. That's a bad use of the word ratio.
It's over.
Let's talk about it some more.
At 3:00 pm today my next day neighbors will become the first gay marriage on the block.
I have some rice ready.... or maybe some dry roasted peanuts so the birds can join the celebration.
Henry said...
Ugh. That's a bad use of the word ratio.
The lawyer/scribbler pretending to know high-school math probably meant Golden Mean but got confused. But it's not worth reading an article with a title like that to find out.
As the article states:
The decision on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, he said, followed democratic consensus. State legislatures, not judges, had done almost all of the work in driving down the number of bans to 16.
The stunning recent run of victories for same-sex marriage, by contrast, has mostly been the work of judges rather than voters or their elected representatives. In the past two months, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage grew to 35 from 19, as well as the District of Columbia. The surge was entirely the result of court decisions.The decision on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, he said, followed democratic consensus. State legislatures, not judges, had done almost all of the work in driving down the number of bans to 16.
The stunning recent run of victories for same-sex marriage, by contrast, has mostly been the work of judges rather than voters or their elected representatives. In the past two months, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage grew to 35 from 19, as well as the District of Columbia. The surge was entirely the result of court decisions.
judges making the rules becuase they want the result. Not the people nor he legislators. Sounds an awful lot like Obama dictating immigration policy.
The Golden Ratio doesn't work here.
If the Golden Ratio correlated with Supreme Court decisions, then the tipping point would be 19states: 19/31 ~ 31/50 ~ 0.618.
It takes 3/4 of the states to approve a constitutional amendment. The Constitution has been amended 27 times.
The article, at least until I quit reading it, did not address the inequity of punishing people who, for religious reasons, do not wish to be associated with the ceremonies of 2% of the population.
I could not care less about what gays do privately, I am violently opposed to their totalitarian impulses being enforced by courts.
Maybe he meant golden something else.
I didn't post this, right?
That's a queer application of mathematics.
Essentially we are asked to hold that A+B=A+A,where A≠B.
Fine. A=B even though A≠B. Whatever.
Even so, what are we to do with A+B, which has the potential of A+B=C, while A+A can never = C. Not even Anthony Kennedy can make that happen.
What to do with the unique nature of A+B, which because of its unique nature, requires special protections? So we no longer call it "marriage." But whatever we call it, A+B needs that special protection, a protection that is irrational as to A+A.
Ann, I'm trying to do the math.
Is the numerator of this fraction the catcher, and the denominator, the pitcher?
Help me out here.
- Krumhorn
Structurally, that's a very odd article. It starts with very short one-sentence paragraphs. One after another. Bizarre. I don't know if I've seen that before in a NYTimes post.
But what if we oppose for nonreligious reasons?
I guess I will always defend the old policies. It was pretty reasonable, and I wasn't homophobic and I'm still not. I didn't need gay marriage to accept same-sex relationships. I do believe we need something that brings an individual's mom and dad together.
It's strange.
The Golden ratio works because:
.382x/.618x = .618
and
.618x/1 = .618
so
.382x/.618x = .618x/1
Do the math in this case:
.382 times 50 = 19.1
.618 times 50 = 30.9
19.1 divided by 30.9 = .618
30.9 divided by 50 = .618
The number of states in the cases in the article were 16, 13, 15; to be the Golden Ratio the number of states should have been 19 or very close to it. So we are not talking about the Golden Ratio but, as some other commenters said, we are talking about the rising ignorance level at the New York Times. If only the economy rose with the ignorance level we would be doing fine.
When the answer has been decided, the math is unimportant.
Are human relationships like numbers?
During the Humanum conference, they used the analogy of complementary colors. But people aren't colors, even though I thought it was a good comparison.
There are different forms of relationships, just as colors work differently with one another, and we should be able to acknowledge different needs and obligations.
@wildswan: That's the math. My point is that the article never actually talks about ratios. It talks about simple sums. The headline writer tries some wordplay on the word "Calculation" and falls flat.
The article could have been titled "In Summing Up Same-Sex Marriage, Justices May See Double-Digit Integers" and at least not have been nonsensical.
Or, to be completely parallel:
"In Same-Sex Marriage Sum, Justices May See Integers"
So much for allusion.
"It was my understanding that there would be no math."
-Chevy Chase
Walter Dellinger, the man referenced in the article, lost the Heller second amendment case. He's a progressive who does not believe in enumerated constitutional rights or armed self defense.
Dellinger knows what's best for the citizenry and will throw out the Constitution or have it interpreted in bizarre ways.
He used to be a law professor.
He's a progressive hack who should be ignored.
I need an opinion from Scott Walker's son and that famous number-cruncher, Louis Farrakhan.
Does Smarter Lil Lena do math?
Sounds like Greek-style reasoning!
If you'd like to play with the "golden ratio" (i.e., have a hands-on experience with pieces whose shape is defined by that number), you should check out the amazing "Ball of Whacks."
SSM by it's own definition is an outlier; the deviation from conventional behavior places itself into the category of unpredictability, not the order described by the golden ratio.
I guess using math as a metaphor means you're a sophisticate. (The yokels use football.)
@Mark - watch out! That kind of logic is sooooo dead white European male. In all likelihood, you're a hater.
Post a Comment