| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
| | ::::::: I can't vouch for this on a national level, but when I took the Putnam at UConn last year, about 90% of the participants were male. If that's true at a national level (and I don't know if it is) then it stands to reason. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:28, 26 February 2012 (EST) | | ::::::: I can't vouch for this on a national level, but when I took the Putnam at UConn last year, about 90% of the participants were male. If that's true at a national level (and I don't know if it is) then it stands to reason. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:28, 26 February 2012 (EST) |
| | ::::::: It's gotten so bad that now they make women put red stickers on the exams so they can graded differently! Women often have separate prizes too.--Bogart12 | | ::::::: It's gotten so bad that now they make women put red stickers on the exams so they can graded differently! Women often have separate prizes too.--Bogart12 |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::I don't know why anyone (i.e., liberals) would expect or pretend that God created men and women to have absolutely identical aptitudes in everything. Men and women are physically very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 27 February 2012 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | :::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms. | | :::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms. |
| | :::::This is getting a bit off topic, but if Andy and you are right and (liberal?) universities improperly equate the aptitude of men and women (by analogy, posit a homomorphism between men and women), we shouldn't conclude that the positing of all equivalences is liberal bias (by analogy, that homomorphisms are the result of liberal bias), but instead should conclude that universities are mistaken and that no such equivalence exists in this case (by analogy, there is no homomorphism between a group of order 3 and a group of order 4, say).--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:01, 26 February 2012 (EST) | | :::::This is getting a bit off topic, but if Andy and you are right and (liberal?) universities improperly equate the aptitude of men and women (by analogy, posit a homomorphism between men and women), we shouldn't conclude that the positing of all equivalences is liberal bias (by analogy, that homomorphisms are the result of liberal bias), but instead should conclude that universities are mistaken and that no such equivalence exists in this case (by analogy, there is no homomorphism between a group of order 3 and a group of order 4, say).--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:01, 26 February 2012 (EST) |
| Line 35: |
Line 38: |
| | :::::::It's central to liberal ideology to view these blasphemous notions as "useful." Next, you'll be defending relativity as useful, and that is a slippery slope my friend. We draw the line here at Conservapedia where ideas that are wrong are rejected, regardless of how useful we have been told they are.[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]] | | :::::::It's central to liberal ideology to view these blasphemous notions as "useful." Next, you'll be defending relativity as useful, and that is a slippery slope my friend. We draw the line here at Conservapedia where ideas that are wrong are rejected, regardless of how useful we have been told they are.[[User:Bogart12|Bogart12]] |
| | | | |
| − | == Examples of Liberal Math | + | == Examples of Liberal Math == |
| | | | |
| | The purported proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] would be an example of liberal math.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 February 2012 (EST) | | The purported proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] would be an example of liberal math.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 February 2012 (EST) |