Math and Sexuality
(as told to me in an email from a HS Comp Sci Teacher)
I was telling Mrs Math Teacher the other day that the thing that bugs me about the irrationality of Pi is that its obviously the ratio of two things that were measured. And even if the measurements of each of the two things went to 10 decimal places, you'd think you'd see a repetition after 10^10 places.
Unless, of course, the measurement of the circumference was inaccurate (which is probably is). But then, how would they know it was inaccurate?
I could handle the fact that Pi was non-terminating. I could handle the fact that Pi was non-repeating. But not *both*. Intuitively, somewhere there had to be a repetition in a number that represented a measurable ratio.
And then I thought about the square root of 2.
Here's another non-repeating, non-terminating decimal. But it's one that I have no problem with. That's because it's not the result of a measurement that could easily be gotten with "standard tools."
But wait. I did this in 8th grade, when I first discovered the root of 2. And taking a square with an area of 4, dividing it into quarters along the diagonal, and putting two of those triangular quarters together to get a new square, I discovered that while I did indeed have a square with an area of 2, I couldn't precisely measure the sides. I've been able to accept this since 8th grade, so I guess Pi does make sense.
So what does this have to do with the price of apples in Lafayette? A whole lot.
In terms of sexuality, most people only have to deal with integers and the subset of real numbers that are rational. Sure, you get the occasional 0.333_, but everyone knows that's really 1/3 and it's a limitation in the way you can handle things with decimals. Gay, bi, transgendered, and all that other stuff involves types of numbers that most people never have to deal with on a regular basis, and that are totally counter-intuitive. Just consider what I went through with Pi, and I'm a math geek!
In my recent reading up on Pi, I read that when one of Pythagoras's disciples proved that irrational numbers exist, Pythagoras was so enraged by this (believing in the absoluteness of all numbers, and not being able to logically disprove the existence of irrationals), that he had this disciple drowned. Of course, now we not only accept irrationals, but even understand that there are infinitely more irrationals than rationals.
Anyway, it seems perfectly logical then, that this "complex sexuality" stuff would be totally counter-intuitive for the vast majority of people for whom there's an "obvious" one-to-one correspondence between sex, gender, and sexuality.
Which brings me to an idea for a Java program. Three int variables, representing sex, gender, and sexuality. But each of these variables are calculated randomly based on the current statistics for each. Hence the one for sex would be randomly calculated pretty close to 50/50, the one for gender would be based on figures that I (or the student doing the project) would have to look up somewhere, and the one for sexuality would be somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100 (different studies give different figures). The result of this program wouldn't just give you a male or a female, but all the possible combinations:
male, male, straight
male, male, gay
male, male, bi
male, female, straight
male, female, gay
male, female, bi
female, female, straight
female, female, gay
female, female, bi
female, male, straight
female, male, gay
female, male, bi
That's *12* different possible combinations! Compare that with the two that most people willingly accept and four that they grudgingly accept. What an interesting mathematical and sociological program that would be.
I was telling Mrs Math Teacher the other day that the thing that bugs me about the irrationality of Pi is that its obviously the ratio of two things that were measured. And even if the measurements of each of the two things went to 10 decimal places, you'd think you'd see a repetition after 10^10 places.
Unless, of course, the measurement of the circumference was inaccurate (which is probably is). But then, how would they know it was inaccurate?
I could handle the fact that Pi was non-terminating. I could handle the fact that Pi was non-repeating. But not *both*. Intuitively, somewhere there had to be a repetition in a number that represented a measurable ratio.
And then I thought about the square root of 2.
Here's another non-repeating, non-terminating decimal. But it's one that I have no problem with. That's because it's not the result of a measurement that could easily be gotten with "standard tools."
But wait. I did this in 8th grade, when I first discovered the root of 2. And taking a square with an area of 4, dividing it into quarters along the diagonal, and putting two of those triangular quarters together to get a new square, I discovered that while I did indeed have a square with an area of 2, I couldn't precisely measure the sides. I've been able to accept this since 8th grade, so I guess Pi does make sense.
So what does this have to do with the price of apples in Lafayette? A whole lot.
In terms of sexuality, most people only have to deal with integers and the subset of real numbers that are rational. Sure, you get the occasional 0.333_, but everyone knows that's really 1/3 and it's a limitation in the way you can handle things with decimals. Gay, bi, transgendered, and all that other stuff involves types of numbers that most people never have to deal with on a regular basis, and that are totally counter-intuitive. Just consider what I went through with Pi, and I'm a math geek!
In my recent reading up on Pi, I read that when one of Pythagoras's disciples proved that irrational numbers exist, Pythagoras was so enraged by this (believing in the absoluteness of all numbers, and not being able to logically disprove the existence of irrationals), that he had this disciple drowned. Of course, now we not only accept irrationals, but even understand that there are infinitely more irrationals than rationals.
Anyway, it seems perfectly logical then, that this "complex sexuality" stuff would be totally counter-intuitive for the vast majority of people for whom there's an "obvious" one-to-one correspondence between sex, gender, and sexuality.
Which brings me to an idea for a Java program. Three int variables, representing sex, gender, and sexuality. But each of these variables are calculated randomly based on the current statistics for each. Hence the one for sex would be randomly calculated pretty close to 50/50, the one for gender would be based on figures that I (or the student doing the project) would have to look up somewhere, and the one for sexuality would be somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100 (different studies give different figures). The result of this program wouldn't just give you a male or a female, but all the possible combinations:
male, male, straight
male, male, gay
male, male, bi
male, female, straight
male, female, gay
male, female, bi
female, female, straight
female, female, gay
female, female, bi
female, male, straight
female, male, gay
female, male, bi
That's *12* different possible combinations! Compare that with the two that most people willingly accept and four that they grudgingly accept. What an interesting mathematical and sociological program that would be.