**The 87th Carnival of Mathematics has arrived!!** Here’s a simple computation for you:

*What is the sum of the squares of the first four prime numbers?*

That’s right, it’s

Good job. Now, onto the carnival. This is my first carnival, so hopefully I’ll do all these posts justice. We had lots of great submissions, so I encourage you to read through this with a fine-toothed comb. Enjoy!

**Rants**

**Here’s a post (rant) from Andrew Taylor regarding the coverage from the BBC and the Guardian on the Supermoon that occurred in March 2011**. NASA reports the moon as being 14% larger and 30% brighter, but Andrew disagrees. Go check out the post, and join the conversation.

**Have you ever heard someone abuse the phrase “exponentially better”?** I know I have. One incorrect usage occurs when someone makes the claim that something is “exponentially better” based on only two data points. Rebecka Peterson has some words for you here, if you’re the kind of person who says this!

**Physics and Science-flavored**

**Frederick Koh submitted Problem 19: Mechanics of Two Separate Particles Projected Vertically From Different Heights** to the carnival. It’s a fun projectile motion question which would be appropriate for a Precalculus classroom (or Calculus). I like the problem, and I think my students would like it too.

**John D. Cook highlights a question you’ve probably heard before: Should you walk or run in the rain?** An active discussion is going on in the comments section. It’s been discussed in many other places too, including twice on Mythbusters. (I feel like I read an article in an MAA or NCTM magazine on this topic once, as well. Anyone remember that?)

**Murray Bourne submitted this awesome post about modeling fish stocks**. Murray says his post is an “attempt to make mathematical modeling a bit less scary than in most textbooks.” I think he achieves his goal in this thorough development of a mathematical model for sustainable fisheries (see the graph above for one of his later examples of a stable solution under lots of interesting constraints). If I taught differential equations, I would * absolutely* use his examples.

**Last week I highlighted this new physics blog, but I wanted to point you there again: Go check out Five Minute Physics!** A few more videos have been posted, and also a link to this great video about the physics of a dropping Slinky (see above).

**Statistics, Probability, & Combinatorics**

**Mr. Gregg analyzes European football using the Poisson distribution** in his post, The Table Never Lies. I liked how much real world data he brought to the discussion. And I also liked that he admitted when his model worked and when it didn’t–he lets you in on his own mathematical thought process. As you read this post, you too will find yourself thinking out loud with Mr. Gregg.

**Card Colm has written this excellent post that will help you wrap your mind around the number of arrangements of cards in a deck**. It’s a simple high school-level topic, but he really puts it into perspective:

the number of possible ways to order or permute just the hearts is 13!=6,227,020,800. That’s about what the world population was in 2002. So back then if somebody could have made a list of all possible ways to arrange those 13 cards in a row, there would have been enough people on the planet for everyone to get one such permutation.

I think it’s good to remind ourselves that whenever we shuffle the deck, we can be almost certain that our arrangement has never been created before (since arrangements are possible). Wow!

**Alex is looking for “random” numbers by simply asking people**. Go contribute your own “random” number here. Can’t wait to see the results!

**Quick! Think of an example of a real-world bimodal distribution!** Maybe you have a ready example if you teach stat, but here’s a really nice example from Michael Lugo: *Book prices*. Before you read his post, you should make a guess as to why the book prices he looked at are bimodal (see histogram above).

**Philosophy and History of Math**

**Mike Thayer just attended the NCTM conference in Philadelphia and brings us a thoughtful reaction in his post, The Learning of Mathematics in the 21st Century**. Mike wrote this post because he had been left with “an ambivalent feeling” after the conference. He wants to “engage others in mathematics education in discussions about ways to improve what we do outside of the frameworks that are being imposed on us by those outside of our field.” As a secondary educator, I agree with Mike completely and really enjoyed his post. Mike isn’t satisfied with where education is going. In his post, he writes, “We are leaping ahead into the unknown with new educational models, and we never took the time to get the old ones right.”

**Edmund Harriss asks Have we ever lost mathematics?** He gives a nice recap of foundational crises throughout the history of mathematics, and wonders, ultimately, if we’ve actually *lost *any mathematics. There’s also a short discussion in the comments section which I recommend to you.

**Peter Woit reflects on 25 Years of Topological Quantum Field Theory**. Maybe if you have degree in math and physics you might appreciate this post. It went over my head a bit, I’m afraid!

# Book Reviews

**In this post, Matt reviews a 2012 book release, Who’s #1, by Amy N. Langville and Carl D. Meyer**. The book discusses the ranking systems used by popular websites like Amazon or Netflix. His review is thorough and balanced–Matt has good things to say about the book, but also delivers a bit of criticism for their treatment of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Thanks for this contribution, Matt! [edit: Thanks MATT!]

**Shecky R reviews of David Berlinski’s 2011 book, One, Two Three…Absolutely Elementary mathematics** in his Brief Berlinski Book Blurb. I’m not sure his review is an *endorsement*. It sounds like a book that only a small eclectic crowd will enjoy.

**Uncategorized…**

**Peter Rowlett submitted this post about linear programming**and provides a link to an interactive problems solving environment.

**Peter Rowlett also weighs in on the recent news about a German high school boy who has (reportedly) solved an open problem**. Many news sources have picked up on this, and I’ve only followed the news from a distance. So I was grateful for Peter’s comments–he questions the validity of the news in his recent post “Has schoolboy genius solved problems that baffled mathematicians for centuries?” His comments in another recent post are perhaps even more important though–Peter encourages us to think of ways we can remind our students that lots of open problems still exist, and “Mathematics is an evolving, alive subject to which you could contribute.”

**Here’s a fun-loving post about Heptagrins, and all the crazy craft projects you can do with them**. Don’t know what a Heptagrin is? Neither did I. But go check out Jess Hawke’s post and she’ll tell you all about them!

**Any Lewis Carroll lovers out there?** Julia Collins submitted a post entitled “A Night in Wonderland” about a Lewis Carroll-themed night at the National Museum of Scotland. She writes, “Other people might be interested in the ideas we had and also hearing about what a snark is and why it’s still important.” When you check out this post, you’ll not only learn about snarks but also about creating projective planes with your sewing machine. Cool!

**Mike Croucher over at Walking Randomly gives a shout out to the free software Octave**, which is a MATLAB replacement. Check out his post, here. MATLAB is ridiculously expensive, and so the world needs an alternative like Octave. He provides links to the Kickstarter campaign–and Mike has backed the project himself. I too believe in Octave. I’ve used it a few times for my grad work and I’ve been very grateful for a free alternative to MATLAB.

**The End **