Exercise

I've not generally been recording the odd sets of stretches or squats that I fit into regular activities (like waiting for a train), just as I don't record walking around as part of exercise (though I would likely mention a five-mile hike).

A couple of days ago, the_maenad commented on my keeping track of all this; as I noted there, while the data may be useful for something at some point, I rarely go look at previous numbers, and part of this is just keeping happy a piece of my brain that likes to count things. And I'm counting anyway, set by set, so writing it down at the time is easy enough.

I'm not sure if that's the same part of my brain that looks at proof pages at work and immediately points out that 53 and 59 are both prime (relevant to a multiple-choice question in sixth-grade math). Related, probably.

( numbers for yesterday's workout )

Exercise

I've not generally been recording the odd sets of stretches or squats that I fit into regular activities (like waiting for a train), just as I don't record walking around as part of exercise (though I would likely mention a five-mile hike).

A couple of days ago, the_maenad commented on my keeping track of all this; as I noted there, while the data may be useful for something at some point, I rarely go look at previous numbers, and part of this is just keeping happy a piece of my brain that likes to count things. And I'm counting anyway, set by set, so writing it down at the time is easy enough.

I'm not sure if that's the same part of my brain that looks at proof pages at work and immediately points out that 53 and 59 are both prime (relevant to a multiple-choice question in sixth-grade math). Related, probably.

( numbers for yesterday's workout )

more math proofreading

I would further like to note that an isoceles right triangle cannot have sides all of whose lengths are a whole number of units, and that whoever edited that manuscript should have noticed that 20:20:24 isn't even close to the right value of the hypotenuse. Since the point of the example is naming shapes of triangles, not the Pythagorean theorem, and they haven't had irrationals or the Pythagorean theorem yet, it got a suggested change to 28 (the closest integer to the actual value), and a note that we can't avoid irrationals, with the shorthand explanation "(1:1:√2)". I haven't handed it in yet, and am now wondering whether it would be better not to give a length for the hypotenuse. The editor on this project may know their pedagogy, but they're not sufficiently intimate with numbers.

more math proofreading

I would further like to note that an isoceles right triangle cannot have sides all of whose lengths are a whole number of units, and that whoever edited that manuscript should have noticed that 20:20:24 isn't even close to the right value of the hypotenuse. Since the point of the example is naming shapes of triangles, not the Pythagorean theorem, and they haven't had irrationals or the Pythagorean theorem yet, it got a suggested change to 28 (the closest integer to the actual value), and a note that we can't avoid irrationals, with the shorthand explanation "(1:1:√2)". I haven't handed it in yet, and am now wondering whether it would be better not to give a length for the hypotenuse. The editor on this project may know their pedagogy, but they're not sufficiently intimate with numbers.