Passing Time and Tolls

coinsI enjoy traveling and I enjoy driving, but I don’t enjoy paying highway tolls.  One way I try to diffuse that annoyance is by hoarding coins when I travel, with the intent of paying every toll on the way back entirely in loose change.

I highly recommend the activity–it’s a fun little counting game, it keeps the coins in circulation, and there is a sense of satisfaction that accompanies using 18 assorted coins in a transaction.

But be warned–if you are travelling along the Hudson River in New York state, on I-87, and you decide to get off at Saugerties, one of the toll-booth operators there does not like pennies.  I mean, really, does not like pennies.  Especially more than 40 of them.  Trust me.

Socks and the Axiom of Choice

socksEvery time I buy socks I think of the Axiom of Choice.

About a century ago, mathematicians were arguing about exactly which basic axioms, or assumptions, were needed in order to justify all of our mathematics.  Because of the personalities involved and the nature of mathematical discourse at the time, Set Theory was the starting point, and one of the axioms under consideration was the Axiom of Choice.

Deciding on axioms is tough business:  an axiom has to be powerful enough to do something but obvious enough for people to accept it as true without evidence.  But deciding on axioms has to be done:  before we can prove anything, we need to assume something is true.

The Axiom of Choice essentially says that if you have an infinite number of sets, you can form a new set by choosing an arbitrary element from each of those sets.  It seems sensible enough, but fierce mathematical debate raged for years about whether this was obvious enough to be true.  Some mathematicians still don’t accept this principle.

So why would someone object to this sensible-enough idea?  That’s where shoes and socks come in.

Suppose you had infinitely many pairs of shoes.  There’s a straightforward way to define a new set that contains one shoe from each pair:  choose every left shoe.  This explicit rule make its clear how to construct this new set, and so forming this new infinite set seem reasonable.

But imagine you had infinitely many pairs of socks.  Since the socks are identical, you can’t give a specific rule that says “for each of the pair of socks, give me that one”.  You need to believe in the Axiom of Choice in order to believe that such a set, one containing one sock from each pair of socks, can really be formed without giving an explicit rule.

As it turns out, deciding to believe in this set of socks has substantial consequences for what you can prove in mathematics.  So there’s something to think about the next time you are sock shopping!

Related Posts

 

Limits and Oar Making

A boat-builder once described to me one procedure for making oars.

real oar (2)Start with a long piece of lumber with a square cross-section.  Take off a certain amount from each of the four corners.  Now their are eight corners.  From each of the eight corners, take off a smaller amount.  The progression of cross-sections looks something like this:

oars

Through practice, the builder knows how much wood to remove at each stage.  You can continue to repeat this process, but some sanding at this point will probably get you pretty close to what you are looking for:  a circular cross-section.

This naturally brings to mind the hallmarks of Calculus:  approximations and limits.  At each stage of the process, the cross-section of the oar becomes a better and better approximation of a circle.  Indeed, the limit of such a process is indistinguishable from a circle.

I’m not sure if anyone making oars is thinking about Calculus, but sometimes it’s hard for me not to think about it!

More on Kovalchuk’s Contract

kovalchuk 2The National Hockey League has approved the new contract between the New Jersey Devils and Ilya Kovalchuk.  As discussed in an earlier post, the NHL voided the initial contract between the two parties, essentially on the grounds that it violated the spirit of the league’s salary cap rules.

The Devils originally signed Kovalchuk to a 17-year, $102 million contract.  By the NHL’s salary cap rules, this would have counted as 102/17 = 6 million dollars per year against the team’s salary cap (their yearly spending limit on players).

However, it was fairly clear from the structure of the deal that neither side expected the final five years to be played out.  Kovalchuk was to earn the league minimum for those five years, and he would have been in his 40s.  So the league viewed this really as a 12-year, $98 million dollar deal, which should count 8 million dollars plus per year against the team’s cap.

Through clever accounting, the team had created an extra $2 million per year in financial flexibility, but the league saw the matter differently.  The league, team, and player eventually compromised on a 15-year, $100 million deal (a 6.67 million dollar cap hit), and some changes have been made to the league’s salary cap policy so problems like this won’t arise in the future.  Until the next loophole is discovered, anyway

Football Economics

This is a nice, short profile of David Romer, an economist and lifelong sports fan who briefly turned his attention to football some years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/sports/football/05romer.html

In 2002, Romer wrote the first serious academic paper asking the question “When should football teams go for it on 4th down?”, applying rigorous analytical from economics and mathematics.

belichickHere’s the simple summary:  a touchdown in football is (usually) worth 7 points, and a field goal is worth 3 points.  A team will often face the situation that, on 4th down, they can either kick a field goal with a relatively high probability of success (say 80-90%), or they can go for it on 4th down (which has something closer to a 40-50% success rate) and continue to try for the touchdown (not a guarantee).

Romer’s conclusion was basically that teams should go for it on 4th down far more often than they do.  This is essentially an expected value argument:  if, by going for it, you get 7 points about 40% of the time, that’s an average of 2.8 points per attempt; if, by kicking the field goal, you get 3 points about 80% of the time, that’s an average of 2.4 points per attempt.  So in the long run, going for it will produce more points.

However, the fact is that teams rarely go for it on 4th down, usually only trying this strategy in desperate times.  So what account for the difference between the theoretical conclusion and the practice of professionals?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: