I heard of a speech once where a politician said something like, “the rate of change inflation is decreasing” - which (if I’m not mistaken) is a 3[sup]rd[/sup] order derivative. Has any politician ever dared alienating the masses and used something even more esoteric?
Well “W” was speaking out his ass but he referenced ‘fuzzy math’ in the debate with Gore. It can probably be best described as a non absolute, but still finite form of mathematics which computer programmer/mathematicians came up with in an effort to impliment artificial intelligence.
Don’t ask me to explain further. I’m sure there are others here on the board who could do much better.
I think ‘fuzzy math’ and ‘fuzzy logic’ are terms that people throw around without knowing what they are… did Dubya know what he was talking about, or just saying it to sound impressive?
After Jurassic Park, it was cool to say ‘chaos theory’.
Not sure about complex, but there have been some severe abuses when it comes to mathematically terminology.
I remember when Democrats proposed a cost of living increase for social security recipients at 3X the rate of inflation. Republicans proposed 2X the rate of inflation. Democrats turned around and claimed Republicans were cutting social security benefits. :rolleyes:
Um… what math terminology is being abused? Cutting? Seems to me like they used it properly. 
Well, the Slippery Slope concept got thoroughly butchered once politicians got their hands on it.
I’ve heard of fuzzy logic, but not fuzzy math. I’m guessing it has to do with the concept that elements can belong “partially” to a set (rather than classically, either they belong or they don’t). I don’t see what that has to do with what I believe he was accusing Gore of - fudging numbers. AFAIK fuzzy logic is about extending logic values beyond true/false - nothing to do with numerical approximations.
Ross Perot’s campaign speech on the economy is my first thought. IIRC it left everyone in a state of confusion. What a waste of charts.
I just wanted to berate Shrubya.
The hymn “Amazing Grace” contains the following lyric:
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise,
As when we first begun.
This is a mathematically exact definition of the concept of infinity.
I would guess some sort of statistics, since they’re a lot easier to quote than derive or understand.
I was hoping to mention the third derivative thing, but I see the OP got there first. My only consolation is that I noticed before I posted 
We are in General Questions, correct? Eric II please refrain from derogatory comments in this forum, if I want to hear my President be called “Shrubya” I will visit The Pit or Great Debates (which is pretty much why I avoid those forums). Secondly, you have no proof whether or not President Bush understands Fuzzy Math.
Bob55
Do you have any proof that Dubya understands regular math?
Okay to stay on topic, how is the oriinally quoted speech using a third order derivative. (Also, who made that quote?)
Inflation is a rate of change (of cost), so it’s a first derivative.
The rate of change of inflation is thus a second derivative.
If that’s decreasing, we know specifically:
d[sup]3[/sup]$/dt[sup]3[/sup] < 0
Bingo. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy math tries to relax absolute values and rote learning. Think of it as TRUE and FALSE with an infinite number of values inbetween. Very useful stuff when you’re trying to model a near-infinite number of cases without having to specifically plan for each case (e.g., if it’s totally true, do this; if it’s mostly true, do that; if it’s somewhat true, do this other thing).
Hmmm, I still don’t see that. Let’s take the archetypal calculus rate of change problem - the falling object.
the distance it has fallen is given by the formula:
          d = ½•g•t²
If we need to know the instantaneous velocity of the object at any point in time, we take the first derivative of the formula to obtain:
          v = g•t
If we need to know the change in the rate of this rate, we take the second derivative to get:
          v = g
Basically wouldn’t this be analogous to the change of the inflation rate? Just as the above formula states that a falling object increases velocity by 32 feet per second for every second, couldn’t we say (for example) that inflation is increasing by a rate of 4 dollars for every 100 dollars for every year? (Or for short 4% per year).
Yes, I know it does not involve any decrease in any rate, but wouldn’t that have to do with the inflation formula having to be more complex rather than taking a third derivative?
You too obviously haven’t read the big warning at the top of the GQ forum regarding Politics in GQ. Here is the link, please read it. I too can attack someone whom you may approve of, but would not dare do so in GQ. Please help keep this forum apolitical.
Last time I checked, they don’t just hand out Harvard MBAs.
Bob55
But did you notice I went right back to the topic in the next sentence? I try to obey the rules.
Eric II, name-calling and personal insults are forbidden in GQ. Do not do this again.
You have been warned. Failure to adhere to the rules of this board will result in a banning.
wolf_meister, what Bob55 said.
-xash
General Questions Moderator