Proportionality (mathematics) Puns

Find a mathematical model that represents the statement. (Determine the constant of proportionality.) y is directly proportional to x. (y = 68 when x = 4.)

Find a mathematical model that represents the statement. (Determine the constant of proportionality.) z varies jointly as x and y. (z = 28 when x = 2 and y = 7.)

Usually Muslim apologists claim that the scientific errors in the Qu'ran are due to errors in translation, matter of interpretation or metaphorical and thus not an error. Some examples from the Qur'an include the sun setting in muddy water (Qur'an 18:86) sperm emerging from between the backbone and ribs (Qur'an 86:7) or the Earth being flat (Qur'an 71:19, 88:20, 79:30). However, an error that is mathematical in nature is free from these so called rebuttals.

Verses 4:11-12 give us inheritance ratios allocated to every individual depending on what their relation is to the person who's passed. In a scenario where a man dies leaving behind his wife, three daughters and his parents the ratios are given as 1/8, 2/3 (for the daughters to share equally on their own) and 1/6 for each of the parents. Adding all these up we get:

2/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 +1/8

Equalizing the denominator

16/24 + 4/24 + 4/24 + 3/24

= 27/24

Ruh roh! The numerator (shares) are bigger than the denominator (the inheritance). If we had $100 of inheritance, we would need $112.5 instead to share it equally. So, obviously there is an error here and changing these numbers in any way, shape or form means going against the Allah's allocated ratios; therefore it is not acceptable.

Even though this error is not reconcilable, I'd like to address some of the claims that will inevitably pop up in the comments. The sahabah have found ways to deal with this issue. The system of Awl was first used by Umar; however, I'd like to focus specifically on the Awl that is used on this issue with the wife, daughters and parents. This exact same problem was addressed by Caliph Ali when a man asked him this question. It's called Mumbariyya because he solved it in the pulpit.

What Ali says is as follows: we have specific proportions left from the ratios after we add the ratios up:

24 * 1/8 = 3

24 * 1/6 = 4

24 * 1/6 = 4

24 * 2/3 = 16.

We'll be changing the 1/8 of the wife to 1/9 while the base number or denominator is increased to 27. After doing that, we'll end up with the same proportions; however, the amount from the inheritance each individual will get is decreased - this is the first issue. The new ratios are as follows

Sup ladies and gentlemen, I am a final year student who is doing an oral on the subject

"Why does music interest mathematicians?"

But I must include the final year program in it, or at least one of the following chapters:

logarithms, differential equation, integrals, derivatives convexity inflection point etc etc

So I would like to know if I can talk about one of these chapters & relate it to music.

Thank you.

Hello,

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place, but I'm trying to devise an electoral system that's highly proportional, but doesn't require party lists or proportionality just being seen from a partisan view. I'm doing this on the basis of STV but, it's a bit unique...

Could you guys take a look at this and tell me what you think, is it sound from a mathematical point of view?

Thanks :)

Hi all,

I do not understand what "partly" refers to in this question and I don't know how to solve it and what the question means. Here is the questions:

y varies partly as x and partly as 1/x^2. Express y in terms of x, given that y = 9 when x = 2 and y = 9 1/4 when x = 4.

Thanks heaps!!

A few days ago we were trying to figure out the meaning of this symbol in the room (≁)

https://i.imgur.com/kaHAaR6r.png

After some time user "mars was a gift" found out that the symbol is used in mathematics. Specifically Proportionality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

Interesting find considering that symbol is seen in the video that shows pen's description.

So I want to compare the starting amts of DNA across 2 samples, and I do indeed have bands of different intensities. My question is - is it known if the relationship between intensity and amount is linear or square or cube or whatever?

If this info is needed- I've set up the experiment well enough with control samples and controls in other loci, so I am confident about my intensity ratios. I'm doing a basic PCR, not a qPCR, and running the bands on a basic agarose gel, staining with sybrsafe (like etbr), and visualising under UV - all standard stuff afaik.

This has been said before, but I hadn't seen any analysis on the topic, so I thought I'd work through the idea and show how powerful dodging can be as a method to climb.

As you may have heard, there are a few factors that make this a reality

1. Matchmaking only depends on your MMR
2. LP gains and losses depend on the difference between your rank (LP) and your MMR
3. Dodging does not apply an MMR penalty, only an LP penalty

Because of the first two factors, your LP always tends towards your MMR. That, combined with the third factor, means that dodging does not affect your rank in the long term.

Results

1. Dodge a single game while hard-stuck
   Skill = MMR = 1500, LP = 1490.

As you can see, it doesn't take long before your LP returns to your MMR. After 21 games (using my constants) you are within 1 LP of where you should be.

2. Dodge a single game while climbing
   Skill = 1600, MMR = 1500, LP = 1490

As you can see, it doesn't take long before your LP returns to your MMR. It also happens long before you reach your target MMR. In this situation, your LP also returns to the value of your MMR after 21 games.

3. Smart Dodge while hard-stuck, every 10th game is garbage
   Skill = 1500, MMR = 1500, LP = 1500

In this analysis, every 10th game has a 20% lower winrate, and 2 players are shown. One dodges that game, and other doesn't. As you can see, dodging has a significant positive impact. One interesting thing about this one is that despite dodging every 10th game, the dodging player's MMR never changes, because...nothing is happening that would change it.

4. Smart Dodge while climbing

This shows how dodging is not only a good strategy to plateau at a higher rank, but a good strategy to climb faster as well. As stated before, the specifics will change if I change the assumptions, but the general trend will not.

Disclaimers:

For the following mathematical analysis, a few assumptions have to be made. These assumptions are true in spirit but may be slightly different in reality to the real situation. For example, it was assumed that LP gain on a win is 15 if your LP = MMR, and increases proportionally based on the difference between your MMR and LP. A certain proportionality constant was chosen that seems consistent with my experience. It may be true that the rel

Nothing has changed. It's mathematically impossible the shorts have covered, and every time we witness the stock being pounded down new shorts are created. All we have to do is hold.

Here's the 424(b)(5) filing:

https://preview.redd.it/pq9n1n7o4b471.jpg?width=1704&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9205c863570205bb0b467cd05c226ea40f7d8a3

Pretty interesting podcast conversation about NBA ratings: https://theathletic.com/podcast/29-house-of-strauss/?episode=66

I didn’t realize how drastic the dropoff has been since the 17 Finals. Went from 20 million, to 17 million, to 15 million, all the way down to 7.5. And he talks about all other sports ratings, college ball, baseball, football, etc., - they might be down, but there’s not nearly the drastic dropoff the NBA has seen.

Also discusses how behind the scenes the NBA PR machine spends more time trying to say this isn’t a problem rather than trying to figure out why this is happening

When someone gets, for example (but not exclusively) a parking fine, the amount they have to pay should change depending on how much money they earn. This is because the fine is not a payment for an item, it's supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. If someone with no income has to pay a £50 fine, versus someone with millions in the bank, the amount of punishment they're experiencing will be vastly different, even though they've done the same thing. I think in this situation it makes more sense to balance the level of punishment, than to have the same arbitrary cash amount.

I'm sure I've just shown how little I understand the way the law and/or economics works, and I welcome anyone to fill me in.

Edit: I'd like to clarify on what sort of system I'm envisioning - although I'm sure this has a few thousand issues itself. I picture it working similarly to tax brackets, so there's a base fine of X, and as the brackets go up people have a proportionately higher fine to pay.

Edit2: I'd also like to thank everyone for commenting, this has been really, really interesting, and I have mostly changed my mind about this.

I failed to self isolate after returning from holiday last summer believing I was exempt due to my occupation (there is an exemption in the regulations for my profession). I returned to my workplace the following day and I was reported anonymously and Police investigating the alleged breach seized my phone as evidence of an offence.

The next day I submitted a statement after caution confirming my presence at the locations alleged (my place of work) and at the times alleged and believing they no longer had the necessity and always believing it to be disproportionate, I requested the return of phone which was denied by police.

I was refused 4 E’s or a fixed penalty notice and was advised that I would be summarily investigated and reported and that this allowed them to retain and examine my phone.

Reluctantly my solicitor informed police to limit the search of the phone to the extent of the the investigation which was a 14 day period after my holiday. The investigating officer confirmed by email that they would. My phone was examined and it is apparent that they have looked at WhatsApp messages and photos between my partner and I from 2016 to present day as they have asked further questions about some of the content being an issue in relation to data protection offences.

My question is: was the seizure of the phone lawful on the basis that it was necessary and proportionate for an alleged breach of covid where I supplied evidence confirming my location outside of my home during the period after my holiday?

And was the further examination of my data outside of the extent of the investigation (some 5 years outside) a breach of my art8 ECHR right to private and family life?

The investigating officer who was asked why they’d examined this data said that they”dip sampled” phone data for evidence of indecent images of children and to check completion of the download and on doing so, saw images that raised questions for them re other offences to do with data protection offences (minor in nature) - surely a breach of privacy?

What are my rights?

y varies inversely as the square of x.