Author Topic: Game show winners piece in Mathematics Teacher magazine (Read 4399 times)

MikeK · « **on:** September 03, 2006, 09:26:56 PM »

One of the articles in this month's Mathematics Teacher magazine offered a list of 10 all-time game show winners, as well as 6 questions about the data. The most interesting piece of the article, IMHO, is the inflation-adjusted winnings for contestants from half a century ago.

I uploaded a PDF of the article here, as I'm likely one of two or three members who has a subscription to Mathematics Teacher magazine.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2006, 09:58:32 PM »

Should they really be asking complex mathetical questions if they can't even figure out that the number of losers on 75 episodes of Jeopardy! would be higher than 75? :-P

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2006, 10:49:43 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'130302\' date=\'Sep 3 2006, 09:58 PM\']
Should they really be asking complex mathetical questions if they can't even figure out that the number of losers on 75 episodes of Jeopardy! would be higher than 75? :-P[/quote]
In defense of the mathematics teachers, the article being quoted is an excerpt from Atlantic Monthly, which is then used as subject matter for the questions that follow. Still, that's a pretty dumb error, even for a writer from Atlantic Monthly.

dale_grass · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:06:40 PM »

The actual line from the article was "... and defeated 48 challengers over 75 episodes of the show." I can think of two possibilities: (a) someone left out a 1 before the 48 (he came in third the last episode, correct?) or (b) of all the matches, only 48 of them resulted in a Final Jeopardy! where it wasn't a runaway for Ken (I don't have any specific data on this). I'm leaning toward (a). Them's my two cents.

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:34:03 PM »

Quote

The actual line from the article was "... and defeated 48 challengers over 75 episodes of the show." I can think of two possibilities: (a) someone left out a 1 before the 48 (he came in third the last episode, correct?) or (b) of all the matches, only 48 of them resulted in a Final Jeopardy! where it wasn't a runaway for Ken (I don't have any specific data on this).

It most likely was that the 1 was left out before the 48; if you consider that he won 74 games, then he would have indeed beaten 148 opponents.

Oh, and he came in second on his final show; the third contestant was eliminated before Final J!

Anthony

Allstar87 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:36:08 PM »

[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'130306\' date=\'Sep 3 2006, 11:06 PM\']
The actual line from the article was "... and defeated 48 challengers over 75 episodes of the show." I can think of two possibilities: (a) someone left out a 1 before the 48 (he came in third the last episode, correct?) or (b) of all the matches, only 48 of them resulted in a Final Jeopardy! where it wasn't a runaway for Ken (I don't have any specific data on this). I'm leaning toward (a). Them's my two cents.
[/quote]

Second, actually. The other guy didn't make it to Final J.

The "left out a 1" theory definitely sounds right to me, though.

EDIT: Anthony beat me to it.

DrBear · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:50:05 PM »

Another goof: Didn't they forget to include Teddy Nadler? As I remember he was in the Guinness book at $252,000. That would have put him between Warren and Strom on the list. I can understand missing some others, but Nadler's name had to be mentioned when some of the big Millionaire winners started.

MikeK · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:56:25 PM »

[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'130311\' date=\'Sep 3 2006, 11:50 PM\']Another goof: Didn't they forget to include Teddy Nadler? As I remember he was in the Guinness book at $252,000. That would have put him between Warren and Strom on the list. I can understand missing some others, but Nadler's name had to be mentioned when some of the big Millionaire winners started.[/quote]
There's a note before the questions stating that the list of winners is not representative of the top 10 winners of all-time.

To Steve and others, good catch on the missing 1. The tangible version has the same error. I missed it even though I've seen the article twice tonight. As Matt said, if us math teachers were editing the piece, we would've caught the error and done the proper math with no hesitation. :-P

Joe Mello · « **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2006, 12:23:55 PM »

I think you're forgetting something, Mike. This is a typo, and we all know that math teachers don't know how to spell.

/I keed, I keed. [sic]
//Mommy was a reading/English teacher, even though I learned to read via Sesame Street.
///Shameless self-promotion down in my new sig.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #9 on:** September 04, 2006, 02:00:16 PM »

Just to add a little more minutiae to this topic: even though Ken finished second in his final (regular) game, you can't really count the third-place finisher as a "Ken Jennings loser". Unless, that is, you want to go back and give the same credit to all of the opponents Ken faced that had a fighting chance, and who thereby helped to leave the third-place finishers in the dust.

Surely no one on this board would suggest such a thing. Ahem.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2006, 05:38:30 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'130350\' date=\'Sep 4 2006, 02:35 PM\']
If you have defeated 148 opponents, you have defeated 48 opponents. You can't defeat 148 opponents without first defeating 48.
[/quote]
And on tomorrow's edition of Inside the Mind of Chris Clementson, just how many months do have 28 days?

EDIT: Oh, way to delete your post, Chris!

davidhammett · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2006, 07:56:17 PM »

[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'130300\' date=\'Sep 3 2006, 08:26 PM\']
One of the articles in this month's Mathematics Teacher magazine offered a list of 10 all-time game show winners, as well as 6 questions about the data. The most interesting piece of the article, IMHO, is the inflation-adjusted winnings for contestants from half a century ago.

I uploaded a PDF of the article here, as I'm likely one of two or three members who has a subscription to Mathematics Teacher magazine.
[/quote]

I have a subscription, but somehow missed that this was in there... I was in too much of a hurry to get to the Calendar problems, which I like to use for bonus questions from time to time. (Some magazines have nude pictures as centerfolds; the Mathematics Teacher offers puzzle problems. You be the judge.)

Thanks for the heads up, Mike...

mcsittel · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2006, 08:24:15 PM »

[quote name=\'davidhammett\' post=\'130421\' date=\'Sep 5 2006, 06:56 PM\']
I have a subscription, but somehow missed that this was in there... I was in too much of a hurry to get to the Calendar problems, which I like to use for bonus questions from time to time. (Some magazines have nude pictures as centerfolds; the Mathematics Teacher offers puzzle problems. You be the judge.)
[/quote]

Perhaps they should combine both and have a magazine that features nude mathematics theaters working on puzzles. That would be titillating AND calculating, now wouldn't it?

Matt

clemon79 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2006, 08:26:44 PM »

[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'130537\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 05:24 PM\']
nude mathematics theaters[/quote]
Dude, yer a kinky bastard.

mcsittel · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2006, 08:39:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'130538\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 07:26 PM\']
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'130537\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 05:24 PM\']
nude mathematics theaters[/quote]
Dude, yer a kinky bastard.

[/quote]

Now, wait a minute... I never said I'd *READ* it! If you had math teachers like I did, that stuff would give you nightmares!