digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

8-year-old finds math error at science exhibit, went unnoticed for 4 years!

charlotte.com — Part of the new exhibit on candy has been removed from Discovery Place. And you can thank Parker Garrison. When the 8-year-old math whiz at Charlotte Christian visited the "Jelly Belly Presents Candy Unwrapped" display, he accepted the challenge: Use equations to calculate how many jelly beans were in a pyramid and other containers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -334/+17No one caught that error?


    Wow.. I caught it within a few seconds of reading the problem..
    • Seruphim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+396Well I guess you're as smart as an 8 year old now
    • malfourmed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+312It's a lot easier catching an error when you know there's an error to be caught.
    • Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -35/+135Here's an error for you, its a NEW exhibit, but no one caught it for 4 years?
    • s000t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+97If it weren't for this article, I'd wager maybe 1 in 100 people (if that) would have even bothered to look at the math equations, let alone do them.
    • Foamator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57@mesach, it says that the exhibit moved to different towns over 4 years. So, it was probably new there.
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83"Here's an error for you, its a NEW exhibit, but no one caught it for 4 years?"

      Here's where reading comprehension skills come in handy. It was a new exhibit for Discovery Place, the location that it was at. If you read the article, it traveled to eight cities in a four year timespan before it was discovered at, ironically, Discovery Place.


      *edit* foam beat me to it.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -52/+5Pfffft, I could have done that!! Sheees.
      (I'm 29 by the way)
    • Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42"His father has a background in industrial engineering and now works as a loan officer."

      No wonder he listens to his kid.
    • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Or maybe it's more like when we see grammar errors on internet forums. People used to seeing math/science/english errors all the time decide it's not really worth pointing out every single one they see. I'm sure he wasn't the first person to notice. He (or his parents) were just the first to actually waste their time to track down somebody that would listen.
    • Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9'The "original problem" in the article doesn't state that one of the pyramid dimensions was already halved (accounting for the error) until the "SOLUTION" part... so all of you saying that you figured it out before you read the solution... might rethink your exclamations of joy'

      I think you might want to read it again. It says in the first line that it is half a pyramid. Then it goes on to give you the measurements of that half pyramid. Why would they give you measurements including the half that doesn't exist? It's common sense that the measurements are for the structure sitting at the exhibit. You don't need to be in advanced math class to realize that one, spark plug.
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -25/+19"It's a gift that, for some reason, God gave him," Koch said."

      LOL
    • Blizaine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43"The base measurements given were already for half the pyramid, so there was no need to divide the answer by 2."

      After I read that, I figured it out all by myself. That was so easy!
    • triscuitbiscuit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I think that the people who made the exhibit made the thing overly complicated and that is what cost them...
      Why not just call it a triangle?
    • dezmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6no, jimmygoon is right, otherwise it would just be a badly stated problem instead of a math error
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6I thought it was pretty obvious. It said the base was 46 x 23, which is not the base of a full pyramid. So you wouldn't divide by 2.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is great. Kids always pick up on things that adults pass by. Now, does anyone know if he has be successful in calculating the Lottery numbers? I am willing to share.
    • SixSence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12It may be an interesting story in the fact that noone caught it or felt the need to report it in four years, but the kid's math abilities are nothing to talk about. I think we'd all agree, that even in the third grade we could of done the math that the instructions very clearly gave us (he took it home to do), and after that all he had to do was compare his answer with the one they provided. He sees that they aren't the same, and then using his extremely rare math abilities, also concludes that his answer is half of the what the correct answer should be, making it apparent that the dividing by 2 step should be taken out. It amazes me that the kid picked it up when noone else did in four years, and some adults might not be capable of that level of math, but seriously....
    • minorthreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3How did you know the measurements given to you were already half the size of the pyramid?
    • ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"It's a gift that, for some reason, God gave him," Koch said.

      They say, as if it is a crummy gift.
    • ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Here's an error for you, its a NEW exhibit, but no one caught it for 4 years?

      RTFA it traveled to different cities, it was new at THAT SPECIFIC MUSEUM!
    • Pokez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"I think that the people who made the exhibit made the thing overly complicated and that is what cost them...
      Why not just call it a triangle?"

      Half a pyramid =! a triangle. A triangle doesn't have volume.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Why the hell did they use half a pyramid?
    • papereira, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Those Canadians!!
    • sckoralesky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How did you know the measurements given to you were already half the size of the pyramid?"

      The base of a pyramid is a square by definition. The dimensions they gave were something like 46" by 23", meaning the pyramid was cut in half. Using these dimensions, you don't have to account for the fact that it is half a pyramid.
    • mletto157, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You people need to STOP being all "that was soo easy, I figured it out right after I read the problem." It's pretty easy to figure out an error with something if you already know there's an error. Try going to a museum or something of that sort and looking at an exhibit with a math equation. How many people would think to even consider the possibility that it was wrong? Obviously not many. Actually how many people would even bother trying to do the equation in the first place just because it seems fun? Probably even less.
    • DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not an error, it was a trick question. What a loser!
    • jd5alive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0meh, they give the kid too much credit. the error is way too easily spotted even without looking for an error. many many people must have noticed but just not cared enough to call somebody to tell the people in charge that their "jellybean formula is wrong"
  • SurrealDream, on 10/12/2007, -25/+107Those slapdash Canadians, can't they get anything write?
    • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+137lol you're so write
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -115/+3Spelling Nazi here..
      it's right not write!
    • leejae, on 10/12/2007, -53/+3Wow...
    • skankyBacon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+94What a waste of time for you to right something like that.
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -96/+4It's right not write,
      I'm sure the 8 year old would get that one right
    • LinuxBoi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+76You may mock Canadians but time after time you Americans prove you just don't get sarcasm!
    • underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29@skankybacon

      I hope you realize your comment actually works both ways. Pure genius, if you intended that.
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -79/+2I do apologize if I offended anyone by pointing out the irony of someone making a mistake you'd expect an 8 year old to make
    • TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@ rob33

      You offended me by righting....
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Would have been fine if malkir hadn't spotted it an hour and a quarter before you did and righted one of the best replies ever.
    • SeenD, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5to everyone who commented on surreal...

      he wrote write on purpose...

      u guys need a vacation or a girlfriend
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23@rob
      They weren't offended, you just missed the joke.

      It was like this:

      The Joke-------


      YOU
    • SurrealDream, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Cheeses Christ, I make a funny comment and Malkir gets more diggs than me...That's just not write.
      @ Linuxboi : Actually I'm British. We NEVER get sarcasm.
    • washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Yeah, the Canadians are __so__ much better at getting sarcasm. OOoooOOOoooOOooo.


      ... Wait, I forgot if I was trying to be sarcastic or not.
    • tmessing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Probably a write wing conspiracy....
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -48/+2I doubt that malkir was sarcastic, my offended reply WAS sarcastic

      IDIOTS!


    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -42/+2Those slapdash diggers, can't they get sarcasm?
    • dcmiltown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25You need to work on your sarcasm Rob.
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -45/+2You need to work on your intelligence
    • azbmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@rob
      Just can't get it write?

      Sorry... that should really be the last one of these... write?
    • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@skankyBacon.

      Nice pun.
    • sufferwell, on 10/12/2007, -42/+1Malkir gets dugg up more than Surrealdream?...
      Even though I corrected his mistake I still dugg him up
      Malkir did not notice the mistake, only once I posted the correction did Malkir start getting dugg...
      Believe what you want


    • whatsagoodname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is what we get when we outsource our mathematics to Canada!
    • Weaslecoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4From now on, for the benefits of mental deficients who are unable to get jokes, lets all parse the joke and explain the meaning and indicate sarcasm by italics, a winky face ;), or the word (sarcasm) parenthetically. Also if there is a pun make sure to write the real word with a smiley :) after it as well; then the rocket scientists will not try and correct your spelling or grammar.

      I think these simple steps will ensure that digg posters won't seemed biased against full blown ***** retards.
    • VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Write on.
    • MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"You may mock Canadians but time after time you Americans prove you just don't get sarcasm!"

      It's a shame that it's only the ones who don't get that have to speak up about it.
    • mikev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its not write to right mean comments like that, guys.
    • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sooo... why are we continuing this argument?

      **makes verbal attack on maturity referencing 8 year olds**
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Rob33: Dude. It's Digg. Don't try to understand it, just roll with it. People dugg your comments down. Oh well.
    • julienbh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1French Canadians are write, the English ones are not. Allwrity then
    • kursefour20, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think the correct spelling would be "Those slapdash Canadians, can't they get anything RIGHT?" Not write.
  • beckermt, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3I'd assume people didn't do the math, I mean, you'd look and say, OH EXCITING, do the math get the same answer they do and move on. woo.
    • catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10but that's where you're wrong... you can't just move on... there's no "moving on" from math... (has anyone else noticed this?) Its ***** everywhere. You can't escape math.
    • nachowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@catmistake: I think it's time for your meds.
    • sckoralesky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You see what happened to the guy at the end of the movie "Pi"? Yeah. Drill + Brain = bad.
  • greves, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9Ok seriously this is lame. Some kid found something wrong with the way a children's museum display calculated the volume of a pyramid? WOOPDEEDOOO!!!!! Why the hell is it on the front page?
    • CatalystDM, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5yeah, wtf digg... stop with the goddamn human interest stories.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21This is in the front page because enough people dugg it. Simple.

      The story was also correctly submitted under the "offbeat news" section, so stop whining. If you don't want to read this kind of stories, just turn off this category on your profile.
    • Software2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Imagine that you are Digg.
      Look behind you. You'll see a path leading uphill.
    • greves, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3I like the offbeat news section, don't try to presume what sort of news I like or don't like. You can use the "because enough people dugg" it line all you want. I want to know how many people buried it as lame, which it is. This is a stupid article.

      And where the hell are all these negative diggs coming from? Every comment on here is about how stupid this article is. Where are all the positive diggs for the negative comments, since its obvious to anyone with an education level higher than this 8 year old that the story is *****.
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You take Digg too seriously. The story didn't trick you into clicking on it and commenting. You're getting dugg down because you're just bitching about the story and nobody gives a ***** that you don't like the story.
  • stcmoose32, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10I think this just proves that most museum-goers are lazy, not that this kid is a math genius.

    He had to take it home to work on it?
    And second place in a math competition, is that really the best you can do?
    C'mon kid, I was multiplying and dividing in kindergarten.

    And while I'm patting myself on the back for being smarter than some 8-year-old, I figured out the error as soon as I read "pyramid." Exactly as I had guessed, half pyramid, double-counted the half.

    I'm a bastard. Even I hate me.
    • Moleculor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2*nods*

      Wow. A kid can use the multiplication and division buttons on a calculator. That's all he really did.

      He took the problem home, read it, it gives you EVERYTHING you need to know. He filled in the equation, punched buttons, and voila! Didn't get his expected result.

      Now if he had done it at the museum in his head, I'd be impressed. If the thing had been bisected horizontally, I'd be very impressed.

      (Pff. Adding up change in people's pockets. How about calculating four-digit change faster than a peon can ring it up on a register? I've been doing THAT since I was eight.)
    • zeddz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I presume you were a Math champion in the first grade beating people in the third?

      Did you read the solution: "The base measurements given were already for half the pyramid, so there was no need to divide the answer by 2."

      When you solved this it's because you've made that mistake before, NOT because you're a Math genius.
  • drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Damn you get news faster on Fark than Digg this is a day old already and I know digg have about 10Xs more users that can push news to the front page faster than Farks few Moderators
    • BrK1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not to mention the article is so timely. If it had taken another day for this to make the front page, the relevance of it might have been completely gone by that point!
    • drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4People wait till thier freinds post a news story then Digg it to the front page even if the same story been submitted 5 times already
  • k4zz4m, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Anyone could have spotted that. It's not that the kid was smart. It was common sense.

    The reason why no one spotted the error was because nobody actually cared about it.
    • Tankslap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The vast majority of 8 year olds do not know the formula to find the volume of a pyramid, let alone the analytical skills to recognize that the same formula works when the base is halved. If *you* would have at that age, my guess is that by now you'd have surely seen the difference between yourself and just "anyone".

      Just an observation.
    • Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It's pretty likely that other people spotted the error, but no one felt it was worth the trouble of tracking down someone in charge of the exhibit and pointing out their oh-so-awesome math skills. Think about how many times you see typos, etc. on publicly posted signs and just chuckle and go about your business. Then the kid behind you points it out to his mommy and bam--he's gifted.
    • PhilH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ tankslap

      Well, based on the nature of the mistake, you wouldn't need to know the formula for the area of a pyramid. The mistake was in the measurements given at the very beginning. I'd like to think that most 8-year-olds can tell the difference between 46 x 46 cm and 46 x 23 cm.
    • k4zz4m, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2i knew at a younge age that the pyramid's base was square. i dont need to know any mathmatical formulas. just as Flanker said. you can spot it by just observing that the dimension of the base of the pyramid was 46x23. nobody cared about correcting the display because it doesnt change anything. and the 0.9 was just an estimation. if the kid was able to calculate the exact number of jelly beans in the container, then i will call him a gifted. otherwise, hes just a regular bloke to me.
    • Tankslap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You make a good point Phil.
    • nbcivic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i agreed with you till you said "no one cared about it."

      It took common sense, though, to notice that you didn't have to divide by 1/2 if the coordinates were for 1/2 the pyramid.
  • ursername180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42No one FOUND the error because no one GOES TO a maths exhibit.
    • viscid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No one went to a math exhibit, at best it was a science exhibit. It was about candy making sponsored by Jelly Belly.
  • michael0010, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2One word: awesome.
  • Tankslap, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I've always been gifted in math, but that is pretty ***** good for an 8 year old.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, I think this level of critical thinking is not very common for eight year olds. Clever kid.
  • zm634, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12A literal representation of an mistake made by the corporate bean counters.
  • whovian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A jellybean packing fraction of 0.9 seems a tad high.
    • kdavyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+120.74 is the best packing ratio for spheres (bcc, hcp). And now i'm going to shoot myself because i've been studying solid state physics all night...
    • yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jellybeans are not spheres. they are oval.
  • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1That's pretty ***** amazing.
  • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let's see how quickly he can add up the integers 1 - 100, then we'll call him a prodigy.
    • revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35050?

      I might be wrong, I only took like 5 seconds.
    • revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Its not hard to figure out.

      Since 1+99=100, 2+98=100, 3+97=100, etc. all the way to 49+51, you have 49x100, then add 100, and 50.
    • trustrsx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nice fuzzy math there. 49x100 then ADD 100 and ADD 50?

      How about 1+100, 2+99, 3+98, etc giving you 50 sets of 101?

      50 x 101 = 5050
  • bentheo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3he is like a modern day gauss
  • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5He goes to Charlotte Christian?

    I thought Christians didn't "believe" in math or science or anything of an intellectual nature.
    • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2You'll find that Christians like Math because it doesn't contradict the Bible (except for that bit about the wheel and cubits).

      Other sciences have major flaws: Physics - Heliocentricity, Biology - Evolution, Chemistry - DNA
    • Teaboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Do Charlotte Christians go to Charlotte Church?
    • washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@hilbertspaceboy

      Yeah, don't ever go to those thousands of "Saint XXXXX" hospitals all across the U.S. Because of their denouncing science and math as heresy, all they can do to cure you is pray and try to whack the evil spirits out of you with a 2x4. ... Dumbass.
  • kz26, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Stupid Americans and their math!
  • Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I love going to The Discovery Place. I can't wait until my niece is older so I can take her to it and get her interested in Math and Science.

    I'm 27 and I go to The Discovery Place as often as I can...it's just 100 miles up the road.
  • MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"Some of Parker's math ability is genetic."
    "It's a gift that, for some reason, God gave him,"

    Please, let me shoot the people who said that.
    • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm just laughing because it's the first time I've ever heard anyone imply that industrial engineers know how to do math....lol
    • PuffyWalrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ah! Yes I was searching this! Since when do genetics have something to do with someone being good in maths? God also! Well I am not sure anymore... Was it god or simply the good old genetics? Seems to me genetics or god are always a good answer to stuff we dont know about. Just please don't resolve to unfounded answer while writing a news article to inform people.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats so wrong about saying math skills can come from genetics? Is it not pretty obvious that some people just have brains that are perfectly wired for numbers while others have brains wired for other things? Is it not possible that the wiring of brains are genetic? Of course there are other areas that probably helped to improve his math schools such as his teachers and parents. But it sounds to me his brain was perfectly wired to work with numbers from the get go.

      Also why would you want to shoot someone for believing in God? Sounds a little harsh.
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@thetaoofbill
      In this case, it's fairly obvious it is nurture and not nature. You think the kid, born to parents who are presumably good at math, grabbed the change from his parent's pocket and just figured out how much it was on his own? Obviously, his parents, on a regular basis, pulled out their pocket change and taught him how to add it up.

      I knew my whole alphabet by the time I was two because my parents (and grandparents) regularly pulled out the magnetic letters we had and taught me each one until I knew the letters in order or at random. I wasn't genetically tailored to understand the alphabet any better than most kids, just taught to understand them regularly. Same goes for this kid and his pocket change.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I didn't say the parents didn't play a role. In fact I said the opposite. But the fact that he was able to so quickly grasp mathematical concepts shows that his brain is wired to calculate numbers. Some children have remarkable abilities to paint. Others can grasp music and rhythm well.

      Many parents try to get their kids to learn math and reading early. But with the remarkable level of this kids math ability at only 2nd grade it isn't hard to see that he is not your average kid. It's pretty obvious that his brain is more capable of dealing with numbers than most other kids. And when you combine that with his parents you get a mathematical prodigy.
    • PuffyWalrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@thetaoofbill
      Who said anything about shooting believers? Are you giving a bad exemple here or do you support the killing of worshippers? Again, the technique of changing the subject to get reactions works but you are still off subject. Getting back to what I said before, please stick to the actual written comments and not only what you wanted to see in them.
  • dbug, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2He probably was the only one who ever bothered to actually do the equations. Any kid could have found that error.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"He probably was the only one who ever bothered to actually do the equations."

      Yep, and I digg it for that alone. As I said in another comment, kudos for him for being curious and inquisitive, instead of taking everything for granted as pretty much anyone else in the world.

      "Any kid could have found that error."

      Err..I don't think so. Not 8 years old.
    • revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Most adults probably wouldn't even be able to find the error.
  • sciencebase, on 10/12/2007, -6/+222,853? That's a ludicrously precise estimate given the fact that the volume is given to only one significant figure and there's no mention of packing density, see a vague analysis of this problem at http://www.sciencetext.com/significant-jelly-beans.html
    • Rostin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It is a ludicrously precise estimate, but if you read the problem in the BBC article, it says: "Now multiply your answer by 0.9 to account for spaces between the jelly beans." So it does include a packing density. (Although, my "educated guess" is that 0.9 is entirely too high.)

    • washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You'd think with a name like "sciencebase" he'd have a firmer grasp on math and science. Or at least reading:

      "...and then multiply your answer by 0.9 to account for spaces between the jelly beans."

      edit: Beaten to it by one of those 8 year old math geniuses again!
    • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah, last time I checked, I think the theoretical maximum packing density for spheres of the same size is about 0.74. Whoever made the display didn't put much effort into it or explain things very well.
    • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Doh, nevermind, I see they are using jelly beans and not gum drops in this one.
  • nj12nets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this really did not take an advanced mathematics skill ot figure out there was a problem in the formula, it took skill to prove it was wrong but simple observation and reading would've told people that it was already the dimensions for the shape and that dividing by 2 wasn't necessary.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are so many things that are obvious once someone points out the problem, isn't it?

      What I thought was cool was not only that the kid was smart enough to figure out the problem, but the fact that he is inquisitive enough to actually try the proof himself, even though it was already "done", instead of taking it for granted.
  • Ifligus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Actually the original answer, derived at the Ontario Science Centre, was correct. The problem was they forgot to convert it to US jelly beans when they exported it.
  • Yareking, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1OMG i didnt find it! ''The base measurements given were already for half the pyramid, so there was no need to divide the answer by 2.''
  • IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Isn't everyone assuming that the pyramid was a square pyramid with a 46x46 base? A rectangular pyramid can have 46x23 base.
    • weebib, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I totally agree with you.
      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pyramid.html
    • derekbalsam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A pyramid's (or cone's) volume is always 1/3 Bh, no matter what shape the base is. That's the whole point of this article.
    • sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's what I was thinking. When I read the math problem, I saw 46 X 23 and immediately converted the base to a square 46 X 46 in my head. Thus, implicitly correcting the equation. The halving of the pyramid made sense, because I had already corrected for a square. Truth be told, I do this all the time with math. But the reason is strange: I actually suck at math... bad. So I simplify equations in my head. If I am asked to multiply 7 X 48 for instance, I don't ACTUALLY multiply 7 X 48. I multiply 7 X 4, and tack on a zero, so I get 280, then I double the 28 (7 X 4) for the result of 7 X 8, and I get the 56 I need to add to the 280. This where it gets really weird. Now I add the 20 to the 80, to get to 300, and then I add the remaining 36 to 300, thus 336. I actually do it very fast this way, and I know that it is really strange, but I have very high accuracy, and the problem is that I was never able to truly learn my multiplication tables, even by repetition. So, mentally subdividing and sequentially adding simplified numbers just feels more natural.

      In any case, when I read the word problem, I did the same thing, so I was surprised to see the correction, because to me, there didn't seem to be any error other than a little ambiguity in the word problem. Also, the word problem states that we are dividing by two because this is half of a pyramid. As a matter of fact, the fact that we are using a [half] pyramid is stated three times:

      First sentence: "This container is half a pyramid"
      Second sentence: "Its base measures 46 cm by 23"
      Fourth sentence: "Now divide your answer by 2 since this is half a pyramid."

      I think the word problem might be right, although it assumes that you are aware that a PYRAMID has a SQUARE base. Thus, the need to hold your hand in the word problem and give you three hints by stating three times that we need to halve the base of the pyramid.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also use all sorts of tricks, but for 7x48 I would simply do 7x50 - 7x2 -> 350 - 14 -> 336
  • laterallateral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I didn't find it right away either regardless of knowing there to be error in the equasion.
    Must be cause I'm Canadian.
  • DvS01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It took an 8-year-old math prodigy to figure out this OVERSIGHT...sad.
    • tbadge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I was at a fair, and they were having a contest. It said, “Guess how many jelly beans there are in the jar” and you win a prize. “Ah c’mon, man, lemme just have some. Tell you what, you guess how many I want. If you said a handful, you are right.” - Hedburg

      I could care less how many are in the container. Just give me a few.
  • adam2112, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Whoa. I know this kid. He is in a karate class that I help teach. I guess I'll have to make sure he doesn't catch me teaching him anything the wrong way or he'll call me out.
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Call you out? He'll do better than that! He'll kick yo' ass! Foo!
  • WeBDaEMoN33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Some of Parker's math ability is genetic. His mother used to work in nuclear medicine. His father has a background in industrial engineering and now works as a loan officer."

    On a scale from 1 to 10, how idiot is the person who wrote that?
    • WeBDaEMoN33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh and by the way, I guess no one really knew of the problem in the first place, because that is not a very difficult to spot mistake, now, is it?
  • econwriter5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An example of how wording is always important, especially when it comes to mathematical equations.
  • kayler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4can he do taxes?
  • akatherder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This container is half a pyramid. Its base measures 46 cm by 23 cm and its height is 72 cm."

    The math problem is too ambiguous to proclaim that he found an error. "Its base" can be referring to the "container", "half a pyramid" or the "pyramid" depending on how you read it. A pyramid is USUALLY assumed to have a square base, so the 46cm x 23cm measurements certainly point you in the direction that the measurements you are given are already halved. But by no means would I say that either assumption is wrong.
  • gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you halved a pyramid horizontally it would still be a pyramid. The problem implies that the measurements are for the "halved" pyramid so i think the person who created the problem was trying to fool the kids into dividing by two but he fell for his own trap by instructing them to perform the division.
  • nation161, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1what an ugly kid
    • skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed.
  • djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I actually knew what was wrong with it too. But I have to say that I knew that there was an error because of this article. So I don't think I would have seen the error if I didn't know to look for one. Smart Boy.
  • popltree2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wonder if he is showing signs of autism or if he is just a freakin' genius.
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1my guess is he's just on his way to genius-hood. an autistic kid would most likely (but not always...) be more than 2 grade-levels ahead in math (if math is the autistic kid's area of expertise). (FTA: he competed against 3rd graders when he was in 1st grade and would have taken 2nd place)
  • civperc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all the bickering in here :-o
  • k0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i've been to this place, pretty cool....too bad I never gave a ***** how many jelly beans were in that dumbass pyramid, I probably walked right by it.
  • CpMRangerRick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was there on Saturday, but I was more concerned with the free jelly beans than the math.
  • jacksmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm in your exhibits finding your errors.
  • thelordofcheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dude, I didn't even get to the part where it said to divide by two. They mentioned what the error was, so before I even saw their instructions I was like totally WTF. I guess that's why they make candy, but how can they control the quality of the batches if they can't calculate the amount of ingredients.
  • likephatec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it must have been peanut butter jelly time.
  • dcm1101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The math, as quoted in the article, has several problems. Here it is for anyone who didn't RTFA:

    "Find the Error

    Eight-year-old Parker Garrison discovered an error in an equation at Discovery Place that asked visitors to calculate how many jelly beans are in a pyramid-shaped container. Here's what he discovered:

    ORIGINAL PROBLEM

    A jelly bean has a volume of about 1 cubic cm.This container is half a pyramid.

    Its base measures 46 cm by 23 cm and its height is 72 cm.

    Here's the formula to find the volume: 1/3 x base area x height.

    Now divide your answer by 2 since this is half a pyramid.

    Now multiply your answer by 0.9 to account for spaces between the jelly beans.

    The answer should be 22,853.

    THE ERROR

    The base measurements given were already for half the pyramid, so there was no need to divide the answer by 2.
    Click here to find out more!"

    WTF! the formula for volume of a regular pyramid is V=(1/3)lwh, or given their numbers, 25,392 cubic cm, divide by half and you get 12,696, multiply by their somewhat optimistic jelly bean packing ratio of .9, 11,426 jelly beans (rounded down). So already, the article makes no sense. Second problem: the formula for finding the volume of a truncated pyramid (pyramidal frustrum) is V=(1/3)h(Ab+At)+(AbAt)^-2 where Ab is the base area and At is the top area. Since they don't give the measurements for the top area, it's not solvable. Basically, it's a badly written problem, that was either transcribed incorrectly by someone, or the museum can't do basic arithmetic. Or am I missing something obvious?
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I understood the shape of the pyramid to be like taking a regular pyramid, and slicing it in half from top to bottom (not sideways, ie. chopping off the top as in a frustum). So looking at the object straight on looks like a right-angled triangle. It would look like a ramp.

      So two ways to solve it might be to do (46x46x72x1/3)/2
      or (46x23x72x1/3)
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...
      I should say (46x46x72x1/3)/2 is the method the reader is told,
      (46x23x72x1/3) is the parameters the reader is told

      The question needs to combine the parameters and method into one set of instructions so the calculator can get the right answer
  • Scrotos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i think its funny that if that was given and the answer was given how come no one bothered to try it until this kid? People are just lazy anyone could find that mistake if they bothered to try the calculations but they didn't, people were just like oh thats interesting.
  • Mobius2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Some of Parker's math ability is genetic. His mother used to work in nuclear medicine."

    I also have a degree in Nuclear Medicine. I only wish that meant I had brilliant math skills...
  • wing05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The equations were developed at the Ontario Science Center, a museum similar to Discovery Place."


    o/~ Blame Canada! Blame Canada! o/~
  • TorrentFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The kid probably has Asperger Syndrome.
  • jackjax123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm jealous.
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BrainMan could have figured it out in his head.

    This dumb kid needed to write it down and bring it home to work on it. I'm not impressed.
  • avatarish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0congrats to the kid...

    but, calling him a prodigy?... ehh whatever.. i pray that this doesnt go to his head, he'll never get a girlfriend if he boasts about it...

    on a brighter note, alert stanford of this story...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.