Calculus for Babies

A quarter-odd century ago, I came across Donald Cohen’s Calculus by and for Young People (Ages 7, Yes 7 and Up) (1989). The co-founder and teacher of The Math Program subscribed to the philosophy that children are capable of behaving as (little) mathematicians.

Apparently, kids could be exposed to a quasi-formal treatment of integration and differentiation without an ∫ or a dy/dx.

Little could I divine that three and a half decades later a physicist-mathematician-turned-science author would tease tiger or kiasu parents with his Calculus for Babies.

Photo © Anon.

Cal 4 Babies & Toddlers

After Chris Ferrie’s Pythagorean Theorem for Babies came out in 2022, I knew that it’d be just a matter of time before the author would give us Calculus for Babies (2024), under the “bestselling” Baby University series.

Two days ago, I finally laid my hands on the anticipated title, which claims to introduce babies (and reminds grownups!) to the basic concepts behind calculus, arguably “explained in an easy-to-understand and fun way!”

Sounds like when you’re a mathepreneur, no audience is ever too young to learn the basics of any abstract or advanced math. Or the unspoken assumption that nurturing a little genius at home is possible even if your baby isn’t born or blessed with the “mathematical gene.”

Yes, it seems that it’s never too early to become a mathematician or scientist (as long as you’d afford to pamper your child with the [best?] oft-dear math titles or resources).

Before Ferrie’s Calculus for Babies was published on July 2, 2024, Esmond Cooper had come with a similar title on June 28, 2023. Debatably, Cooper’s “simplified guide introduces young minds to the fundamental concepts of calculus in a way that is clear, engaging, and accessible.” 

Cooper’s Calculus for Babies “aims to make learning enjoyable and foster a love for math from an early age, providing a strong basis for future mathematical understanding.”

After the success of sexy titles like Calculus for Cats (2001) and How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog (2010), publishers probably bet that the next wave of pop math titles targeting parents who think that they’ve been blessed with a “talented or gifted” child should focus on calculus—and for unknown reasons not on algebra or geometry or trigonometry.

Interestingly, as far back as 2011, Omi M. Inouye had published a 54-page Introductory Calculus for Infants, which is about the mathematical adventure of two buddies as they discover the wonders of calculus.

From Beethoven to Newton & Leibniz 

If pregnant women are already playing classical music or reading bedtime stories to their unborn, it’s not preposterous that in a-not-too-distant future, some pre-rich writers or publishers would give birth to Pre-Calculus or Calculus for Your Unborn Child.

Just because calculus is the bête noire of college math, it doesn’t mean that your [talented, gifted, or blessed] newborn or toddler or preschooler can’t handle it. They can if you think they can!

Differentially & integrally yours

© Yan Kow Cheong, December 2, 2024.

Is Age Just a Number?

Cartoon © Anon. (being memeified)

I admit that I’m guilty of ageism, but I make zero apologies for exposing criminality or hypocrisy, especially among (past and present) heads of state.

For the majority of us, oft-reluctant law-abiding citizens of the world, few would admit that the criminal mind is a “creative” mind in disguise—one that we’d learn a thing or two from if we put aside our prejudices.

A Tale of Two Senior Presidential Candidates

What are the odds that the world might soon witness a presidential debate between a patient and a prisoner? If reelected, could either folk serve his full term?

Arguably, we’ve two power-hungry weak “leaders” that America could do without—when both seniors should be grandfathering (or con-sulting) rather than mis-leading or weakening the country for another four years (assuming their Creator doesn’t call them before their term is due).

Cartoon by Rick McKee (@Rick_McKee_Ink)

An Age Limit for Presidency

If the present president and his predecessor are too old to competently serve the challenges or demands of another term, shouldn’t lawmakers pass a constitutional law that no elected president shall be of a certain age on the date of inauguration?

What should that age limit be so that voters feel comfortable that any elected presidential candidate would fulfill his or her responsibilities of office? 65, 70, 75, or some other age?

Bitter Root ≡ Better Fruit?

If a bad tree can’t produce good fruit, it’s preposterous to see millions of voters expect a serial dishonest or corrupt “I-me-myself” candidate to deliver them from their years-old financial, social, and religious ills.

The theological or political argument that voters shouldn’t put too much emphasis on a candidate’s past manifold wrongs (who’s continually denied any wrongdoings) to assess or judge him sounds dangerously frightening. Understandably, the criteria to electing a president must be much lower than those used to choosing a pope. Really?

Cartoon by @DennisGoris (buff.ly/3VlEyaz)

King Saul 2.0

What are the chances that in Biden or Trump, we’d be witnessing a modern-day version of King Saul, whose rule would be cut short? Would those mostly morally bankrupt or corrupt appointees, who condone their lies and falsehoods, expect to operate in a blessed political environment? It looks more likely that political entropy would be the new normal come January 2025.

In politics, irrationality and hypocrisy often prove that a string of wrongs has near-zero bearing on the electability of a corrupt or rogue politician.

When one senior isn’t much younger than the other, the choice isn’t that difficult. You choose the one with (more) character, humility, and honesty. Voting for the alternative is flirting with ineptitude, dishonesty, and chaos—more pain and suffering for the majority of the population, who expect their next president to behave more like a priest or pope.

US Math: An Age Problem

Let’s end with a birthday joke on the two most senior presidential candidates in U.S. politics:

Q: Why even their diehard supporters see both Biden and Trump as old, who should be banned from taking part in a presidential election again?

A: At their last birthday, the candles cost more than the cake.

Electorally yours

© Yan Kow Cheong, June 27, 2024.

Musk vs. Math

In the aftermath of Twitter being rechristened to X, the letter or symbol X can now boast of a new nonmathematical meaning.

The Lawsuit of the Century

Would the world soon be witnessing the legal case of the year: X vs. Math Educators? Or Musk vs. Math?

Meme © Anon.

What on earth is behind the choice of the letter or symbol or logo X to rebrand a once-beloved app, whose shelf life now looks shaky, to say the least?

The X of Singapore Math Publishing

Earlier, I’d x-ed (or “tweeted”) tongue-in-cheek that

“Changing Twitter’s iconic bird logo to a white “X” hoping to launch a "super app" is like Singapore math editors—who’re responsible for their publishers’ MOE-rejected titles—rationalizing that by joining a competitor, their odds of approval would be higher.”

Most mediocre math editors are often deluded into thinking that their new higher position or pay in another publishing house would magically make them a better “word doctor,” thus increasing the chances of their manuscripts getting approved by the Ministry of Education.

Twitterdamus: The Fall of Twitter

Late last year, when the founder of SpaceX started downsizing Twitter’s workforce, the temptation to coin Twitterdamus was just too strong.

I tweeted the above definition with this hypothesized question: “Twitter Math: Guesstimate the number of Twitterdamuses who secretly wished to witness the bankruptcy of Twitter in a-not-too-distant future.”

Threat from Threads

Below are some tweets I recently posted related to the privacy or security of our personal data. 

Your metadata has now a choice. Who’s your less trusted or beloved billionaire? [Cartoon from FRusty.creates]

Threads’s Threat: Is the Threads app an Alibaba version of Twitter? Sounds like the social media equivalent of Trump’s frivolous lawsuits against those who expose him! Why isn’t Twitter also suing Weibo—China’s copycat?

When Free is often costly: If the product or service is free, you are the product. Think of Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter, which have sold or resold your personal data multiple times for billions.

A prayer for millions of anti-𝕏 followers who sorely miss the little blue bird: Let 𝕏 Be Twitter Again!

© Yan Kow Cheong, July 27, 2023.

Creativity or Stupidity?

This week, I saw this attached (grade one?) test item or math meme on Facebook, which was initially posted by “The Language Nerds” group.

Based on the multiple comments to this ill-posed math question, it’s amusing, yet also disturbing, to read that most responders are praising the student for his “creative” answer, or criticizing the “uncreative” teacher for penalizing the poor child.

In this postmodern or polarized world we’re living in, you’d think that maybe only someone who’s a “very stable genius” would rationalize or argue that the student’s response qualifies as one of the equally valid answers. And if the biased teacher insisted on marking the creative child wrong, the parents might consider suing him or her for giving their son an undeserved zero.

Creative or Uncreative Comments

Below are some netizens’ replies to the math question from “Maths Jokes Daily,” which range from the hilarious to the ridiculous to the preposterous.

I think because the circles weren't closed properly 🤔

honestly think its possible for most people to understand what you are supposed to do here, so I would definetely argue that this is not a badly formed question :)

Were the correct answers 1.39, 2.17 and 3.96 ?

He got it wrong because he marked 3 numbers, and the question only asked for one, so the right answer is 15

He provided 3 right answers. He identified the smallest number in each row disregarding the periods and commas. LOL !

He circled 3 numbers. Number 1 is the smallest number and therefore should have only selected the 1 single number.

Also, why did the teacher put 3 lowercase "alpha" symbols?🤣

it’s evident smallest number and not smallest numberS so he should have circled only 1

Because he only circles 1 but not 1.39 Same with others

The fault lies entirely with the fool that numbered the questions with Roman Numerals and then used 1, 2, 3 instead of a, b, c

That kid is already smarter than the teacher.

Thats at least .5 for thinking outside the box

? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! 

Would you side with the teacher or the student? How would you respond to the “wrong” answer to this ill-posed or improperly posed question?

Creatively or uncritically yours

© Yan Kow Cheong, May 19, 2023.