Brewster Rockit by Tim Rickard for July 28, 2020

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three left turns do.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three do.”

Deteriorata

Dr. Mel brings the weird! Bwaaah! <3

Two wrongs don’t make a right but two Wrights do make an airplane!

Sometimes something which would otherwise be wrong can stop a greater wrong.

Warning; I’m going political! All rights are wrong.

We can consider the joke about Mr. and Mrs. Wong as having been read, I think.

I love how the Quadratic Formula seems to be at the root of Dr. Mel’s proof.

Hooray for New Math: https://youtu.be/W6OaYPVueW4

Mel is a shiny model of a tarnished example.

UPS has long held a policy in some cities that drivers should never try to turn left, but make three right turns instead. Seems that in those cities the oncoming traffic will never concede the right-of-way to allow drivers to turn left, and the three-right-turn approach actually saves time. Or so I have been told. Having been in some of those cities, I can believe it.

If you do it right, one wrong is all you need.

If: W=4; R=9; O=1; N=3; G=2; I=8; H=6; T=4

Then: two WRONGs = one RIGHT

(lots of alternate combinations)

Two wrongs don’t make a right … but two Wrights made an airplane

Well, multiplying two negatives does make a positive… ☺

1+1=3 (for very large values of 1)

Mathematically speaking two negatives equal a postive

**positive

Let me ’spleen it to you Winky…

I’m not sure what Microsoft software engineers are smoking these days, but I’ve seen Excel pull off some really kooky calculations within the last year or two, including the arithmetic equivalent — and I am not making this up — of adding 1 + 1 and getting 3. It’s like they’ve created a software application with coding so extensive and complicated that the engineers no longer can control or predict what Excel will do.

Actually, old math. A negative plus a negative is a positive.

Things just don’t add up.

Two Wongs don’t make a…wait. What?

You can prove Anything with enough Statistics.

I had a course in what was called New Math back in the 1966-67 school year. It answered many of the Why?s which helped answer the How?s we daily need to solve and apply.

The math was old but the understanding and teaching were new. My teacher understood and taught well. Many others didn’t and still don’t.

It is also interesting that many things it explained were the way my parents had explained to me earlier in elementary school. They had figured it out on their own because their teachers and texts didn’t and couldn’t. I wonder how much more they might have accomplished had the 1930s books included it.

Anyone interested in a write-up about the history and problems of the movemeny might enjoy https://www.americanheritage.com/whatever-happened-new-math-0#1