Israeli 10th-Grader Discovers Elegant Geometry Theorem 173
An anonymous reader writes with a report that: Tamar Barbi, a 10th grade student living in Hod Hasharon, Israel, discovered that the theorem she was using to solve one of the problems on her geometry homework didn't actually exist. With the help of her teacher and mathematicians, she wrote up a proof for the theorem, which helps provide new and more elegant proofs for many other mathematical theorems. Posters at Hacker News have some skeptical words about the theorem's novelty, but also about the phrasing of the news report, which seems to omit some crucial words.
If this was an American high school... (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably would have marked the answer on her homework as wrong because she didn't use the Common Core government approved method of solving the problem.
Re:If this was an American high school... (Score:5, Funny)
Never mind that that's not actually how Common Core guidelines work, but hey... it's the current target of hate, and we've got two minutes to spare...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd believe that, but you'd be wrong, see, Common Core Math was designed as a collection of best practices for teaching mathematics. However, the fucking idiots didn't realize that, and made it into a federal standard that must be taught and tested to, so now we must test children on their ability to alorithmically apply a teaching tool towards computations. It's the most amazingly fucking stupid thing we've done against education in the last 30 years.
Re:If this was an American high school... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, the actual standard doesn't actually include any testing standards or teaching methods. It's really pretty loose for a standard (though my engineering bias rears its ugly head here).
Rather, the actual standard [corestandards.org] says what concepts must be taught at what grade levels... and that's about it. There are some examples and the set of minimal facts to be understood, but it doesn't prescribe any curriculum, and it doesn't say how to evaluate students' progress toward that basic comprehension.
It's also not a "federal standard". States are adopting it on their own, and if your state has chosen to legislate partucular testing methods to ensure compliance, that's your legislators' fault, not Common Core.
From what I've seen (from association with a highly-regarded educator's college), Common Core is a great step forward. Previously, every state had their own standard, so a Louisiana high-school student, for (a fictitious, as I've forgotten all states' relative rankings) example, might be far behind a similar Oregon student in mathematics, but still meet their state's standards. For high-achieving students who relocated and were then told that their education wasn't good enough for their new location, it was devastating. For students transferring the other way, they'd often end up skipping grades, leaving holes in their understanding that wouldn't appear until later, when the curriculum assumes a particular concept was covered.
Common Core has actually done the impossible: It is being adopted as a One True Standard to gauge a student's understanding, based on a set of concepts, rather than a district's particular placement test. Well-written tests against Common Core can also indicate whether a student has understood the concepts adequately for their grade level, based on real-world needs, rather than the opinions of a teacher who hasn't seen business needs in the past decade.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters how it's applied.
Let's suppose the standard will shape the qualification process for instructors, leading to instructors who spend far too much time in their own careers learning a standard instead of learning real math and how to teach it. This may lead to a circumstance where the instructor can't understand a method that the student used to solve a math problem. I fear an overall decline in teaching quality. I hope this isn't happening, but when it comes to children's education you can't blame
Re: (Score:3)
Let's suppose the standard will shape the qualification process for instructors, leading to instructors who spend far too much time in their own careers learning a standard instead of learning real math and how to teach it
Based on what the post you replied to said, I don't see how this could possibly be the case.
The "standard" only dictates what must be taught at a certain grade level, and not how it should be taught. From the teacher's perspective it's exactly the same as before since the school or state typically sets the curriculum requirements anyway.
=Smidge=
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If this was an American high school... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you this... my 5th grader asked for help on his homework consisting of dividing 2 and 3 digit numbers.
So we worked through all the problems together.
He got a 0 on the homework even though all the answers were correct.
When I went in to see the teacher about it, she said that we used long division and not the new math method of solving the problem. Thus he got a 0 even though all the answers were correct and my kid now knew how to do the work after I showed him the method I was taught.
Stupid as far as I am concerned.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is stupid is you. You thought the homework was about getting the right answer. The homework ( as is ALL homework, until maybe Grad School ) is about validating that the student is understanding the concepts presented.
What you did, using long division, got him the answer, but it did not teach him how to do proper grouping or estimation skills. Your same attitude should have told him to use a calculator... because he would get the answer right.
These are building blocks for the future. Of course these met
Re: (Score:2)
And your point would be? There have always been crappy teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me try and give and example to show why you are wrong: Imagine your kid where learning multiplication methods and had a homework with the simple multiplication 345*10, and he answered all the assignment by doing repetitive sums (345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345+345=3450). In this case wouldn't you agree with the teacher to fail the student's assignment? After all, the objective of the assignment is not to give the result to the teacher, the teacher already knows the answer, instead the objective is t
Re: (Score:3)
1. The "new math" method is designed to teach more than just how to get the answer. It teaches estimation skills and done right can teach how the numbers interact rather than just having your kid memorize an algorithm, both of which will make learning more advanced math easier (a number of "math is easy" people have remarked that the way "new math" teaches arithmetic is how they've always broken down numbers).
2. Learning the method that will be used as the base of further learning is important. If his teachers are using "new math", not learning how to use it will put him further behind with each new concept he's learning. Part of the assignment was learning how to use this method for division, which he did not complete. This is not substantially different from when I was a kid and being given a 0 for not showing my work (i.e. demonstrating that I understood more than just what the result was).
3. "Long Division" is not the "one true math standard". Various forms of it came into practice sometime between the middle ages and the renaissance, and the form which we were taught during the 20th century didn't even come into existence until the 19th century. "New math" is no weirder than when researchers figured out that teaching kids music also improves math skills.
I guess the math that we all learned was shit then and isn't relevant anymore?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/mathna... [amazonaws.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the math that we all were taught failed the vast majority of our generation. With only a few students understanding basic math when graduating school (most Slashdot readers probably being in this group), and the others, the vast majority being otherwise completely math illiterate. And guess what, those few who managed to learn math actually devised different mental methods and tools to do the job whenever the taught method failed them, and that is how they managed to succeed even thou the official met
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The geeks shall inherit the earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"the math that we all were taught failed the vast majority of our generation"
The more pointed truth is that most teachers are crap.
Disclosure: My parents are teachers. I've circulated among the teaching community for decades. There are a few brilliant ones, some good ones, some effective ones, many substandard ones and a few awful ones - with about 2/3 being the latter two categories. Most of the teachers my parents worked with had trouble balancing their checkbooks (I know this because they'd often get me
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed - it's not the (new math) (method), it's the (new) (math method).
Although giving the kid a zero is a bit much, particularly when the parent's knowledge of the (new math) (method) is nonexistent, and the parent can successfully teach the child the (old math) (method), and the child can repeat such learning to the teacher to prove that dad didn't just do the homework for him.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thrust of common core (as mentioned) is best common practices.
Kids should be taught XYZ by ABC age, but what all these legislators (and a bunch of "teachers" who should be sacked) don't grasp is that the "best" method is _what works best for that child_
Different methods work differently for different children. Mandating any particular method is a guarantee that some will "fail", but it keeps jobsworths happy and as jobsworths invariably end up at the controls (they know how to work the system but
Re: (Score:2)
What about long division suggests someone doesn't understand math? It's an algorithm that allows its practitioners to solve simple, two-digit division problems and then iterate recursively on the remainder. The basis for it is founded on solid math, and you won't be able to practice long division effectively without understanding base systems, radixes, subtraction, and a whole host of other concepts that are appropriate to that age level. Admittedly, they may not yet know each of those concepts by those nam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If this was an American high school... (Score:4, Interesting)
Conspiracy theories aside, you're sorely mistaken on a few key details. Common Core is a set of concepts, and a timeline for when they should be understood. It is not a curriculum, and it does not change the organizational structure of any school. The teachers are accountable to the school district, as they always have been. The school district is accountable to the state, as it always have been.
Yes, schools that aren't producing employable graduates will face pressure to improve. On the other hand, schools whose students understand the concepts listed in the two [corestandards.org] standards [corestandards.org] will have no reason or requirement to change what they're doing.
Common Core also has absolutely nothing to do with your decision to send your child to an out-of-district school, should you desire to do so, and it has nothing to do with the additional expenses you may incur. Instead, the extra expenses are because you are opting out of the services provided by your local government, such as buses and shared textbooks, and must then cover those costs on your own. Yes, you do still have to pay taxes to support your local school district, because that's what your duly-elected representatives have written into law, and you do still benefit from having schools. Though you say you "derive zero direct benefit" from your local school district, you do still receive an indirect benefit in the community improvement. The benefit may not be as great as a well-performing school might provide, but that does not give you any right to stop contributing to it. If you want that right, feel free to petition your local representative government.
Re: (Score:2)
By implementation, do you means you are unable to follow a general plan, or do you mean you're unwilling to teach evolution and other religous controversies?
More facts, less fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
no.
no test requirements
no actual curriculum either.
CC is merely a set of standard goals that students should be able to achieve.
actually getting to achieve that is something entirely different, and up to the individual states/schools and the publishers they should to purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
another AC that doesn't know the difference between a Learning Objective (or goal, or standard) and the word "curriculum".
the point 2nd and 3rd math problem btw, is to learn how to break a problem into its parts, and illustrate the same process you use in your head (or most people do, being a stupid AC, that may be too much credit) when you simplify or chunk up a more difficult problem to solve it.
borrowing and carrying 1's works great on paper, and a quick simple process for solving math. on paper.
for many
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It does when you claim it is common core and not State X's misapplication of common core.
Re: (Score:2)
Do all states apply Common Core that way? Or are they using something else that is rigid? There seems to be a movement towards rigid uniformity, but that isn't Common Core.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter what policy your country has, the truth is it's quite common in various countries for high school level math to be taught as a recipe that must be followed and many teachers will mark answers correctly derived in alternative and more creative ways to be incorrect. Ultimately it's up to the teacher not the policy with these details, and it's hard to get lots of good quality math teachers at a high school level.
That's what I love about math. The answer doesn't matter and it's all about the journey......No, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
In an American high school you don't have to prove anything, you just have to tick the right boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
In an American high school you don't have to prove anything
In Russian high school, proof anythings you.
OK, it's gonna need a bit more work, but it's a start, it's a start. Probably need to work in a Putin reference somewhere.
Be careful... (Score:3)
...where you Putin that reference.
Common Core is just a set of standards (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that the common core is nothing but a set of standards as far as what students should be able to achieve at various levels?
I do. Question is whether all (or even most) teachers do, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that the common core is nothing but a set of standards as far as what students should be able to achieve at various levels? It does not dictate how teachers are supposed to teach the standards.
Yes, I do. I also realize that when many implementations of a standard are clearly defective, there may actually be something wrong with the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
How many implementations are there out there? I've only read of one big corp trying to impose its version of the standard. When we have several, and they're all bad, then we'll talk.
Re: (Score:2)
How many implementations are there out there? I've only read of one big corp trying to impose its version of the standard. When we have several, and they're all bad, then we'll talk.
A quick search turned up this [apexlearning.com],this [scholastic.com], this [inspiration.com], this [coreknowledge.org], and this [teachingchannel.org]. But wait, those are more or less commercial offerings. It seems that individual states [uen.org], districts [lausd.net], and schools [k12.wi.us] are rolling their own implementations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you; I hadn't heard of them. Are all, or most, of these implementations bad? If so, is there something else (like NCLB) going on?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you; I hadn't heard of them. Are all, or most, of these implementations bad? If so, is there something else (like NCLB) going on?
I honestly can't say whether they're all bad. I can say I've seen examples of implementations that I personally consider pretty tragic; particularly in math, where methods presented for solving simple algebraic equations fail when coefficients aren't integers, where addition and subtraction are called 'put together' and 'take apart' and where terms like 'zero pairs' (aka, 'additive inverses' - two numbers whose sum is zero) seem to be preferred over traditional concepts like associative, distributive, and c
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually watched the linked videos. Do you have a refutation beyond wrong-vote accusations?
Theorem wrong as stated (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the new "Three Radii Theorem," if three or more lines extend from a single point to the edge of a circle, then the point is the center of the circle and the straight lines are the radii.
I think what they meant to say was three lines of equal length in which case this just defines three points on a circle which is of course enough to uniquely define it. It also only works in two dimensions otherwise the point does not have to be the centre. This is the sort of geometric proof problem we used to get at secondary school. Have standards really fallen so incredibly far that this is noteworthy now let alone publishable? If so me and my old schoolmates can probably rustle up quite a few more "theorems" for publication in the journal of bleeding obvious mathematics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like about 2 square inches...
Re: (Score:2)
70 square units.
The interesting part of that diagram is that the length of the nonparallel sides is inconsistent with the other measurements given. In practice, that means that students who don't understand how to properly calculate the area of the figure (using reasonable methods for that grade level) will have a noticeably different answer than those who do understand it.
Sure, it's an inaccurate diagram, and could be considered lazy teaching, but it's utterly unrelated to Common Core.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Moral (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't try to learn about math from news media.
Re:Moral (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't try to learn about news from news media.
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
Don't try to learn from news media.
FTFY
Even if it's wrong, it's right (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the proof isn't novel, or if there's some glaring error, Israeli secondary-school students now have a champion for a while, who found something interesting. That student in particular has a vested interest in a particular area of her field, and hopefully that will grow into a later expertise, and ultimately significant contributions to human knowledge.
Faults and all, this is how mankind progresses... Stumbling forward one mistake at a time.
Re:Even if it's wrong, it's right (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Israeli secondary-school students now have a champion for a while,
No. If anything, their mathematical secondary-school level mathematical champions are the IMO participants and so on who worked hard enough to hone their math skills to the point where they can prove this while blacked out. The theorem she proved is the type of thing I used give college freshmen on their first or second in-class 5-minute pop quiz back when I used to teach a proof writing class. A class that is taught at a level every IMOer or AMC10/AMC12 regular (or the Israeli equivalent) is far beyond. Sh
Re: (Score:1)
In the actual article it says she want to do theater ..
Also if you know the radius can't you just put down a compass (weird name in English) along the edge and draw a part of a circle inside the circle and then put it down somewhere else and repeat that and see where they meet?
Isn't the third line only needed to not put the center along the edge of the circle rather than the middle?
Or if you have a straight angle with 45 degrees marked onto it hold that towards the circle and mark out the 45 degrees and the
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, give her a break -- after all, math *is* hard.
Re: (Score:3)
That student in particular has a vested interest in a particular area of her field, and hopefully that will grow into a later expertise, and ultimately significant contributions to human knowledge.
Not so much. If you'd read the article, you'd have seen this:
Barbi remains unexcited. She is involved with theater arts, studies acting, plays the piano and the guitar, sings, and dances.
"I don't think math will become my profession. I hope to work in theater arts," Barbi says.
Re: (Score:2)
That student in particular has a vested interest in a particular area of her field, and hopefully that will grow into a later expertise, and ultimately significant contributions to human knowledge.
Well actually, from TFA:
Barbi remains unexcited. She is involved with theater arts, studies acting, plays the piano and the guitar, sings, and dances.
"I don't think math will become my profession. I hope to work in theater arts," Barbi says.
the news article misses key word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The linked news article misses the key features of the line segments: "of equal length". The "theorem" as mentioned in the news article is patently false.
Not only that, the three line-segments must intersect the edge of the circle at three distinct points. That may seem like nitpicking, but precise language is important in mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have two line segments that start and stop in the same place then you only have one line segment, therefore you do not have the three line segments needed.
If you have two numbers a and b, then 1/(a-b) is always defined. Oh, wait ... it is not defined if a=b. You might claim "well then, you only have one number" but that doesn't change the fact that you must exclude the case a=b.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Euclid isn't the last word in geometry. Given the definitions, axioms, and postulates as written, it is impossible to prove Proposition I of Book I.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The center of said circumscribed circle is the intersection of the bisectors of the three sides of the triangle.
"bisectors" are rays which divide angles in two equal angles. Maybe the place of points equidistant from the endpoints of a line segment? That's a perpendicular bisector of the sides.
Three non aligned points define one circle (the circumcircle of the triangle).
This is not axiomatic. It's a theorem. And you can prove that it's logically equivalent to the theorem proved by the student, but that doesn't prove either one of the two theorems. You need a separate proof of one of the two theorems before they both can be considered as having been proved. In fact, proving the theorem tha
Re: (Score:2)
the ensemble of all the points that are the same distance from each end point of the segment.
Not the "ensemble". The "place" of all the points which are the same distance from each end point of the line segment. And you have to say perpendicular bisector, because even if "line segment bisector" were a standard term, it would not mean perpendicular. There is infinitely many non-perpendicular lines intersecting a given line segment in the middle.
Her "theorem" also needs to use the fact that three distinct points define at most one triangle.
The fact that three distinct points define a unique triangle follows from the definition of a triangle and the fifth postulate. It does not use her theo
Feelgood story about how "smart" israeli kids are (Score:1)
Feelgood story about how smart israeli kids are, same as egyptian stories bubbling up from time to time...
This is what she "invented".
http://www.mathopenref.com/const3pointcircle.html
Non-invention (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, the article says:
That's a definition, not a theorem. Even if you're generous enough to fix the wording, it's been proven centuries ago [clarku.edu]. If a point is taken within a circle, and more than two equal straight lines fall from the point on the circle, then the point taken is the center of the circle.
Not to mention that the article doesn't actually give the proof, and is simply a "yay, new invention by youngster" fluff.
And if you need to include that in the blurb, it's perhaps a good reason the article itself is garbage, especially when the topmost comment shows exactly why it's wrong.
WTF?!? This is the very definition of circle! (Score:1)
How is this novel, or a theorem or anything for that matter? What is the definition of a circle - a line, all points on which lay an equal distance from a single point, being the circle's center. All lines connecting the center are of same length, and are radius(es) of that same circle. This is a definition, not a theorem. 3 lines with a common ending, define 3 points in space. Every circle can be defined either by a center coordinates and radius, or by coordinates of 3 points, laying on the ark line. This
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For all points on a line to be equidistant from the center of a circle, an infinite number of line segments of equal length must extend from the circle's center to the circle's edge. If the circle *is* a circle, then any three line segments of equal length extending from one point to three distinct points on the circle's edge are extended from the circle's center.
Geometric construction makes this obvious, IMO (Score:2)
I "discovered" all sorts of theorems (Score:2)
Misleading. Described only c. 2316 years ago (Score:1)
This algorithm was described by Euclid (the Greek) in his book "Euclids Elements" about 2300 years ago. She used it to do homework, was asked to make a proof by her teacher, which she did (with help). And why everyone is getting excited is somehow odd, especially the one from MIT who should know better (and should know the algorithm already or at least know of it. It makes for good internet theater though.
Proof (Score:3)
Incorrect report, now gets copied to Slashdot :-( (Score:5, Informative)
It's sad how stupid reporters report wrong "news", the error gets repeated all over the Internet, and finally lands in Slashdot whose editor didn't know the original news report was wrong.
The 16-year-old girl did not invent a previously-unknown theorem. What she did is to re-invent a theorem which Euclid already listed and proved over two thousand years ago (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookIII/propIII9.html). But Euclid listed hundreds of theorems, most have simple and basic proofs, and most of them are never specifically taught. In this case, the girl was not taught this theorem, but she thought that she could have used such a theorem in her homework, so she went about proving it (with help from her teacher, who was also not familiar with Euclid's mention of this theorem).
The girl's proof is different Euclid's, but still very simple and elementary, and is in no way a profound addition to Mathematics. But this girl is still admirable, in that she had the creativity and resourcefulness to imagine a "new" (to her) theorem, and to go around proving here - rather than sticking to the "cheat sheet" of theorems she was taught in class. This girl definitely deserves an A in her math class, but not worldwide mention on news classes.
Of course, it's not her fault, but rather that of the reporters who blew this story out of proportions, and reported this stuff as a new theorem, a breakthrough, or other irrelevant adjectives - without checking the validity of this "story" with any Mathematician worth his salt. This "story" should never have made headlines, and definitely not slashdot. But the girl still deserves praise, and of course an A :-)
IMHO, the theorem is gilbish (Score:2)
Theorem please? (Score:2)
Can anyone give the actual theorem as formulated by Tamar?
Because what she found sounds obvious, the proof is well within reach of a relatively gifted 10th-grader helped by a teacher and isn't new. In itself, nothing impressive.
The interesting part would be if she found some particularly clever way of solving the problem of if her proof shows some particularly deep understanding of maths.
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoid much? It might indeed be bullshit but I'm not seeing Trump everywhere I look....or Hillary either for that matter. Enough with the political hysteria already.
Re: (Score:3)
Euclid's Elements, Proposition 9.
Her proof is either elegant, or clumsy but a great effort, depending who you ask.
You thought you were going to sound smarty, didn't you? I don't doubt your background is as you imply, more than minimal, but you simply forgot the relevant details and then presumed they don't exist. You even made up an argument for why! So no matter how smart you were, you'd still be an idiot.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoy... [clarku.edu]
Way to disuade potential talent. (Score:2)
When I was 11 I had a newspaper route. I bought a light for my bike that used a generator to produce light when I pedaled and that got my young mind thinking. Why not make a generator that produced the electricity and use its energy to turn the wheel? Of course I had no understanding of the conservation of energy at the time. I brought the idea up to my stepfather, his answer was "somebody smarter than you has already thought of that, you need to learn a trade." So I learned a trade and gave up exploring po
Re: (Score:1)
No you see, she's a Jew so we're obligated to fawn over every little trivial discovery. Kind of like when a baby takes its first steps.
Meanwhile, a few miles away at a Palestinian school, teachers instruct their students on the best way to kill Jews.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf, why do you bring up this persons Jewish background that way? And how do you know they are not Muslim. So shut the fuck up you fucking piece of worthless anti-Semite shit. What the fuck does religious background have to do with anything here, apart from showing the fugly face of dirt bag filth-filled bellybutton scum like you. Go fuck yourself you fucking gutter rat.
Wow, someone touched a nerve.
Re:"Didn't actually exist" = "No dedicated name" (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you know they are not Muslim?
The summery said Israeli not Palestinian. The Jews wouldn't allow Muslims into their country.
According to the CIA world factbook, 17.5% of Israelis are Muslim. [cia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't recognize Palestine.
The CIA World Factbook does recognize The West Bank [cia.gov] as a distinct entity, just not under the name Palestine.
Groups that believe that the West Bank and Gaza are a part of Israel, such as the Jewish Virtual Library, place the percentage of Muslims in Israel at 20.7% [jewishvirtuallibrary.org] of the total Israeli population.
Re: (Score:3)
The Jews wouldn't allow Muslims into their country.
Wrong [wikipedia.org] and woefully ignorant
Disclaimer: I do not support Zionists or any other terrorist group.
Re: (Score:2)
Tamar doesn't live in Turkey. What are you going on about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Barbi is a scientist (Score:4, Interesting)
Look she is a scientist too! She is female and non white, this is so great, much greater than the theorem. We have so few theorems we can name after women, its really great we now can prove the patriarchists that cunts are smarter than dicks!
Yeah but she doesn't want to do maths she wants to be an actress, just like the rest of them....../sigh
Re: (Score:2)