Ed.: Upon significant review, and the further clarification provided in rule 3a, this sign has been deemed invalid because it implicitly contains a decimal number. The post and the feedback for it will continue to be available here, however since this sign is not a winner it has been stripped of it’s state flag and other decoration. The justification behind different units was ultimately deemed invalid.
Jim Bernard Sr. (the Sr. to the Jr. that brought us Jack Trice and Guthrie), sends in this mathematically significant mile marker from Iowa. The father-son ties are strong with this sign being within a mile of Guthrie. This sign was riddled with some debate as it very clearly tickles with rule #3 requiring only natural numbers. After all, it seems obvious that the 7 is indicative of 88.7 and would thus be ruled invalid. However, when pressed for justification Mr. Bernard provided a very clear and logical argument.
It seems that this is a question of decimals, integers and units. My view is that we have three kinds of units associated with integers in this sign: 35, an integer with comes from the federal government and indicates a highway, let’s call this highway units; 88, an integer which indicates miles from some base point, let’s call this mile units; and 7, an integer which indicates tenths of a mile from some base point, let’s call this tenths of a mile units.
Indeed this sign escapes rule #3 by an incredibly thin margin. If the sign contained a “.7″ (which is more normal than the color differentiation), it clearly would not be allowed in Road Sign Math.
While the sign is very exciting, the math is yet another example of the most common pi calculation, 22 over 7.
{88 \over {35 - 7}} \equiv 3.142857 \equiv 3.14 \equiv \pi
This sign is found in Iowa on southbound I-35, a few miles north of Des Moines. The GPS coordinates are approximately N41 41 11.8 W93 34 33.2. See sign on map!
14 responses so far ↓
1 Randy Weiss // Dec 3, 2005 at 8:34 am
2 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 3, 2005 at 2:42 pm
The rules are noticably quiet in regards to vertical numbers, something that should likely be remedied right away. I did a quick scan of all the winning signs thus far and there is no precedent regarding vertical numbers.
I would say that the judgment must break in one way or the other. Either vertical numbers are treated as real values, or as individual integers. Founders intent would lean towards the sign interpretation, which is that this sign clearly is indicated 88.7.
Comments?
3 jim bernard sr // Dec 3, 2005 at 2:48 pm
4 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 3, 2005 at 2:53 pm
5 jim bernard sr // Dec 3, 2005 at 3:59 pm
6 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 3, 2005 at 7:35 pm
7 David Slauenwhite (posted by RSM Admin) // Dec 3, 2005 at 7:37 pm
8 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 3, 2005 at 7:42 pm
9 Jim Jr. // Dec 3, 2005 at 8:42 pm
As for the sign at hand, I think what’s interesting here is that the item that the rules require, a decimal, is not on the sign. The differentiation between the two numbers is by using a color scheme as well as the placement on the sign (a separate row). If you didn’t know the function you would definitely assume that 88 and 7 were not related at all. The only way we "get" the idea of a decimal is through context which of course we all understand.
Given the context you then can start peeling back the whole "is it an integer for a smaller unit" onion. I believe eventually you end up with teary eyes going down that path. But I’m coming at this from the English major’s prospective, not the Math or Engineering professors prospective. And I agree with David (and Jim Sr. who had pointed this out at Thanksgiving dinner) that this type of sign allows for more precision, Though I do wonder if the simple sequential target cheapens the hunt. Not that there haven’t been RSM enthusiasts (David?) who have mapped out where they think a qualifying sign might be and then gone after it.
Like David, let me disclaim that I’m not arguing on behalf of the home team. Dad can take care of himself here. My humble suggestion is that we let this one ride and make a notation about "implied" decimals or fractions in the rules. I think there could be some (incremental) debate on whether such signs should be included or not. I’m guessing math aficionados will vote for exclusion and English majors will see the poetry of the color scheme as being worthy of inclusion regardless of the numeric logic. ;>
10 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 3, 2005 at 8:52 pm
11 Randy Weiss // Dec 4, 2005 at 9:09 pm
I feel that the ‘intent’ of this Iowa Mile Marker (or any sign), if it can be unambiguously determined, should be if not a GUIDE, then at least a FACTOR in the sign’s consideration under RSM. Using this practical rule, and relying on RSM’s illustriative and omnipotent veracity in any such determinations, I contend that this sign reads, "35, 88.7", and is therefore disallowed under the current rules.
However, don’t forget that I have always felt that the inclusion of ANY fraction or decimal in any sign would be both interesting and challanging in the hunt for signs. [Note: I have about 8-10 such signs from here in MA that are 'winners' all set and ready to go in this event. ] =)
12 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 8, 2005 at 6:48 am
I believe we are going to have to take a more direct approach with these "virtual" decimals than perviously had been planned.
Decision coming soon.
13 Jim Jr. // Dec 11, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Again, a poets point of view. No doubt my father the Engineer (and submitter) would think this overly sentimental. Because if it is wrong then it’s just plain wrong. Even if the rules change.
; >
14 Road Sign Math Administrator // Dec 11, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Leave a Comment