Do athletes do better in school during their seasons?

In the article "Do athletes do better in school during their seasons?" the author claims that student athletes do better in school during their playing seasons because they pay more attention in class because of their busy schedule, the author claims the student is more motivated academically to do their homework and keep their grades up. I agree with the author's claim, but I also think it depends on the student athlete them self weather their academically motivated or not to do better in school during their playing seasons.

The Pursuit of Happiness

If I and my family had become homeless, I would create a plan to get us back on our feet. I would keep working if I were to keep my job, and get some extra jobs to help out, and I'd have my family do the same. We would have to stay together at all times, and sell any belongings that were not important. I don't think that all people who are homeless are bad people, although they are seen as bad people through most people's eyes, and it does not necessarily have to be the person's fault that their homeless, it's not always because of poor choices, but sometimes because of a bad situation. Watching the Pursuit of Happiness has taught me a lot about the struggles of people who are homeless. Homelessness in this country is a huge problem.

Homeless Struggles

"The Pursuit of Happiness" it really did change my opinion on the homeless, it taught me that homelessness in our country is a huge problem, and the biggest problem isn't just that the people are homeless but the rest of the worlds poor opinion on them, and a lot of homeless look at them self in this way, and place themselves in this dead end. And what homeless people need is some hope and help to get back on their feet, and we can't just stand and watch, but stand in and help and we need teach to not shame the homeless and be a more easy open subject so it can end as a whole.

The Pursuit of Happyness

If my family had gone homeless and we were out on the street, I would think of a plan like getting a job to get myself started, sell some unnecessary items, put myself out there to better, higher paying jobs. Not all homeless people are bad people, Some of them are military veterans, some of them don't have drug problems, and some can be very smart people.

If my family and I became homeless I honestly dont know how I would react at first. Id probably wonder why I didnt work or help my family more and go through a week of that and then I would try to make a plan. My first plan would be to keep working and maybe pick up an extra job and have all my family do the same thing. My second plan would be sell any of my possessions that are valuable and that I dont need. Watching the pursuit of happiness made me realize that not all homeless people made mistakes to become homeless. Sometimes things just dont go as planned I am glad I got to watch this movie because I for sure learned a lot.

The Pursuit of Happyness

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH):


• 754,000 people were homeless on an average day in the U.S. in 2005. (This was less than .3 % of the U.S. population.) Only about 55% could find a place in a shelter. The rest, about 335,000 people, were on the streets. One-third of the unsheltered homeless (approximately 112,000 people) were persons in families. Most of these were children.
• 47% of all homeless people are men and 59% are minorities.
• 39% are children younger than 18; 42% of these children are under the age of 5.
• 40% are veterans.
• A person's rent should typically cost about 30% of his or her earnings (leaving money for food, clothing, education, and other necessities); however, "in every state, more than [30% of earnings at] the minimum wage is required to afford a one or two-bedroom apartment." Then where do minimum-wage earners with families live? All too often they are forced into homeless shelters or they live on the streets.


"The"The Pursuit of Happyness" tells us that homelessness isn't a problem for "other" people; it's a problem for "real" people. It's important to remember The Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. What if you or members of your family were without a place to sleep and there was no one to help you? How would you create a plan for you and your family, as the main character in this film had to do? Be thoughtful in your approach and reference the importance of adhering to a budget.

I think it all depends on the student-athlete if their grades stay up or not. Time management is a huge element to having sports practices and school on a daily basis. I do agree that time is appreciated more and paying attention in class is more important knowing you have a busy schedule after class. Having a ¨study table" is a very smart idea I think considering there might be other people in the same situation as you and need a buddy to study with. Having weekly grade checks for eligibility to practice and play is a good method to get students to try harder and get better grades. All in all, students should know how to manage their time no matter if they´re in sports or not.

Student Athletes

     In the article "Do athletes do better in school during their seasons?" the authors claim that student athletes tend to do better in school during the season. They say that they're more organized, they're more alert, and that they get their work done. However, they also said that in the end it just depends on the athletes themselves and what sports they're playing because during one season they can be on top of things while during another sport they're falling behind. I agree with the authors because when you're playing a sport, you don't have nearly as much free time as you used to so you have to take advantage of any spare time. Also, since athletes have a busy schedule, they're alert during class because they don't have the time to learn everything later. And like the authors said, in the end it just depends on the athlete and their sport.

The author claims that students do better while in sports because they learn how to manage their time better because they're used to not having a lot of time to get things done. also, he claims that students feel more motivated to do their homework because they want to keep their grades up. I overall agree with the authors claims because i myself are in sports and know how it feels.

Do athletes do better in school during their seasons?

I think that people that are involved in any type of sport can be more organized and focused than others because they have to learn to manage their time wisely. "I definitely have athletes who, when they're in season, seem to be a little bit more organized, more focused and maybe a little bit more motivated," Freeland said. At The University of Kansas, they found that in general, athletes had higher academic performance than non-athletes. I think that being involved in some type of sport will definitely help you academically.

Do Athletes do better in school during their seasons? Response.

I feel the Article makes multiple valid arguments, Sports really do have an impact on your academic life, i believe allot of usually low GPA students push hard for an above 2.0 during the Sports season in order to be able to stay apart of the team and play, but i do feel the sports can have the tendency to have somewhat of a negative effect on Higher GPA students in the 3.6-4.0 students because they usually are the ones who spend a longer time on school work and studying so when sports get involved it messes with there schedule and they no longer can spend as long of a time on their after school learning, But i definitely wouldn't say this applies to "most" Higher GPA students, but probably some.
But back to my original\ statement I would say Sports have a manly positive affect on how students put and effort into school and also learn.

Student Athletes!

             In the article "Do athletes do better in schools during their season" written by Morgan Divittorio and Matthew Barbato, the subject at hand is if sports really do affect students grades. I personally believe that it all depends on how rigorous the practice for that particular sport is. In the article, the authors stated that when sports are in session, students have less time to be lazy and jump right on their homework when they get the chance. I disagree with this claim because if the practice for that sport is really tough, then all you are going to want to do is sleep. I understand that in order to play the sport in the first place a student needs good grades; however, they only need a 2.0 which isn't that hard, it's straight C's. I can't speak for all students by saying this is easy, but you don't need to go all out on assignments. When it is the off season for sports you have more time to to relax, which actually makes it easier to work when you need to.

Do Athletes Do Better in School During Their Seasons?

In the article “Do athletes do better in school during their seasons?” Morgan DiVittorio and Matthew Barbato acknowledge that in-season student-athletes are challenged to be more organized and better managers of their time, but those skills do not always equate to higher grades year-round. Summarize the authors’ claims and explain whether or not you agree with their arguments based on the evidence provided in the text.

New devices keep a close watch on teen drivers

In the article "New devices keep a close watch on teen drivers" By Jonathan Takiff, I personally think the new technology is a great way to start learning how to drive because it helps teens stay focused on the road.
I believe limiting texting is most important, because texting among teens or among anyone is the most dangerous thing to do while driving. Being in control of your child's limits is really important for your child's safety, and anyone else's safety on the road with them.

New Devices Keep a Close Watch on Teen Drivers

I believe that this New Technology is a positive step forward, It's Perfect for taking Baby Steps towards Driving, and Also insuring your child's safety. I personally would use this car on my children when they drive, The idea of being able to control the limit and make a border i believe is a positive not only for your child's safety, but also the safety of other people on the road.

There are some crazy new devices discussed in this article. I believe the devices are good and would probably make driving safer but some people will find loops holes in the products. But all together the car is an amazing new advancement. I think parents will like this because they know that their children will be more concentrated on driving and not doing other things.  The device will also teach young drivers important rules that they should follow.

Teen Drivers

I think that the new devices in cars help the person concentrate on the road more because it only allows them to listen to music unless the seat belts are fastened, volume is limited so that they can still hear things like sirens, and some apps even block texts when you are moving faster than 10 or 25 mph. All these things are good for safe driving.  

This new Teen Driver tech car is the ultimate car to have if you're a parent and want to keep your teen drivers on lock. The features this car has are pretty advanced for this generation considering parents could set a range of mileage they could drive or how red lights flash that warn you're too close to another car. The way the car distinguishes which driver is which is by the different keys, the parent driver key and the teen driver key. Personally, I wouldn't want this car, even if I had teen kids, I would just buy them a regular car and have them know how to follow the rules on the road. Considering in the real world, there aren't apps to stop the addiction of coffee.

I for sure think that these new devices that can keep a close watch and restrict teenage drivers from certain things will improve driving conditions. First off because it can restrict certain things like it wont let the music play unless the seat belts are buckled or you can put a certain speed limit on the car. I think that all first time drivers should get these kind of cars even if its just temporary so they can adjust safely to the driving world.

Keeping Watch on Teen Drivers

After reading the article about devices that keep a close watch on teen drivers, I believe that some of the things the devices use aren't very useful but others are. For example, I think the music being muted until all seat belts are buckled is a great idea but teens can easily go around it and just buckle the seat belts without actually wearing them. Also, having the two different keys won't always be effective because they can be easily swapped. Other than that, I think the devices are a good idea. They track speed, distance, and how many times drivers have to slam the breaks. Some even block texting. Overall, I think that they're a great idea to try and prevent accidents on the road.

In "New devices keep a close watch on teen drivers" by Jonathan Takiff, it states that there are new car installations that limits what teen drivers do. This article says that this device knows when there is a teen driver behind the wheel.Also, it says "DriveMode do block texts when sensing a phone is moving above 10 mph or 25 mph, respectively". Furthermore it states that parents can limit the cars speed and the volume of the music. Overall, I think this is a necessary addition to teen drivers cars because it allows parents to be involved with what their children are doing without being there all the time.

New Devices For Teens Drivers

                  In the AVID weekly article that we just read, we learned about a new car that "keeps an eye" on teen drivers. I honestly think this is a really good idea because, as the article states, car crashes are the leading cause of teen deaths in the U.S. The only thing I don't agree with is the fact that your parents can set a speed maximum. The reason I don't like this is because sometimes its more dangerous to drive slow than it is fast. For example, if you need to go the speed of traffic to prevent crashes or get out of the way of a crazy driver. For the most part, I think this car is an amazing idea.

New Devices Keep a Close Watch on Teen Drivers

After reading the article by Jonathan Takiff, "New Devices Keep a Close Watch on Teen Drivers," what are your initial thoughts? Do you think devices that monitor teenage driving patterns and/or create certain safety features (like not allowing the music to play unless all seat belts are fastened) will actually improve driving conditions? Why or why not?

I personally feel like the process in getting your license is not that bad and people need to stop overreacting. I also believe that everyone should have to take the permit test no matter if your over age 18 or not because I feel it is important not only knowing how to drive but to know the rules of the road as well.

Teen Drivers

Teenagers face many difficulties with balancing out their schedules and having to also fit in time to get their driver's license. Using our data analyses and conversations in class, how do you feel about the process? What would you do to change it and why?

Limiting TV and Music

I believe that parents should emphasize a limit on how much time children spend watching TV and listening to music because some people cannot concentrate well, for example: Mr. Bowker has to tell people to put away their phones / headphones every day because they can't pay attention to what is being taught. 67.9% of the 15-17 year old kids say they get bored easily, and 71.4% of the 14-16 year old kids get bored easily. Electronics is a huge cause of distraction.

Limiting Music and TV

Even though music and TV can be fun pass-times, they can become a problem when people spend their whole day listening to music and/or watching TV. Approximately 48% of the people who took this survey said they get bored easily, and of the 48% percent who said  that, a majority are of the younger generation. Also, approximately half of the people who took this survey listen to music for more than 3 hours a day. All of this can become a problem because, since they're so used to listening to music or watching TV, they'll become sort of addicted to it that when it comes time to put all that away, they won't be able to. If they're limited to the amount of access they get per day, this might not happen.

Limiting TV/ and music use

In my opinion, teachers, parents, and employers should limit the use of technology if it imposes a problem with concentration. In a recent survey that my A.V.I.D class did, we gathered enough data to say that the younger generation is more easily bored and needs technology to entertain themselves. Although 62% of 15-17 year olds watch less than an hour of T.V a day, i nobody in that group listened to less than an hour. In conclusion, technology is definitely a distraction.  

I believe that teachers, parents, and employers should emphasize a limit on music or tv watching, because for one it takes up a lot of there time, 25% of the people who took our survey listen to more than 5 hours of music a day, 65% of those people get bored easily. Also 25% of the people watch 3-4 hours of tv. 80% of people who enjoy reading say they don't get bored easily, I believe that reading has a correlation to getting bored.

   I believe that parents and teachers do not have to start worrying to much about how many hours of TV and music children watch or listen to. First of all, although more children watched television than liked to read this does not clearly show how it affects their academic success. Also, say student 1 loves to read and student 2 loves to listen to music and they both have a 4.0 then you cannot say that the music academically affects student 2.All in all, this survey did not have enough results to determine any serious negative effects in which parents or teachers would need to worry about.

According to the data from the survey, most responses were from people 24 and older. These responses said they enjoyed reading the most but also watch TV the most. This proves that adults could manage their time more than younger people. Another claim I could make according to the data is how younger people listen to the most music. This is very true because at our school, students are usually wearing headphones. I believe listening to music is a good thing in some cases as to concentrating on schoolwork, but also a distraction in class and in other activities. When the question of "Are you bored easily?" came up, the results were pretty strange because they were 50/50 results. I do believe that the amount of technology that we use should be controlled and limited because that is how addictions start.

Haley Campbell

I believe that parents,teachers,and employers should limit the amount of time certain age groups listen to music or watch TV because eventually they will not want to make time for anything important. Though the data I have does not back up my claim it does show a trend in age groups and how much people enjoy listening to music. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S5bxCFAZjLAk_FSl4AERujIltVDCd0UR6xNyGtpEM_g/edit#gid=1860054029 . The data shows that more than 25% of people listen to music 5 hours or more a day, now if for example an employer or school is a hindrance to getting in that 5 hours of music in a day  how many people will have trouble with not being able to do so?  eventually the people will lose interest in schoolwork or job assignments and just stop doing work in order to do the things they want like listening to music or watching TV. Therefore I stress that employers,parents,and teachers should limit an amount of time certain age groups can listen to music or watch TV so they can stay on track for whats really important.

Should There be a Limit to TV and/or Music?

Using data to validate your claims, why should parents, teachers and/or employers emphasize a limit for the amount of time that certain age groups spend listening to music or watching TV? Answer this question with a minimum of three claims and then comment on a minimum of two other posts. 

In defense of boredom

In this article,  Rosecrans Baldwin talks about how when people are bored,  they'll put in their headphones,  sometimes even to avoid people. He used his own personal experience to prove his point and I 100% agree with it because even I do this. However, I feel as though he should've used better evidence rather than his own personal experience because this article didn't change my opinion even slightly about wearing headphones and listening to music when I'm bored.

When failure equals success

In this article, the author talks abut how failure important, not only in science but also, in life. If it weren't for failing a few times, science probably wouldn't be as accurate as it is. To prove his point,  the author uses real life examples of replication failure that have happened in the past like Loewi and his experiment. If he hadn't tried time after time we would have inaccurate information about neurotransmision. I agree with the author because in order to succeed and be accurate with your work,  you need to fail and learn from your mistakes.

"When failing equals success"

I believe that in order to succeed you need to fail. When people say that the science field is going down due to experiment failures, I think they're wrong because failing will lead to perseverance and coming up with more ideas. Science is a field that requires failure to come up with solutions or an answer to a problem in the real world.

"In defense of boredom"
I think the author has stated good reasons why boredom is a good thing and a lead to a new way of thinking. People are ignorant about their surroundings and about the sometimes strange human behavior. Personally, I can relate to the example of the earbuds because whenever I'm bored in public I use music as a way to block myself from socializing. I think everyone should stop a habit similar to this one, that intends to not get "bored", and perhaps a new way of thinking will lead to something revolutionary.

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
-It's okay and sometimes necessary to be bored
-Boredom inspires you to go out and do stuff.
-we shouldn't use headphones as much
2) What evidence does the author use to make his or her claims?
-Boredom becomes worse when a situation seems valueless."
-"Quitting headphones is similar. I daydream more. I have more ideas..."

3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?
-I see where the author is coming from as boredom can inspire you, but i don't agree with his ideas on headphones, like he has barely any evidence, but his own personal experience.  

When failing equals success

In the article " When failing equals success," written by Stuart Firestein, the author claims that failing is needed to succeed. Evidence: In the early 20th century controversy raged over how nerves made muscles and glands respond. In 1921 an Austrian biologist, Otto Loewi, tested it, and later succeeded after learning from his failures. I agree with the authors claims in this article because failure plays a huge roll on success, you will need to learn from your failures in order to succeed. 

AVID Weekly

       I enjoyed the "when failing equals success" much more then the first article. I liked that the author actaully used scientific evidence rather than personal experience. I completely agree that the science department is not going down do to failure; failure is just a part of succeeding. "Science would be in a complete crisis if we weren't failing most of the time" is my favorite quote from this article.

When Failing Equals Success

Stuart Firestein states that "without failures there would be no great discoveries." 

I agree with Firestein because how would we learn, without learning what's wrong/incorrect?

Firestein(2016): "science is full of wrong turns, unconsidered outcomes, omissions and, of course, occasional facts."

When failing equals success

"When failing equals success",written by Stuart Firestein he claims that the majority of people start to go crazy when the hear that there was a "replication failure" and start to say things like "science is in trouble". However i do not agree because in order to make things work you have to fail first that is a part of life and nothing is perfect right away.

When failing equals success

I agree with Stuart Firestein in his article, "When failing equals success,"(2016), because he claims that failing is needed to succeed. Some people wonder, "Is science truly in trouble?"(pg.1), I don't agree with who ever says that because how can we get better if we don't fail, we aren't going to be perfect there is no such thing. when you test new theories and experiment with new ideas there's no way you aren't going to fail. Therefore, the failing is needed to succeed, failing shows you tried.

In defense of boredom By Rosecrans Baldwin

1.According to Baldwin pg 1 "That their is a constant within everyone's life, and it is that everyone has a story to share it just requires staying bored long enough to listen."

2. According to Baldwin pg 1 "I know I've often shoved in earbuds to discourage chatty seatmates on a plane. Baldwin statement comes from  Peter Toohey, book Boredom A Lively History.

3. I disagree because being bored sucks, and listening to some people also sucks because some people are annoying.

When failing equals success

I completely agree with the article "When Failing Equals Success" by Stuart Firestein. To sum this article up the author explains that in order to succeed you must fail and its ok to fail. Just because scientist have failed in certain experiments doesn't mean science is doomed for good even scientist mess up sometimes. According to Firestein (2016) "The mistake is to think that any publsihed paper or journal article is the end of the story and a statement of incontrovertible truth. It is a progress report. Dont be fooled." I couldnt agree more too me there is no way you can succeed without failing.  

"When Failing Equals Success" -Stuart Firestein

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
-Physiology can be seasonal and the enzymes are modulated by temperature
-Science would be in a crisis if it weren't failing most of the time.
-Replication failures should be responded without prejudice
-Not everything has to be perfect to be scientific.
-Its okay to fail, but it's not okay not to try
-You must not fool yourself when you fail
2) What evidence does the author use to take his or her claims?
-an example from a early 20th century when a scientist failed and learned.
-Replication failures should not be conflated with scientific part or even the whole of an experiment is not sufficient for indictment of the initial inquiry or its researchers.
3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?
I agree with the author opinion on i do feel how you see your failure has major affect on whether you succeed or not, like people think back allot more on there failures then there successes, and if you don't see your failures as learning point, but rather as like a finishing point. then there's no way you'll  ever learn, meaning you're never succeed.

In defense of boredom

I do not agree with all the claims made in, " In defense of boredom," by Rosecrans Baldwin(2016). He claims that we shouldn't use headphones so much, instead enjoy what's around us. Baldwin believes that without music he enjoys his run, can eavesdrop on other, and can find a resolution with his work day frustration. I think that I do better while listening to music, and a lot of times I solve problems because of music. The only thing I agree with is when Baldwin states, " The trick, perhaps, requires staying bored long enough to listen." (p.1), because if you listen to your thoughts while you are bored you may come up with solutions or understandings

In Defense Of Bordom.

In Defense of Boredom

After reading "In Defense Of Boredom" by Rosecrans Baldwin, Baldwin claims that " not that everyone wearing headphones is actually listening to something, they are just wearing them to be left alone." I have to agree with Baldwin because i have done this myself.

Baldwin says that when he quits wearing headphones, he daydreams, has more ideas, but the volume of everything is increased.

In defense of boredom

In "Defense of boredom" written by Rosecrans Baldwin, the author makes a central claim that headphones are bad and they separate people from their everyday lives and without headphones people start to get bored. As an example, Baldwin claims that he was in the post office and and the man in front of him had his headphones in and did not hear himself shouting into the microphone. Overall, I do not completely agree with the authors claims because just because someone is tuned out with their headphones doesn't mean the headphones are bad its the persons personal preference. However, I do agree with the fact that headphones play a role in the fact that the man went off screaming because he started not to realize he had them in and could not hear himself.

In defense of boredom

In Defense of Boredom

I do not agree with most of the claims Rosecrans Baldwin makes in the article from Avid Weekly titled "In defense of boredom". According to Baldwin (2016) "I couldn't remember the last time id exercised without a constant stream of stimulation, a cranium full of sound.After 15 minutes, I started paying more attention to the trail.My mind shifted to daydreams. Soon I was actually enjoying myself." Its cool and all that he found out he doesn't need headphones to run but thats him. I've tried to run without headphones and to me its just weird, just because he had a great experience running without music doesn't mean everyone will. Just like he enjoys day dreaming I enjoy listening to music not everyone's going to have the same experience. 

In the article " In defense of boredom," the author claims not listening to music is better for boredom, and you should embrace boredom

evidence: "Boredom becomes worse when a situation seems valueless."
               "Quitting headphones is similar. I daydream more. I have more ideas..."

I disagree with the author's stance because I believe that listening to music is better for passing by the time if you are bored. I also think if you are bored, then you have to make use of what you have because your bored only because you don't want to make good use of what your doing.

         AVID Weekly

         In defense of boredom: this article, written by Rosecrans Baldwin, was about unplugging from your headphones and being open to the world. Personally, I didn't agree with this article at all. The author noted that when she didn't have her headphones she was able to listen to her surroundings (people's conversations ect.), but that isn't good; that's being nosey and eavesdropping. Baldwin makes a statement concerning daydreaming, but later criticizes people who wear headphones simply for solitude. I disagree with that section because her claim seemed to be saying that people are unable to daydream in complete silence, when in fact, it makes it easier. I'm not saying that you shouldn't unplug from technology; however, its not fair to say that people are "missing out" or "soundless solitude may come at a cost." 

AVID Weekly: When Failing Equals Success / In Defense of Boredom

After reading both AVID Weekly articles, "When failing equals success" and "In defense of boredom," create a Blogger post for each article.

In each post provide a brief summary of the article, but please answer the following questions:

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
2) What evidence does the author use to make his or her claims?
3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?

After posting, please comment on two other posts (one for each article).

Read and Reflect: Kids Warned about Posting Online (AVID Weekly)

Read this post from AVID Weekly about digital citizenship and then post a reflective comment. Please comment on another classmate's comment to either respectfully challenge an idea, or to support an idea in agreement.

Why use the "three-acts" process for problem-solving?

I was recently introduced to a new way of thinking, referred to as the "three acts" by Dan Meyer. This process is very useful for taking a difficult problem and breaking it down into steps, leading to new questions.

Act 1: This is when the conflict is introduced to us, sort of like a movie, book, or TV show. What is the main problem? What do we think is being asked of us? What are our initial questions?

Act 2: Now we are provided some more clues to the problem or conflict. Just as a TV show develops its characters and script, our act 2 provides vital information that's necessary for solving a problem. But we may still have questions to ask, as any higher-level thinker would understand. Never settle for the most basic response!

Act 3: Our resolution. We finally learn the solution to the conflict or problem. With a math problem, we arrive at our "answer." However, this is where we should also extend the thinking, asking "What if" type questions.

What I've  noticed is that this three-act process leads to students being perplexed. We become obsessed with solving the problem and asking more questions. Dan Meyer argues that this process of problem-solving would lead to students grasping a better conceptualization of math problems, which is a more enriching thought.

With respect to math education today, there's too much scaffolding for students. In other words, we don't allow students the opportunity to ask important questions before providing them with all of the information they need to solve a given problem. Don't you think this is a problem? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Reference:

Meyer, Dan. (2011, May 11). The three acts of a mathematical story. (Web log comment). Retrieved from http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2011/the-three-acts-of-a-mathematical-story/