For a while, a long while, I let this math blog just sit. I didn’t want to delete it. I spent too much time on it and I knew it was full of great stuff that was still being used. But I wasn’t in love with writing on it.
In my lethargy, the hackers and jerks managed to infiltrate and completely take it down. That was on October 23, 2025.
Today is December 30, 2025. I rescued all the posts and will gradually get all the good ones reposted. But I have to start over, creating the whole website from scratch.
Luckily the wayback machine (internet archive) has a nice snapshot of the images and layout. It’ll take me a while, but I’ll get it all back up. Maybe even with some improvements!
If you are looking for a specific post – something you remember from long ago or something you want to know about – leave it in the comments. I’ll hunt it down and get it posted.
I’m looking forward to having all those great math stories, thoughts and tips live again – I hope you are too.
I do #KnickKnackYack in the #MathShack live every weekday morning at 6am EST on Periscope. I share the random knickknacks accumulated through years of math blogging. Sometimes on a math object. Sometimes on something totally random. Always with wit, humor and a little math. Follow @MathFour on Periscope or Twitter to get notifications of when it broadcasts.
It inspired me to draw the graphs of Celsius in terms of Fahrenheit and Fahrenheit in terms of Celsius.
The conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit and back again can be strange. One way to understand it is on a graph. And you can use this to teach some linear algebra too!
Notice these two intersect at (-40, -40). Which means that -40°F is -40°C!
Use it to convert temperatures.
The x values on the red line are Celsius – so find the °C you have and then look at the y-value to convert to °F.
It’s just the opposite on the purple line.
Okay, fine. This isn’t the greatest way to convert – but it’s exciting to see it graphically. And it might be easier to convert this way for someone who’s more visual.
Use it to teach math!
These two lines are inverses of each other. So the coordinates of one are switched to make the other.
Also, they mirror image across that 45° line. I marked the line with dashes and wrote on it.
And if you’re into this, their functional composition (both ways) is… x! (not factorial)
Compare and Contrast…
Take a look at the way J.D.Roth did it and then look at the graphs I have. Let your students find the way they like the best. And encourage them to create new ways!
Oh, yeah – and share what happens in the comments!
One of my very best friends got married last weekend. On my way home from her wedding I started thinking about the similarities of getting married and doing math.
1. Doing it while other people watch can make you nervous.
Being at the board or being at the altar is a freaky experience. The pressure’s on.
2. Taking classes can make you better at it.
Couples counseling, Marriage Encounter and marital classes are available. You learn stuff. You grow.
If you find the right math class, you can improve your math learning. Even if you find the wrong math class, you’ll learn something. And grow.
3. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it.
Anyone who’s ever been married will tell you there are challenges. And sometimes those challenges are downright painful. But sticking together and pushing through will make your marriage stronger.
And every math student will tell you there are challenges. Even students to which math seems natural can hit walls. If you push through, you’ll be a stronger math student.
4. It’s about communication. Sometimes.
There are two parts to love and marriage: your feelings, and the communication of those feelings. If you don’t have both, your marriage is doomed.
There are two parts to mathematics: the math itself, and the communication of the math. What we teach is really only the communication of math. But if a student doesn’t have a basic understanding of the math itself, his mathematical success is doomed.
5. Some people are better for you than other people.
If you’ve ever been in a bad relationship, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a similar feeling when you have to sit through a math class with a teacher who’s mean, intellectually inferior, or smells bad.
Choosing a good partner in math learning is important. So is a choosing a good partner in life.
6. Trial and error is involved. A lot.
Marriage involves trial and error. With a heavy emphasis on error.
You’re going to mess up. But each time you err, try again. Learning and growing is part of the marriage process.
For math: ditto.
7. Going all in makes a big difference.
When you get married you make a huge commitment. On the outside.
If you also make that huge commitment on the inside, with your heart and soul and all your being, your marriage will be better for it.
For math, you can buy books, hire tutors, sign-up for classes. But you have to make the commitment, on a heart and soul level, to go all in.
8. It can be frightening and intimidating.
Marriage is a huge commitment. It means vulnerability – full out. And that’s pretty scary.
Children learn early on, for better or worse, that grown-ups expect right answers when they do math. And since there’s an awful lot of failure in math, this means serious vulnerability.
(And for some, doing math is a lot more scary than getting married!)
9. It’s tough, but if you stick with it, it pays off.
Marriage is hard. Really hard. Mostly because of that vulnerability thing, though. As you push through, your marriage gets better.
Math is hard. Sort of. And strangely, it’s because of the vulnerability thing. Once you settle in and embrace the failures as learning moments, your math learning skyrockets.
10. Joking about how dreadful it is can be damaging to your children.
Which breaks down into about five reasonable areas. And because this is all about seeing what those are (instead of just numbers), I created a handy infographic.
The light areas are the 20% rectangles — and you can move them anywhere.
Like it? Share it on Pinterest! And if you use it, leave your Facebook fan page link in the comments so we can see how you applied it.
Children look to their parents when forming opinions — including developing anxieties. Check out this infographic to see where you might be — and how your parents influenced you.
This story is a long, wandering one. Someday, if I get the privilege to meet you, I’ll buy you a glass of wine and bore you to sleep with the details.
For now, I’ll give you the gist.
Two years ago today we went to the Houston Museum of Natural Science to see the “Pirates” exhibition. We ended our visit in the gift shop. When we were in the book store I heard a strange voice.
I looked down and saw a math dictionary.
It repeated itself, “Bon! Stop blogging about goofy stuff and start a website about math. You know you’re supposed to. Quit avoiding it.”
Since I’d never had a book speak to me before, I purchased it.
Who knows what I told Husband at the time. I probably didn’t mention that math books were talking to me. <crazy!>
I bought the book and went home and purchased the domain name www.MathIsNotAFourLetterWord.com.
Luckily for the typing fingers of the parents around the world, I soon shortened the url to www.MathFour.com.
I’ve done a lot in two years.
The goal of Math Is Not a Four Letter Word is to help parents see the math in the world around them and say it out loud to their kids.
To this end, I’ve done the following:
Teamed with Wil Devine, LPC as the Research Guy.
Created a free online website called That’s Math! with a super focus on giving parents exactly what math to say about the world around them.
My ten year goal is this: to get parents to treat math talk like they treat reading. Do it early. Do it frequently. And do it with a smile.
What’s next…
On the docket for this year is
More content and promotion for That’s Math!
Infographics (almost done with the first)
Writing for more sites (especially educational ones)
Promoting math like a lunatic on Pinterest and Facebook
Monetizing the site
That last one might seem a little out of place. And it was hard to decide on.
But I have a family and giving out free content doesn’t pay the bills. In fact, if I don’t pay the bills, I won’t have time to give out free content.
So I’m going to be selling ads and sponsored posts — but you’ll know it when I do. I won’t do anything sneaky or weird.
And there’s a book in the future!
And the big thing is there’s a Kindle book to come out this quarter. I’ll be setting up a survey to solicit your input — I’m writing it for you!
So start thinking about what you’d like to see in a book. If you want to share your ideas before I get the survey out, feel free to leave them in the comments.
Thanks for a great two years — I’m looking forward to more!
Scholastic Publishing has been accused of pushing the liberal agenda by Eric Bolling on the Fox News network. The problem with Eric Boling’s rant isn’t that he’s wrong, but that he uses the wrong argument.
The analogy of “distributing the wealth” was clearly meant to explain the situation. But there are two problems here:
Scholastic’s analogy fails
Eric Bolling doesn’t know that the analogy fails
Scholastic should be on the hook here, but less for indoctrination and more for obscuring mathematics!
What IS the distributive property?
The distributive property allows us to “distribute” a scaling number. For example, my cookie recipe calls for
1 pound butter
1 1/2 cups sugar
4 1/2 cups flour
This means my cookies will be made from this addition:
3 x 1 pound butter + 3 x 1 1/2 cups sugar + 3 x 4 1/2 cups flour
You’re not distributing anything real, but you’re distributing the scale!
How would this look for money?
You don’t distribute money, because money is something real. (Remember you can only distribute the scale.)
If money were to be involved in an example it could look like this (liberal indoctrination included for entertainment value):
Every year Karen, the rich girl, donates $500 to the Salvation Army, $250 to her local food bank, and $1200 to her church.
$500 + $250 + $1200
This year she got a big fat raise, because the rich get richer, and she wants to triple all her donations. So this looks like:
3 x ($500 + $250 + $1200)
3 x $500 + 3 x $250 + 3 x $1200
Scholastic attempts an analogy — and fails.
The image and title of the scholastic worksheet implies that money can be distributed in the manipulation of algebra. This is not just misleading, but completely wrong.
And since the subheading is “understanding the distributive property,” it’s also offensive.
Eric Bolling was making the wrong point.
Eric Bolling’s argument should have been:
“The distributive property distributes the scale, it can’t distribute money. Therefore either scholastic developers don’t know what they’re doing, or they are specifically inserting liberal indoctrination.”
I sincerely believe that the developers of scholastic use the “distribute the wealth” as an attempt of an analogy. Unfortunately the analogy fails mathematically and it also frustrates the politically conservative.
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Note: I purchased this worksheet from Scholastic for the purposes of commenting here.
