This is another problem from the defunct Wall Street Journal Varsity Math Week column.
“Team member Janice recently visited the U.K. and poses this puzzle to her teammates: You have three containers that can hold exactly 15, 10 and 6 pints. The 15-pint container starts full of cider. You want to measure out exactly 2 pints of cider, drink it all, and end with an empty 15-pint container and 8 and 5 pints of cider in the other two containers. What transfers should you make to accomplish this?”
The solution is based on my Three Jugs Problem. See Two Pints of Cider.
In light of subsequent events it may be that being a politician requires its own set of skills, but this praise of his profession of engineering before he became president casts the unfortunate Herbert Hoover in a different light. My father brought this surprising excerpt from Hoover’s autobiography to my attention years ago. I have highlighted the part that is especially insightful. Unfortunately, the balance of the chapter praising an engineer’s involvement in government does not fare as well, given the author, though a subsequent engineer US president, whatever his shortcomings, was never faulted for his honesty and moral rectitude. See the 
This 1975 New York Times article by Cyril Stanley Smith left an indelible impression over the years to the point that I wanted to capture it in digital format. I found a 1996 copy online, formatted it more closely to the original article, and found more recent images of the illustrations used in the original article. It is a powerful argument for the benefits of basic research vs. directed research. The pursuit of pure mathematics often is accused of being a product of imagination run rampant with no practical purpose. It is argued that Government expenditures of public moneys for research should be applied more to directed research that has specific practical goals with explicit criteria for success. It has always been difficult to argue otherwise. Smith’s article, however, goes a long way toward a rebuttal, as well as showing the benefits of play and artistic creativity for its own sake. See the 
This article is basically a technical footnote without wider significance. At the time I had been reading with interest Paul J. Nahin’s latest book Number-Crunching (2011). Nahin presents a problem that he will solve with the Monte Carlo sampling approach.
This was a catchy, misleading title that I could not resist, since my essay is not about math vs. religion as one might expect from the title, but rather about math helping religion. Back in 2016 I was reading Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s blog that he was writing in preparation for his eventual book, The Triumph of Christianity, in which he was considering Rodney Stark’s purely mathematical analysis of the growth of Christianity in the first three centuries. Neither Rodney Stark nor Bart Ehrman described explicitly the underlying mathematical models of exponential growth that they were using and exactly what was meant by a rate of growth. Given the natural audience for the subject, these omissions were not surprising. So I thought I would clarify the math and also offer some variations on the models, which eventually reflected the actual situation more faithfully. See 
I have always had a tenuous relationship with the concept of angular momentum, but recently my concerns resurfaced when I did my studies on Kepler, and in particular his 
This may be a futile attempt at an elementary introduction to complex variables by emphasizing their geometric properties. The elementary part is probably undermined by an initial discussion of field extensions and a necessary reference to trigonometry. Hopefully, the suppression of the explicit use of complex powers of Euler’s constant e until the very end will allow the geometric ideas to have center stage. A primary goal of the essay is to realize that complex polynomials involve sums of circles in the plane. The image of real polynomials as wavy curves in the plane is misleading for an understanding of complex behavior. See 
This post continues a meditation on the nature of mathematics begun in Part I. It involves the perennial question about whether mathematics is invented or discovered, and consequently evokes questions about mathematical reality. This subject is probably of little interest to most people, and even most mathematicians. But the extremely heavy involvement of mathematics in the descriptions of quantum mechanics, and the even more mathematically abstruse excursions into ideas such as string theory in an effort to wed quantum mechanics to general relativity, force us to confront the central place mathematics has in “explaining” our physical reality. Of course, this essay has no definitive answers, and leaves the situation as a mystery. See 
This post is the first on a meditation on the nature of mathematics as I see it. I have been thinking about this for some time, and my thoughts were again stimulated by a March 2014 article I read in Slate by Brian Palmer that attempted a popularized explanation of the mathematical concepts associated with Zeno’s Paradox. It was a laudable effort that I applaud. So it is a bit churlish of me to critique it, but I felt its misconceptions got at the heart of some fundamental ideas about mathematics that I wanted to clarify.