uhhh. actually i did that relativistic energy stuff last sem, and we’re on to wave functions this sem. in a perfectly normal singaporean JC.

(i) and (ii) are completely trivial algebraic manipulation that any school kid can do. Squaring both sides of the given expression for E yields (i), binomial expansion yields (ii).

(iii)--(vi) are just nonsense that reflects Miss Loi's ignorance.

Miss Loi needs to go back to school.

Albert needs to go get a sarcasm detector and a sense of humour.

This is not humorous. It is just plain silly. Only idiots will find it amusing.

Agreed. I didn't find it funny. I thought it was pretty lame.

There is little funny about the mandarin system
-

The point of Miss Loi's entry was the gulf between Chinese expectations of mathematical proficiency and British standards of mathematical ... (in)competence. She was also perhaps making fun of Singapore's stringent education system.

Albert's initial barbed - but importantly, earnest - reply betrays either one of two things. One, he has deliberately decided to ignore the whole point of Miss Loi's entry, preferring instead to nitpick on a tangential issue which is really not Miss Loi's concern (the *actual* level of difficulty of the hypothetical PAP kindergarten math questions), treating us in the process to his "any school kid can do" mathematical prowess.

Or two, he is a humourless, unable-to-detect-sarcasm person, as pointed out very succinctly by hai_ren.

All this applies to Light as well, by the way. I don't understand - Miss Loi's post was as uncontroversial as they come. Why the need for words like "silly", "idiots" and "lame"? Do you think that you appear very clever or impressive, slagging other people off like that - with neither provocation or accountability?

In case you don't have similar detectors, don't answer that question - it was rhetorical.

With respect to the hypothetical PAP kindergarten question, Miss Loi's entry is only funny if the question appears very difficult. Otherwise, what will we be laughing about?

The question does appear difficult to the layperson and therefore, will be considered funny. But for Albert and Light, they are capable of handling the question and can identify that parts of the question are really irrelevant, then the joke ceases to be funny.

Humour is not universal. You have to be on the same wavelength to get it.

Hmm... I don't think you're getting my point. I wasn't insulting anyone, nor was I trying to display an act of intelligence. I was merely commenting on her sense of humor.

Like you said, Miss Loi's entry was on based on humor and it was meant to be a joke but I found it to have the same level of humor as your response.

That's all I meant.

you all miss the point. sure you can do the questions, you very li hai. but could you have done it at pre-kindergarten level? humour is not universal, but sarcasm detection is.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

;-)

Actually, the first three questions are pretty okay, the rest--I'm stumped. But I've never been elite kindergarten material anyway.

hah the comments show the typical Singaporean male... humourless and all ready to show off his intelligence.

hah your comments show the typical Singaporean male... mindless and all ready to show off his ignorance.

Perhaps it's your comment that shows the typical Singaporean male with his taste for low level humour.

I didn't find it funny, but thought Al needs to have a sense of humour surgically attached.

The typical Singaporean male has a taste for crude and juvenile stuff, not just low level humour. Why do you think Crazy Horse went out of business? Because Singaporeans prefer the kind of entertainment where a Thai girl smokes cigarettes with her genitals and then perform live sex afterwards. Crazy Horse is too high brow for them.

I think Right has a point. Especially the Thai part. Hahaha.

Most Singaporeans only know how to do 10-year series problems. Anything else, however ridiculously simple, they will view as rocket science. That's why so many here don't see how stupid Miss Loi's test is --- they are at the same level as her.

Somewhat unexpectedly, this points back at the subject of the news article. So what if the Chinese students can apparently do much harder problems than the British students? They are just drilled to do those problems --- in the same way Singaporean students have been drilled to do 10-year series problems.

The UK has produced 110 Nobel Prize winners and China, with a population that is more than 20 times that of UK, has produced a pathetic 5.

China has 0 Nobel prize winners, not 5. The Nobel prize winners of Chinese descent are all either American, French, or Taiwanese.

some of them are borned and educated in China in their early days..

but all won based on their work abroad rather than in China.

If Nobel prize is not baised, anyone can explain why Lu Xun never won Nobel Prize?

because they wanted to give it to Pearl S Buck!