The existence of "Hot Hands" and "Streaks" in sports and gambling is hotly debated, but there is no uncertainty about the recent batting-average of the New York Times: it is now two-for-two in mangling and misunderstanding elementary concepts in probability and statistics; and mixing up the key points in a recent paper that re-examines earlier work on the statistics of streaks. In so doing, it's high-visibility articles have added to the general-public's confusion about probability, making it seem mysterious and paradoxical when it needn't be. However, those articles make excellent case studies on how to get it wrong, and for discussions in high-school and college classes focusing on quantitative reasoning, data analysis, probability and statistics. What I have written here is intended for that audience.

Most discussions of G\"odel's theorems fall into one of two types: either they emphasize perceived philosophical, cultural "meanings" of the theorems, and perhaps sketch some of the ideas of the proofs, usually relating G\"odel's proofs to riddles and paradoxes, but do not attempt to present rigorous, complete proofs; or they do present rigorous proofs, but in the traditional style of mathematical logic, with all of its heavy notation and difficult definitions, and technical issues which reflect G\"odel's original approach and broader logical issues. Many non-specialists are frustrated by these two extreme types of expositions and want a complete, rigorous proof that they can understand. Such an exposition is possible, because many people have realized that variants of G\"odel's first incompleteness theorem can be rigorously proved by a simpler middle approach, avoiding philosophical discussions and hand-waiving at one extreme; and also avoiding the heavy machinery of traditional mathematical logic, and many of the harder detail's of G\"odel's original proof, at the other extreme. This is the just-right Goldilocks approach. In this exposition we give a short, self-contained Goldilocks exposition of G\"odel's first theorem, aimed at a broad, undergraduate audience.

Abstract In this paper, we study the problem of constructing perfect phylogenies for three-state characters. Our work builds on two recent results. The first result states that for three-state characters, the local condition of examining all subsets of three characters is sufficient to determine the global property of admitting a perfect phylogeny. The second result applies tools from minimal triangulation theory to the partition intersection graph to determine if a perfect phylogeny exists. Despite the wealth of combinatorial tools and algorithms stemming from the chordal graph and minimal triangulation literature, it is unclear how to use such approaches to efficiently construct a perfect phylogeny for three-state characters when the data admits one. We utilize structural properties of both the partition intersection graph and the original data in order to achieve a competitive time bound.