An Interview with James Stewart
in [Math]
|
From: Dom on 4 Sep 2009 14:09 On Sep 4, 1:49 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <132943ff-b1e1-4c3c-9182-617eb24a6...(a)38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> writes: > > >On Sep 2, 4:52=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote: > >> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: > >The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the > >traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S. One such promoter made > >several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his > >pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy > >it. > > So, if you hadn't learned about sets by seventh grade, when did you > learn about them? Prior to my sophomore year in College, the extent of my dealing with sets was limited to one class at the beginning of Algebra II. I still have a copy of the first test. In one problem we are given the elements of two sets and we are asked to fing the union and intersection.
From: Larry Hewitt on 4 Sep 2009 16:10 Dom wrote: > On Sep 4, 1:49 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: >> In article <132943ff-b1e1-4c3c-9182-617eb24a6...(a)38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> writes: >> >>> On Sep 2, 4:52=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote: >>>> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: >>> The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the >>> traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S. One such promoter made >>> several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his >>> pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy >>> it. >> So, if you hadn't learned about sets by seventh grade, when did you >> learn about them? > > Prior to my sophomore year in College, the extent of my dealing with > sets was limited to one class at the beginning of Algebra II. I still > have a copy of the first test. In one problem we are given the > elements of two sets and we are asked to fing the union and > intersection. Strange. I was introduced to sets in the 5th grade in the mid 60's. By the 7th grade sets were a significant part of the curriculum even touching on a basis of a set. It raised a lot of consternation in the community --- resistance to "new math" by parents nearly ended the program. When I was teaching a few years ago the state curriculum guidelines introduced sets in the 6th grade, building year by year even in the grade level classes (non-algebra middle school classes). Larry
From: Herman Rubin on 4 Sep 2009 16:12 In article <03c66985-b980-495a-89a3-976b2cb7f495(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Dom <DRosa(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: >On Sep 4, 1:49=A0pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) >wrote: >> In article <132943ff-b1e1-4c3c-9182-617eb24a6...(a)38g2000yqr.googlegroups.= >com>, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> writes: >> >On Sep 2, 4:52=3DA0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote: >> >> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: >> >The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the >> >traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S. One such promoter made >> >several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his >> >pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy >> >it. >> So, if you hadn't learned about sets by seventh grade, when did you >> learn about them? >Prior to my sophomore year in College, the extent of my dealing with >sets was limited to one class at the beginning of Algebra II. I still >have a copy of the first test. In one problem we are given the >elements of two sets and we are asked to fing the union and >intersection. My objection to the original "new math" was not the use of sets, although this wasted a lot of time. It was the failure to use the ordinal approach, which is essential to really understanding the integers. The cardinal approach LOOKS simple, but only to those who do not realize what it leaves out, which is counting. The ordinal approach uses only counting, but not assuming the usual names for the integers. It can be learned quickly and rigorously, including proofs, and can introduce the cardinal and magnitude approaches, which should be there. Dedekind's answer to the question as to what are the integers is that if it looks like the integers and acts like the integers, it is a version of the integers. Finite sets work, but the cardinal approach by itself cannot define finite. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin(a)stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
From: Dom on 4 Oct 2009 16:25 On Aug 18, 9:52 pm, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: > An Interview with James Stewart, by Ivars Peterson is posted at: > > http://www.maa.org/news/061809stewart.html > > (A shorter article, "James Stewart and the House That Calculus Built," > is at:http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs4-6.pdf) [snip] The Oct/Nov 2009 issue of FOCUS contains two letters--by Stephen B. Rodi and Steve Edwards--commenting on the Stewart interview. The two letters are at: http://www.maa.org/pubs/octnov09pgs18-19.pdf
From: Gordie La Forge on 4 Oct 2009 16:28 On Oct 4, 1:25 pm, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: > On Aug 18, 9:52 pm, Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote: > > > An Interview with James Stewart, by Ivars Peterson is posted at: > > >http://www.maa.org/news/061809stewart.html > > > (A shorter article, "James Stewart and the House That Calculus Built," > > is at:http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs4-6.pdf) > > [snip] > > The Oct/Nov 2009 issue of FOCUS contains two letters--by Stephen B. > Rodi and Steve Edwards--commenting on the Stewart interview. The two > letters are at: > > http://www.maa.org/pubs/octnov09pgs18-19.pdf Wait, is he still the Captain of the Starship Enterprise? Signed, Gordeo Fa Lorgeio galiele
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Maximum number of linearly independent vectors Next: POPCORN PSYCHOLOGY |