Give me the good old time math.
in [Math]
|
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 3 May 2010 19:52 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > Then whenever anyone asks why more math should be taught in > school and more rigorously, the answer inevitably goes back > to "Asia." Has anyone in this thread (aside from you) mentioned Asia? -- Jesse F. Hughes "For a gentle introduction to set theory, see Bourbaki (1970)." -- Footnote from "Transgressing the Boundaries", Alan Sokal
From: Ray Vickson on 3 May 2010 20:15 On May 3, 12:29 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 5/3/2010 2:32 PM, Frederick Williams wrote: > > > "J. Clarke" wrote: > > >> However knowing how to fix a car does not help you to detect that a > >> politician or lawyer's "proof" is anything but. Knowing what real proof > >> looks like does. > > > That's irrelevant, lawyers are not required to prove things > > mathematically. > > So what? Are you saying that the public should be trained to be easily > bamboozled for the benefit of lawyers? Since when have _logical_ arguments prevailed in court? Evidence sufficient to convict murderers may be tossed out (and has been more than once in the past) because it was gathered as a result of stopping a car without sufficient reason; never mind what the evidence shows! A few years ago in the province of Alberta a person's dismissal from a parole-board job was overturned by an appeal court. The person was dismissed because they were proved to be incompetent, but the court ruled that the necessity of being competent was not stated anywhere in the hiring criteria. If only courts _did_ operate on the basis of logic, but this is not necessarily so, at least in Canada, and probably also in the U.S. R.G. Vickson
From: Transfer Principle on 3 May 2010 20:33 On May 3, 4:52 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > Then whenever anyone asks why more math should be taught in > > school and more rigorously, the answer inevitably goes back > > to "Asia." > Has anyone in this thread (aside from you) mentioned Asia? Asia was mentioned in the other thread -- the thread that I mentioned in my post. Here are some direct quotes from that thread, "When are proofs for Maths Classes taught in Europe?" Elliot: If you want good math classes go to Asia, maybe even Europe. "Here they play at teaching math," said the adopted teenage Vietnamese student. The student is to commended for his revealing bluntness. So Elliot mentions the continent Asia and the country Vietnam. In the first post of this thread, Elliot commends Corvallis for teaching a proof-based curriculum. In the above quote, he implies that math is taught better in Asia than in the US, which he derides as teaching only "cookbook math." The point that I was trying to make is that there are so many Americans who believe that any math beyond the bare minimum needed to survive in the real world (arithmetic cf. Clarke's post) shouldn't be taught. Presumably, this is what Elliot means by "cookbook math." One would have to convince more Americans that students should learn more math than just "cookbook math" -- including those who already hate math, believe that Americans are already forced to learn too much math, look forward to the day when they no longer have to take a math class, select a college major based on how little math is required, and so on. And what I wonder is why we have an entire continent of people who study _more_ math, yet complain _less_ about the amount of math that they have to take. What I'd like to see is a _reason_ that students should learn proof-based math in high school, _without_ mentioning Asia or other countries/continents. (I could ask Elliot this directly but I'm not sure whether he has a blanket Google killfile.)
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 3 May 2010 21:22 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On May 3, 4:52 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: >> > Then whenever anyone asks why more math should be taught in >> > school and more rigorously, the answer inevitably goes back >> > to "Asia." >> Has anyone in this thread (aside from you) mentioned Asia? > > Asia was mentioned in the other thread -- the thread that I > mentioned in my post. Here are some direct quotes from that > thread, "When are proofs for Maths Classes taught in Europe?" > > Elliot: > If you want good math classes go to Asia, maybe even Europe. > "Here they play at teaching math," said the adopted teenage > Vietnamese student. The student is to commended for his > revealing bluntness. > > So Elliot mentions the continent Asia and the country Vietnam. > > In the first post of this thread, Elliot commends Corvallis > for teaching a proof-based curriculum. In the above quote, > he implies that math is taught better in Asia than in the US, > which he derides as teaching only "cookbook math." Ah, I see. One person mentioned Asia in the other thread, so the answer inevitably goes back to "Asia". > The point that I was trying to make is that there are so many > Americans who believe that any math beyond the bare minimum > needed to survive in the real world (arithmetic cf. Clarke's > post) shouldn't be taught. Presumably, this is what Elliot > means by "cookbook math." One would have to convince more > Americans that students should learn more math than just > "cookbook math" -- including those who already hate math, > believe that Americans are already forced to learn too much > math, look forward to the day when they no longer have to > take a math class, select a college major based on how little > math is required, and so on. > > And what I wonder is why we have an entire continent of > people who study _more_ math, yet complain _less_ about the > amount of math that they have to take. What I wonder is how you know so much about the complaints of Asian students. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Well, I don't claim to be an expert, in fact I am a fry cook with a national burger chain, but I have solved many differential and partial differential equations numerically." --C. Bond
From: porky_pig_jr on 3 May 2010 21:36
On May 3, 7:37 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > I disagree. Strongly. If one knows how to prove theorems, then one > knows > how to solve problems. So, suppose you dilligently studied Rudin's Principles of Analysis, through integration and differentiation, so you can rigorously prove FTC, integration by substitution and integration by parts. Cool. Now take the Calculus book, the one that contains real tricky expressions to integrate. Like sometime you need to use trig substitution. Or combination of several techniques. Now how do you think knowledge of Rudin will help you? Answer: not a bit. Cheers. PPJ. |