Give me the good old time math.
in [Math]
|
From: J. Clarke on 4 May 2010 06:02 On 5/4/2010 4:40 AM, William Elliot wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010, Transfer Principle wrote: > >> The one question that I have never seen answered is why don't >> the _Asians_ complain that they are required to learn more >> math than is required in the real world. If Americans don't >> like that the little math that they are forced to learn isn't >> used in the real world, then Asians, who have to learn much >> more math than Americans, have more right to complain -- and >> yet we don't hear about such complaints. If Asians only had >> to learn as much math as they need in the real world and not >> one iota more, then there would no longer be a gap between the >> math curricula of the two continents. >> > Because the Asians know that the real world is scientific and that math, > real math instead of USA play at math (as stated by a Vietnamese > immigrant) is science. The America view of real world is media myopic > commercialism. In short, Asians don't complain because they're > not lazy and fat like Americans. Math is not science. Math is a tool of science. As for the Asians being so brilliant, when they do something that the US didn't do 40 years ago, other than produce consumer products for cheap, get back to us.
From: H.Y. ADDANDSTUFF on 4 May 2010 06:32 On May 4, 3:02 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 5/4/2010 4:40 AM, William Elliot wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 May 2010, Transfer Principle wrote: > > >> The one question that I have never seen answered is why don't > >> the _Asians_ complain that they are required to learn more > >> math than is required in the real world. If Americans don't > >> like that the little math that they are forced to learn isn't > >> used in the real world, then Asians, who have to learn much > >> more math than Americans, have more right to complain -- and > >> yet we don't hear about such complaints. If Asians only had > >> to learn as much math as they need in the real world and not > >> one iota more, then there would no longer be a gap between the > >> math curricula of the two continents. > > > Because the Asians know that the real world is scientific and that math, > > real math instead of USA play at math (as stated by a Vietnamese > > immigrant) is science. The America view of real world is media myopic > > commercialism. In short, Asians don't complain because they're > > not lazy and fat like Americans. > > Math is not science. Math is a tool of science. > > As for the Asians being so brilliant, when they do something that the US > didn't do 40 years ago, other than produce consumer products for cheap, > get back to us.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is true or false, do this. = is equals, != equals not { is open function, } is close function //comments here and more there <!---// starts the script, //---> closes it. http://meami.org/
From: ThinkTank on 4 May 2010 02:33 > The Corvallis school board is deciding upon a new > math curriculum, one > that will focus on mathematical logic and reasoning > instead of problem > solving. Is this happening elsewhere in the nation? > That math will again > be taught in math classes? > > Unfortunately there's yet more emphasis on working in > teams and in > collaborating. That I consider to be a mistake like > cook book math has > been. What I've noticed is that team work students > are unsure of > themselves, that they need group confirmation at a > time when they > need to become self reliant. Is this alas, becoming > a national fad? A focus on reasoning instead of problem solving will be very good. As far as collaborating, I don't think it will be a problem in this instance. In fact, I think it is precisely what we need. Consider the fact that a conversation is form of collaborative reasoning. And students certainly don't have a hard time talking in school. Furthermore, unlike most activities, reasoning is unique because it is based on only a few basic rules. And perhaps the best way to learn to follow rules is to see your peers following those rules as well. I think much thought and consideration has gone into this school board's decision. I hope it will become a model for the rest of the country.
From: William Elliot on 4 May 2010 07:12 On Tue, 4 May 2010, J. Clarke wrote: > On 5/4/2010 4:40 AM, William Elliot wrote: >> On Mon, 3 May 2010, Transfer Principle wrote: >> >>> The one question that I have never seen answered is why don't >>> the _Asians_ complain that they are required to learn more >>> math than is required in the real world. If Americans don't >>> like that the little math that they are forced to learn isn't >>> used in the real world, then Asians, who have to learn much >>> more math than Americans, have more right to complain -- and >>> yet we don't hear about such complaints. If Asians only had >>> to learn as much math as they need in the real world and not >>> one iota more, then there would no longer be a gap between the >>> math curricula of the two continents. >>> >> Because the Asians know that the real world is scientific and that math, >> real math instead of USA play at math (as stated by a Vietnamese >> immigrant) is science. The America view of real world is media myopic >> commercialism. In short, Asians don't complain because they're >> not lazy and fat like Americans. > > Math is not science. Math is a tool of science. > > As for the Asians being so brilliant, when they do something that the US > didn't do 40 years ago, other than produce consumer products for cheap, get > back to us. > They're not brilliant. They work hard. Americans don't want to work hard, out-source their economy to Asia and open their boarders for hard working workers. As for producing consumer products for cheap to lazy Americans who can't make anything for themselves anymore, they've now enough of our money to buy America while America is going broke. Get back to me when America is no longer so dumb as to pay with everything on maxed out credit.
From: Helmut Richter on 4 May 2010 08:12
On Mon, 3 May 2010, Transfer Principle wrote: > 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. Is it not so that most of what school teaches serves other purposes than survival in the real world? At least, I have learnt there geography, biology, history, 3 foreign languages (including the one I am using here -- call that the real world if you will), physics, chemistry, arts, music, ... The amount of math needed to survive in the real world is minimal. Enough people survive without being able even to do calculations beyond the level needed to count the money in their wallet. How many people cannot answer a question like "if it costed $17.30 yesterday and $19.10 today, how many percent increase is that?" Don't they survive as well, some of them even making good money? Quite certainly, basic calculus (derivatives and integrals) is not needed in the real world. The few who have thoroughly learnt it in school have forgotten it soon afterwards unless they became engineers. So it is an art not like driving cars but more like designing cars. The cattle on the range learns biology to the extent needed to survive in the real world: which herbs are tasty, barely edible, or poisonous. We could, of course, take that over as a criterion. Now, if you have not the cattle attitude but want to teach cultural knowledge, how would you proceed? The basics is always the "real world" of mathematics, that is, structures. No abstraction is possible unless you have seen concrete things: No mathematics is possible unless you have seen problems to solve with it; no group theory is possible unless you have seen lots of groups; no logic is possible unless you have seen lots of theories. *That* is a good reason to start with the concrete, a better reason than that only the concrete is food for the math cattle. -- Helmut Richter |