Where is balance? -- Re: Academic priorities
|
From: Herman Rubin on 3 May 2005 11:52 In article <W7Mde.7613$c86.1743(a)trndny09>, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap(a)verizon.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <R59de.3836$4v.2311(a)trndny03>, >> RolandHutchinson<my.spamtrap(a)verizon.net>wrote: >>>It seems to me that the point of teaching kids a bit of rigorous >> mathematics >>>(with proofs and everything) has more to do with their intellectual >>>development than with practical applications. >> Nope.Anybodywhodebugshard/softwareusesthisrigor.Think >> about it.Isolatingthesymptomisreallybasedonmakingan >> assumptions, demonstrating their validity, and slowly eliminating >> facts that don't matter or interfere with exercising the "proof". >Well, I did think about it! >I don't (and didn't) deny that there exist direct practical applications for >rigorous reasoning. I merely assert (and asserted) that that's not the >chief reason why we teach (or ought to teach) it. >In point of fact, I would argue that it's the students who (as I did!) go on >to "fuzzy studies" rather than technology who might be said to need it >more: precisely so that they will have something in their background to >remember that would remind them from time to time of what a "non-fuzzzy" >study looks like, so that they might keep their own work and thinking in an >appropriate perspective. Compared to mathematics, all else has fuzziness. This includes physics and chemistry. Fortunately for the physicists, Kepler was before the telescope, so he could formulate his laws; Cassini produced the "Ovals of Cassini" as an alternative because the differences had already been seen. It was fortunate in chemistry that they did not have accurate scales until recently, or they would have been faced with the isotope effect before being ready for it. >The engineers, on the other hand, will be able to pick up the >logical/deductive tools they need along the way through experience, >apprenticeship, and independent reading if for some reason they are >neglected in the formal curriculum. I doubt that this is the case. Engineers are prone to make assumptions unconsciously because that is all they know. During WWII, mathematicians and physicists were able to succeed where engineers could not, because they could think in terms of what the problem was, instead of which techniques to use to solve it. They may know how to solve differential equations, but not how to formulate good approximations to their problems which they do not know how to solve. -- 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: Steve Richfie1d on 3 May 2005 11:57 Morten, > Due to knives being subjected to "weapons carry" laws here I have had > to get a "Swiss Army non-knife". I have also had to get cerfifications > for punch-down tools (which have internal 3mm wide knives). Here in New Mexico, a gun isn't "loaded" unless it can by fired by just squeezing the trigger, i.e. there is a round in the chamber. This makes a semi-automatic pistol with a full clip but no round in the chamber legal to carry concealed in your pocket, but a utility or Swiss Army knife illegal to carry the same way! Steve Richfie1d
From: K Williams on 3 May 2005 12:16 In article <3dplbkF6t684tU1(a)individual.net>, Steve(a)NOSPAM.smart- life.net says... > Morten, > > > Due to knives being subjected to "weapons carry" laws here I have had > > to get a "Swiss Army non-knife". I have also had to get cerfifications > > for punch-down tools (which have internal 3mm wide knives). > > Here in New Mexico, a gun isn't "loaded" unless it can by fired by just > squeezing the trigger, i.e. there is a round in the chamber. This makes > a semi-automatic pistol with a full clip but no round in the chamber > legal to carry concealed in your pocket, but a utility or Swiss Army > knife illegal to carry the same way! > What about a double-action pistol? Here in Vermont one can carry, without permit, firearms concealed (or not) anywhere, with the exception of public schools and state buildings. Knives with a blade less than 6", IIRC, are also legal to carry concealed, or not. Locking blades are illegal, I think. -- Keith
From: Derek Lyons on 3 May 2005 12:31 "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> wrote: >> It sounds like you have >> done your children a great disservice. > >Maybe not. Upon graduation from "normal" high school, none >of my kids could do anything past basic math. And only one of >them reads well. So where were you during the 12 years prior? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
From: rpl on 3 May 2005 12:54
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <LO6dnb-vyozPmerfRVn-tA(a)rogers.com>, > rpl <plinnane3REMOVE(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote: > >>Marco S Hyman wrote: >> >>>rpl <plinnane3REMOVE(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes: > > <snip> > >>>Or do you >>>think there is a valid lesson in getting kicked out of school because >>>you carry a pocket knife? >> >>nope; don't see any reason why a student should carry one on school >>grounds, either. > > > You've never been on a farm? Or work? > <snip> yup; you oversnipped: || ? I'm not familiar with what you mean by "zero tolerance", but given || a "check-in" procedure, I see no problems. If'n I was the "coatcheck" person, I'd be inclined to charge extra for packages with explosive potential or livestock. rpl > > /BAH > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. |