Stupid, little, tiny, itsy-bitsy, yet problem-breaking

[Blahness]

errors that I make commonly are ANNOYING.

Examples:

Forgetting to add or multiply something, and just using 1 number, forgetting the other number completely

Sign-switching (Negatives lost/added)

Basic arithmetic errors out of haste


And so on. What's a good way to help lower the number of "minor" errors?

 

[JasonRox]

That happens to everybody.

 

[benorin]

In what context to do encounter said problems? If you been at the homework for some hours now: go, take a break.

 

[Blahness]

Any time, especially in algebraic quadratic functions, or complex fractions, where I tend to forget a factor and completely leave it out, or just make math mistakes with medium-sized multiplications(2 digit numbers multiplied).

Happens most often during tests, screwing over my grade.

 

[berkeman]

The single biggest help that I've learned for my calculations is to carry units through in all operations. For every term in every line of my calculations, I carry the units along. This often catches places where I've omitted a squared term, or made some other procedural error. The units have to match up in the operations, or something has gotten misplaced or neglected.

 

[Integral]

Repeat your calculations until you get the same result 3 times in a row.

 

[JasonRox]

Repeat your calculations until you get the same result 3 times in a row.

That works, but first make estimates.

Do yourself an estimate before attempting the question or something. If the question isn't remotely close, then double check everything.

If it's close, quickly scan through where errors might occur.

After awhile you will become much more accurate with your estimates through practice.

 

[matt grime]

Estimates? Dear god, what crappy level of maths are you doing that you have things that can be estimated?

 

[bomba923]

Hmm...
I'd also suggest mentally repeating the procedure that you used to solve a problem (helps to detect inconstencies in logic and thought). Should a conflict occur, use logic to resolve it.

(Also, mentioned here are some mistakes which I don't consider 'minor' at all
--And I'm not talking about the occasional +/- and other arithmetic errors...)

 

[JasonRox]

:grumpy:

Estimates? Dear god, what crappy level of maths are you doing that you have things that can be estimated?

Who said the estimates have to be accurate?

It can be as simple as... it must obviously be positive. If not, then obviously, it's wrong.

I never look at an integral, and say... hmmm... maybe around 4.23123. :grumpy:

 

[Plastic Photon]

I made mistakes in algebra last semester. I would multiply 5x4 and get 5. I would just forget to multiply. Or I would divide 18 by 2 and get 8. My professor wasn't as interested in my mistake of operations as much about whether or not I understood fully what I was doing.

You have to learn to relax and remain confident in your ability.

 

[0rthodontist]

I used to make a lot of mistakes and now I almost never do if I have enough time. Just carefully check every step of your work.

 

[matt grime]

:grumpy:
Who said the estimates have to be accurate?
It can be as simple as... it must obviously be positive. If not, then obviously, it's wrong.
I never look at an integral, and say... hmmm... maybe around 4.23123. :grumpy:

who said anything about accuracy? not me. i thought you were doing maths of the level of topology and proper algebra now, i didn't reallize you actually had to still do integrals and other depressing calculations. i thought you'd managed to get away from that and were doing interesting maths now. I'm truly sorry that they still make you do maths for engineers.

i gave up on making estimates for calculations of the 'is it plausible' type when i went to teach in the states. the questions were all written in imperial (yes, i know I'm british but we're metric officially, especially in education) so when students saked me if their answer was correct i had no idea if it was even ballpark: what the hell does 450 cubic inches look like?

 

[JasonRox]

who said anything about accuracy? not me. i thought you were doing maths of the level of topology and proper algebra now, i didn't reallize you actually had to still do integrals and other depressing calculations. i thought you'd managed to get away from that and were doing interesting maths now. I'm truly sorry that they still make you do maths for engineers.

i gave up on making estimates for calculations of the 'is it plausible' type when i went to teach in the states. the questions were all written in imperial (yes, i know I'm british but we're metric officially, especially in education) so when students saked me if their answer was correct i had no idea if it was even ballpark: what the hell does 450 cubic inches look like?

I myself don't make estimates anymore, but I had to before I got here today.

My degree is in Applied Mathematics, so it would be no surprise if I'm forced to take a couse that requires endless calculations.

 

[DeadWolfe]

i thought you were doing maths of the level of topology and proper algebra now, i didn't reallize you actually had to still do integrals and other depressing calculations. i thought you'd managed to get away from that and were doing interesting maths now. I'm truly sorry that they still make you do maths for engineers

Just because you're doing algebra and topology doesn't mean you aren't doing calculations as well. Sometimes people have odd combinations of courses. For instance, this semester, in my five different courses I will be learning:
The definition of a group
Calculating simplicial homology
The definition of a vector
Calculations using Stoke's theorem
and
A rigorous proof of Stoke's theorem
All at the same time.

 

[JasonRox]

Just because you're doing algebra and topology doesn't mean you aren't doing calculations as well. Sometimes people have odd combinations of courses. For instance, this semester, in my five different courses I will be learning:
The definition of a group
Calculating simplicial homology
The definition of a vector
Calculations using Stoke's theorem
and
A rigorous proof of Stoke's theorem
All at the same time.

I agree with matt grime that after a certain point you should be done with it all.

In fact, I should be done, but I have to follow whatever the school tells me to do.

 

[matt grime]

I don't see that any of those things require numerical evaluations that are hard if any at all.

How can you be doing simplicial homology (defined by a quotient of a differential graded Z module on the simplicial subsets of a complex) and not know what a vector is (an element in a vector space)?

It seems odd that you're doing algebraic topology (3rd year undergrad course) at the same time as defining a group for the first time (high school).

 

[DeadWolfe]

Well, around here Algebraic Toplogy is a fourth year course, and groups are second year. And my point was that this is indeed a very odd combination, but sometimes those sorts of combinations happen. Also, for the record, Algebraic Topology is the only class where I don't already know all the material.

And in my calculus class we are doing lots of calculations: computing double integrals, finding extrema of functions, computing line integrals.

 

[matt grime]

Ah, so you're doing a particularly odd set of courses, and the material in your courses is stuff you already know, further making you not a regular student. I won't be too worried that I have overlooked that case in my egregious generalizations.

 

[DeadWolfe]

Well, the fact that I know the material is very unusual, but the course selection is not. There are at at least two others with my exact course load.

 

[matt grime]

Out of how many in your degree program, year, college, university, country, continent?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I don't know about you guys, but I can preform calculations without even using my hands or calculator! I can do an integral while submerged in water, trying to escape from a straight jacket, and whomping 15 other players in chess all at the same time! I'm the best darn mathemaniac west of the Mesosphere! All you other wack math heads can catch my vapors as I be off, and up out!

just joking, you I have problems. I'm no math major, but I really enjoy it, and I get frusterated with my mistakes very often, but more so in physics than math. In math, my real struggle is trying to understand what's going on more than trying to deal with stupid procedural errors. In physics, I get a much better grasp of the ideas and develop an understanding far quicker, and the math errors tend to show up more, since I'm moving faster through the calculations.

 

[JasonRox]

I don't see that any of those things require numerical evaluations that are hard if any at all.

How can you be doing simplicial homology (defined by a quotient of a differential graded Z module on the simplicial subsets of a complex) and not know what a vector is (an element in a vector space)?

It seems odd that you're doing algebraic topology (3rd year undergrad course) at the same time as defining a group for the first time (high school).

They teach groups in HIGH SCHOOL!?

Wow, I really should have gone to class. Maybe not since it takes only minutes to understand, and not weeks as in high school.

I've only been doing mathematics for about 2 years now. When I first got into university, I had a lot of catching up to do.

Regardless of that, I'm a top student. Things got boring pretty quickly, but I made sure I showed up for my classes.

 

[Leopold Infeld]

Hey guys,

This is a simple matter of carelessness and human error, which gets everyone. This has nothing to do with topology or groups or whatever...

Anyway, I thought that there were no longer discrimination for wrong figures since high school ie they give marks as long as the technique is correct. Why is someones's grades screwing up? And another thing is that i thought it was pretty obvious when u get a figure wrong in hard problems rite? The proof or answer turns out ultra weird. Last thing is that i always input the answer back into the question so that it adds up and stays logical.

Forgive me if i am wrong.

 

[shmoe]

Anyway, I thought that there were no longer discrimination for wrong figures since high school ie they give marks as long as the technique is correct. Why is someones's grades screwing up? And another thing is that i thought it was pretty obvious when u get a figure wrong in hard problems rite? The proof or answer turns out ultra weird. Last thing is that i always input the answer back into the question so that it adds up and stays logical.

While understanding the techniques is most important, they're totally useless if you're incapable of getting a correct answer so I'd hope there's still at least some credit for accuracy. If you find that the definite integral of a positive function gives a negative answer, then you should know you screwed up assuming you aren't completely asleep. It's not always this obvious though.