The Math You Don't Learn is Harder Still

  • Thread starter Thread starter twisting_edge
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
112 replies · 15K views
Gza said:
I suppose you still handwash all of your clothes, use a slide rule, and have to build a fire every time you cook something.

Some clothes say "handwash," I still occasionally use a slide rule, and (ala. beavis and butthead) "fire!fire!" :biggrin:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Gza said:
there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division.
Shut up if all you can do is to lie about what you ACTUALLY said, which I re-quote here.

Sure, I assume you are some sort of calculation parrot who can come up with whatever formula you've been given, but your posts does not show that you have much understanding about maths.
 
arildno said:
Shut up if all you can do is to lie about what you ACTUALLY said, which I re-quote here.

Sure, I assume you are some sort of calculation parrot who can come up with whatever formula you've been given, but your posts does not show that you have much understanding about maths.

So you're implying that since I don't pull out a pen and paper and start doing long division every time I'm faced with dividing two large numbers, and instead reach for a calculator, I'm some sort of "calculational parrot," with little understanding of math? Do you rail on people who decide to program computers in c/c++ instead of typing long lines of 010100101010?
 
Gza said:
I don't have any sort of disdain for long division, and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick, and yes, i'll go out on a limb here and "claim to understand the concept of division." And as far as me developing the algorithm for long division, why would I need to do that when there's a nifty little invention called a calculator/computer/cellphone/watch/etc, that is faster and more accurate than i am at such simple computations. I suppose you still handwash all of your clothes, use a slide rule, and have to build a fire every time you cook something.
I have handwashed my clothes and know enough about washing clothes to realize the type of detergent you use really doesn't matter. In fact, for normal washing, clothes washed with no detergent are usually rated higher than clothes washed in detergent (at least if you follow the directions on the box or bottle of laundry detergent, which are designed to sell more detergent; not produce better clothes for you - in fact, the main reason you need fabric softener in the dryer is to counter the effect of the detergent that didn't come out in the rinse).

I still use a slide rule more often than a calculator. Unless you're solving matrices, simultaneous equations, or really need those extra significant digits, it's usually quicker and simpler. But, then, it's only quicker and simpler if you're comfortable rearranging your calculations to avoid excess movements of the slide and cursor.

Hell, I've eaten raw eggs because I couldn't start a fire (it rained all night long is one good excuse - putting out the fire on a snowy day because it's the only way I could get a buch of 11 year old boy scouts to leave the fire and actually do something wasn't such a good idea when I didn't have a ready supply of dry firewood :redface: - aw, who am I kidding:frown: - it's always humiliating when you can't a build a fire to cook the food no matter what the excuse, but at least I'm able to console myself that I know the theory behind building a fire).

Grrr. Well, in two out three cases, a good background knowledge is more important than some mere ritual that happens to yield results.
 
I take great offense to GZA when he said Chemistry is just mindless memorization. Having degrees in both Chemistry and Physics I can tell you there is just as many principles in chemistry as there are in physics. The chemistry you learn as an undergrad is a lot of memorization buy a deeper understand is required to predict the out come of experiments which you have never seen.

There is also just as much memorization in physics and math as there is in chemistry. Just think of all the formula's you have to memorize to be able to do the problems. Formulas and mathematical methods are just a language used to describe the principles. Reactions are just a language used to describe chemical processes. If Chemistry were all memorization we could never build the molecules we build today. You can't just throw stuff in a pot and hope you get the material!
 
Gza said:
So you're implying that since I don't pull out a pen and paper and start doing long division every time I'm faced with dividing two large numbers, and instead reach for a calculator, I'm some sort of "calculational parrot," with little understanding of math? Do you rail on people who decide to program computers in c/c++ instead of typing long lines of 010100101010?
Nope.

NOWHERE in OP's post was it said that "long division is the be-all of mathematical prowess", and NOWHERE was that implied.
YOU were the one that perverted OP's post into that meaning.
YOU were the one showing unwarranted contempt for long division.

YOU were the one insinuating that others hand-wash their clothes rather than using the washing machine.

YOU are the one showing even more unwarranted contempt of chemistry.

YOU are the one consistently throwing abuse at everyone else.

This is an extremely typical behaviour of someone who is lacking fundamental competence, but manages to hide this by scaring off others with his persistent dirt-throwing.

THAT is why I said that your posts certainly don't show much understanding of maths; I couldn't care less whether you actually belong in the mentioned group of incompetents or not.
 
arildno said:
Nope.

NOWHERE in OP's post was it said that "long division is the be-all of mathematical prowess", and NOWHERE was that implied.
YOU were the one that perverted OP's post into that meaning.
YOU were the one showing unwarranted contempt for long division.

YOU were the one insinuating that others hand-wash their clothes rather than using the washing machine.

YOU are the one showing even more unwarranted contempt of chemistry.

YOU are the one consistently throwing abuse at everyone else.

This is an extremely typical behaviour of someone who is lacking fundamental competence, but manages to hide this by scaring off others with his persistent dirt-throwing.

THAT is why I said that your posts certainly don't show much understanding of maths; I couldn't care less whether you actually belong in the mentioned group of incompetents or not.

Fair enough, I LOVE LONG DIVISION! In fact I'm off to divide 24234235 by 2354 for kicks. It was fun having a level-headed, reasonable debate with you arildno. For the record I am completely incompetent in all aspects possible. Now please relax and make yourself some tea :wink:
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it is time you apologize for your behaviour towards Orthodontist and other posters.

Your posts have been, and remain, wholly unwarranted ridicules of other posters' views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
arildno said:
Perhaps it is time you apologize for your behaviour towards Orthodontist and other posters.

Your posts have been, and remain, wholly unwarranted perversions of other posters' views.

I'd like to see some quotes where you can show this. I don't apologize unless its necessary. And perhaps you can apologize to me for your remarks as well (scroll up to the top of the page, and read how you've been adressing me, including telling me to "shut up," and "f*ck off." At no point have I had to resort to such adolescent belittling language).
 
There are 4 elementary mathematical procedures kids should learn: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Just because one of the operations is a little more difficult than the others does not mean we should not teach it! I don't even see how someone can function in the modern world without being able to do long division...
 
Since you were actually lying about what you said, as shown by my re-quote, you do not deserve to be adressed with a grown-up's language.
 
ORIGINAL QUOTE:
"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division."

EXPLANATION:
"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division, and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick"

At no point did I "lie" or go back on what I said. Is there some sort of language barrier here that's keeping you from understanding what I'm saying? Or do you just need some improvement in reading comprehension?
 
Comparison:

"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some DUMB, memorizable math algorithms SUCH AS long division."

"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division"

In the first, you show disdain for long division, in the second one, you contradict that.
 
Ok, stop the fighting.
 
arildno said:
Comparison:

"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some DUMB, memorizable math algorithms SUCH AS long division."

"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division"

In the first, you show disdain for long division, in the second one, you contradict that.

Well, you can make me say pretty much anything you want me to by taking a quote out of context; the FULL quote:

I don't have any sort of disdain for long division and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick


I qualified my use of "dumb" to be different than its usual negative connotation. Any more clarifications before we can have any semblance of intelligent communication?
 
Yes. Anyone else with a shred of respect for others would have said something along the lines:"Ah sorry, what I meant to say was...". That's not what you did.

Furthermore, you are ridiculing Orthodontist as a chemist (goodness knows why), and to my first reply (which wasn't at all disrespectful towards you), you ridicule it by insinuating I wash my clothes by hand, and cook my food on a fire.
 
arildno said:
Yes. Anyone else with a shred of respect for others would have said something along the lines:"Ah sorry, what I meant to say was...". That's not what you did.

Furthermore, you are ridiculing Orthodontist as a chemist (goodness knows why), and to my first reply (which wasn't at all disrespectful towards you), you ridicule it by insinuating I wash my clothes by hand, and cook my food on a fire.


Agreed, the comment to orthodontist was over the line, and I apologize to him. As for your first reply:

" What's your problem? First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time."

First you assume I have some sort of problem. Then you posit that i don't "understand the concept of division." As far as the -washing clothes by hand and cooking on a fire- comment, I meant it as an analogy, and by no means any sort of personal attack.
 
Gza said:
Agreed, the comment to orthodontist was over the line, and I apologize to him. As for your first reply:

" What's your problem? First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time."

First you assume I have some sort of problem.
Yes.
Then you posit that i don't "understand the concept of division."
No. What stands there quite simply express that anyone understanding maths (including you, I happen to presume) wouldn't need to REMEMBER long division, since we are able to develop it from scratch, if need ever be.

And I still cannot see whether a 20-30 year old remembers a formula is relevant to the OP's question/theme whether long division should be taught or not in school.

Besides, you owe OP an apology by your rendering of the quote as coming with the ridiculous message that long division is the end-all of mathematical prowess. You know damn well that was not implied in the original post.
 
Evo said:
Ok, stop the fighting.

Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...

So if you guys don't stop we'll send you to the corner to hold hands for an hour! ( worse punishment my parents ever inflicted on my siblings and I).
 
physics girl phd said:
Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...

So if you guys don't stop we'll send you to the corner to hold hands for an hour! ( worse punishment my parents ever inflicted on my siblings and I).
Of course! I have a lot of respect for anyone educated in a technical subject.:smile:
 
Office_Shredder said:
Long division is wrong anyway.

Wrong? What do you mean?
 
i can't find anything to respond to here. what gives?
 
mathwonk said:
i can't find anything to respond to here. what gives?

On the other hand, there have been no argumentative posts for 8 hours.

It's kind of like in the simpsons, when Prof. Frink stands up and shouts "Pi is exactly three!" :smile:
 
physics girl phd said:
Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...
No, you didn't. But Gza insulted several, without any prior provocation. I simply critisized him for doing that.
 
Last edited:
So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?! :rolleyes:
 
Alkatran said:
So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?! :rolleyes:
Guess&check has been elevated to the deepest method available, since the teachers are unsure of other methods, in particular of those based on systematic thinking.
 
Alkatran said:
So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?! :rolleyes:

It's interesting, my 8th grade math teacher said something similar. One of the kids who had to stay after for extra help asked how some kids could answer so many more questions, and get them right more often, in the same amount of time (I wasn't staying after for help then, I was busy scribbling on the board in my misguided attempt at eliminating a variable from an algebraic equation :smile: Those were the days). She said that the reason why is that the kids who get higher grades do the problems in a way that's easier and faster, because they know how to answer the problem better.
 
Alkatran said:
Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?! :rolleyes:
If you read that article, it's probably the kids who are sent out for private math tutoring.

That has evidently become pretty common, although there aren't many hard numbers given in the article.
 
arildno said:
No, you didn't. But Gza insulted several, without any prior provocation. I simply critisized him for doing that.


Arildno the saint :rolleyes: . Thank you for playing "post police", but I'm sure that most posters here are intelligent enough to defend themselves in a debate. And as far as insults go, read back a few pages and see who was the one delivering the largest number of -not so subtle- insults (Although I see you've deleted a few involving a certain 4-letter word) .