Abolish Fractions?
amzoti
mensa...@aol.com
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>
> ~A
Sounds like James Harris has a disciple.
amzoti
Ralf Bader
Kind of crazy. "it could be that the study of fractions should be delayed
until it can be understood, perhaps after a student learns calculus, he
said." But how should a student understand calculus if she can't understand
fractions? A person with an active research record in differential geometry
(according to his homepage) who doesn't know that taking a differential
quotient involves fractions?
The World Wide Wade
<1feef522-ba56-41cd...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> ~A
Dennis DeTurck, a math professor at the University of Pennsylvania,
believes teaching fractions to kids in the digital age is łas obsolete
as Roman numerals are˛.
---------
"There were blogs and rants, and there were some critical e-mails,"
said DeTurck, who is now dean of the college of arts and sciences at
Penn. "They'd always boil down to: 'What would we do in cooking and
carpentry?' "
--------------
Those excerpts are laughable, but general media articles can't be
trusted here. I'd like to see a more detailed presentation of his
ideas.
amzoti
wrote:
> In article
> <1feef522-ba56-41cd-9294-ebf4837e3...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>
> > ~A
>
> Dennis DeTurck, a math professor at the University of Pennsylvania,
> as Roman numerals are².
> ---------
>
> "There were blogs and rants, and there were some critical e-mails,"
> said DeTurck, who is now dean of the college of arts and sciences at
> Penn. "They'd always boil down to: 'What would we do in cooking and
> carpentry?' "
> --------------
>
> Those excerpts are laughable, but general media articles can't be
> trusted here. I'd like to see a more detailed presentation of his
> ideas.
Try these:
www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/spring05/deturck.pdf
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/NEWS03/712260337/1006/NEWS
I guess we'll have to wait for the book for more details!
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
watch your fingers," not fractions per se, and
such is the value of the slide rule (going as far
into trigonometry as needed .-)
ideally speaking, the 3 Rs need not be taught
until fluency in at least one language is really achieved
... arrgh; can't take the SAT, yet!
And, so, the "pupil" shall be required to constuct
his own slide-rule with a pen-knife and
a forest, using base-one.
--Teacher's Manual with Solutions Implied
> www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/spring05/deturck.pdf
> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/NEW...
> I guess we'll have to wait for the book for more details!
thus:
this is a nice show of the near-self-similatity
of the M-set; I think,
you can actually tell, when you are
at the beginning level, by the curvature
of the lines (implied between objects). but,
try to ignore the hysteresis that is created
by the pixelization of changing "magnification."
http://www.david-steuber.com/Lisp/mset/xenos-xoom/xenos-xoom.mov
thus quoth:
001 Membership
002 Government
003 Exchange Committees
004 Enforcement of Rules
005 TRADING QUALIFICATIONS AND PRACTICES
006 Arbitration
007 Delivery Facilities and Procedures
008 Clearing House and Performance Bonds
008A Mutual Offset System
008B Security Futures Products
008C Clearing Services
008D Exempt Board of Trade
008E FXMarketSpace Limited
008F Over-the-Counter Derivative Clearing
009 Clearing Members
II Commodities
50. Dairy
051 Butter Future
051A Options on Butter Futures
051S Butter-Spot Call
052 Milk Futures
052A Options on Milk Futures
052B Midsize Options on Milk Futures
053S Cheese Spot Call
054 Nonfat Dry Milk Futures
054A Options on Nonfat Dry Milk Futures
054S Nonfat Dry Milk-Spot Call
055 Class IV Milk Futures
055A Options on Class IV Milk Futures
056 Cash Settled Butter Futures
056A Options on Cash-Settled Butter Futures
057 CME Dry Whey Futures
057A Options on Dry Whey Futures
100. Cattle and Beef
101 Live Cattle Futures
101A Options on Live Cattle Futures
102 Feeder Cattle Futures
102A Options on Feeder Cattle Futures
150. Hogs and Pork
151 Frozen Pork Bellies Futures
151A Options on Frozen Pork Bellies Futures
152 Lean Hog Futures
152A Options on Lean Hog Futures
200. Other
201 Random Length Lumber Futures
201A Options on Random Length Lumber Futures
203 Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft Pulp - Europe Futures
203A Options on Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft Pulp - Europe Futures
III Currencies
http://www.esignal.com/cbot/features/weather.asp
quasi
wrote:
>Thoughts?
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
He's a kook.
Without a solid understanding of ordinary fractions, a student has
little chance of understanding algebraic fractions.
Thus, "down with fractions" has, as a corollary, "down with algebra".
Of course, many students would cheer for that, as would many parents.
Sadly, many elementary school teachers would also cheer. But that gets
to the real problem -- the teachers can't teach it. Why not? Because
they don't really understand it themselves.
quasi
The Ghost In The Machine
<amz...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST)
<1feef522-ba56-41cd...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> ~A
Might as well ban square roots and trig while we're at it;
we'll just be replacing
3/5 = 0.60000000000
sqrt(2) = 1.41421356237
sin(60) = 0.86602540378
everywhere, right?
</sarcasm>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti <amz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> He's a kook.
When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime,
I suggest you
1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the man himself.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
MrKofner
wrote:
> In article <gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge044n7paum35gjn...@4ax.com>,
>
> quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti <amz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Thoughts?
>
>
> > He's a kook.
>
> When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
> maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime,
> I suggest you
> 1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
> 2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
> 3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the man himself.
>
> --
> Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
The man may or may not be a kook, but he's dead wrong.
Ignorance of fractions literally dooms a student in middle-school and
high-school math. And not because "they have to learn fractions there
too".
It's because competent high schoolers can think in terms of ratio and
proportion, and those who cannot deal with fractions cannot.
rich burge
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>
Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar.
Rich
Bill Dubuque
>Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>>>
>>> He's a kook.
>>
>> When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,> maybe you can
>> call him a kook. In the meantime, I suggest you
>> 1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
>> 2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
>> 3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the man himself.
>
> Ignorance of fractions literally dooms a student in middle-school and
> high-school math. And not because "they have to learn fractions there
> too". It's because competent high schoolers can think in terms of ratio
> and proportion, and those who cannot deal with fractions cannot.
But such ratios and proportions can just as easily be expressed
in terms of decimal fractions for the purposes of the layperson.
I suspect DeTurck's proposal is that one should first teach
decimal fractions, delaying integral fractions till a later point.
It is very rare that one needs integral fractions in applied
mathematics, i.e. the "diophantine" aspects of fractions occur
rarely in the real world (or non-number-theoretical mathematics).
In fact I suspect most readers will have a hard time thinking
of any real-word problem that requires integral fractions as
opposed to decimal fractions. How about it naysayers?
Otoh teaching fractions has numerous *pedagogical* virtues.
Most importantly it is usually the first example of a
equivalence relations (congruences) and quotient structures
that the student will encounter, and the first time the student
learns to compute operations on elements in quotient structures.
Such abstract reasoning is best learned in a mathematical context.
Indeed, one might argue that the primary purpose of teaching
math to the layperson is to encourage abstract logical thought.
Perhaps DeTurck is proposing that one should delay the teaching
of integral fractions until the student has sufficient background
to appreciate some of these finer points, esp. if there is no
other need to introduce them earlier. And I have yet to see
any critic demonstrate even one such need.
--Bill Dubuque
quasi
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>In article <gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge...@4ax.com>,
> quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti <amz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thoughts?
>> >
>> >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>>
>> He's a kook.
>
>When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
>maybe you can call him a kook.
I don't care what the man _was_. What is he now? Answer -- a kook,
almost surely. Comparing his accomplishments to mine is irrelevant.
It's enough to focus on what he actually said, and its potentially
damaging impact.
>In the meantime, I suggest you
>1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
Ok, I'll qualify my statement.
Assuming the USA Today article is essentially accurate, the man is a
kook.
>2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard,
Hey, I call it like I see it.
In my view, "Down with fractions!" is a dangerous slogan, which calls
for a strong counter. If his message were to be taken literally by the
_funders_ of education, it would, in my opinion, seriously impair the
already difficult task of trying to improve the quality of mathematics
teaching (and teachers).
>3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the man himself.
If that article is false, don't you think _he_ should have demanded a
retraction?
quasi
Bill Dubuque
>amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> He's a kook.
> Without a solid understanding of ordinary fractions, a student
> has little chance of understanding algebraic fractions.
> Thus, "down with fractions" has, as a corollary, "down with algebra".
Perhaps you misunderstand his proposal. He's not proposing to
eliminate fractions. Rather I think he is proposing that one
should teach decimal fractions first and delay the introduction
of integral fractions until they are actually needed and can be
better understood. I think that such a proposal shouldn't be
dismissed without intelligent discussion (which "He's a kook"
certainly is not). See my earlier post in this thread.
--Bill Dubuque
toni.l...@gmail.com
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
I think he has it exactly backwards. They should stop teaching decimal
expansions and concentrate more on fractions. People who don't
understand that not every real number has a unique terminating decimal
expansion are the biggest source of Cantor cranks and 1 != 0.999...
idiots in this group.
I think it's a troll made on purpose to draw attention. It's sad that
the general public is so ill-educated that to highlight problems in
mathematics education it is necessary to discuss elementary school
topics.
quasi
wrote:
>quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>>amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>>
>> He's a kook.
>> Without a solid understanding of ordinary fractions, a student
>> has little chance of understanding algebraic fractions.
>> Thus, "down with fractions" has, as a corollary, "down with algebra".
>
>Perhaps you misunderstand his proposal. He's not proposing to
>eliminate fractions. Rather I think he is proposing that one
>should teach decimal fractions first and delay the introduction
>of integral fractions until they are actually needed and can be
>better understood.
To truly understand decimals, you need to understand fractions.
What the hell does .5 mean anyway?
>I think that such a proposal shouldn't be dismissed without
>intelligent discussion
Sorry, it's not an intelligent proposal.
Work on the teachers -- get them to understand (and love) fractions,
don't simply capitulate in the struggle to promote math literacy.
It's a shame to see calculus students use a calculator to evaluate 1/2
+ 1/3. You never would have seen that in the old days. Of course, they
didn't have calculators in the old days, but even if they had, the
general level math literacy and the quality of early mathematics
teaching was higher.
>(which "He's a kook" certainly is not).
But note, in my prior reply, I didn't just call him a kook -- I also
gave an argument to justify it.
To give the argument again ...
Comfort with fractions is a critical prerequisite for success in
elementary algebra. Since teaching fractions only requires concepts of
whole numbers, it can be taught right after whole numbers. The
earlier, the better, since fractions are conceptually difficult, and
so require a fair amount of time before the student can acquire a real
understanding.
>See my earlier post in this thread.
Sorry Bill, as much as I respect your math knowledge, I feel you are
dead wrong on this one. There's no need to be an apologist for him --
I'm nearly 100% sure that you don't agree with his message.
So why not call a kook a kook?
quasi
Virgil
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
At race tracks in Great Britain, the betting odds are expressed in ratio
form, with whole number oddments.
quasi
wrote:
>On 31 tammi, 02:38, amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>
>I think he has it exactly backwards. They should stop teaching decimal
>expansions and concentrate more on fractions.
Yep, unless they're actually trying to churn out more and more cash
register clerks.
>People who don't understand that not every real number has a unique
>terminating decimal expansion are the biggest source of Cantor cranks
>and 1 != 0.999... idiots in this group.
Rational numbers are a deep concept, critically supporting a lot of
later math, and so needs to be taught _early_, as early as possible,
giving it time to be truly absorbed.
Moreover, why lock in base 10?
I wonder how one converts a decimal to base 2 without converting to a
fraction first. I'm sure it can be done, but under the hood, it would
effectively be a fraction conversion, anyway. Without explaining the
method using the fraction concept, it would appear to the student as
an essentially meaningless algorithm.
As an example, consider the algorithm to find square roots by hand. In
my opinion, that one _should_ be deferred, until Newton's method has
been taught, at which point such an algorithm suddenly makes sense.
But back to decimals. Frankly, decimals are boring -- there is no
depth, except the underlying depth of fractions. So sure, teach them
decimals early -- bore them to death, show them the ugliest math, and
hide the underlying conceptual basis, making sure they all hate math,
even the ones that might have loved it. Deprive them of the simple
pleasure of figuring out that 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6, and instead give them
the dull .5 + .333... = .8333...
>I think it's a troll made on purpose to draw attention.
Wow -- everyone is trying so hard to apologize for him.
So you are suggesting that he publicly declared "Down with fractions!"
and gave arguments to support it, all the while just trolling?
Not very credible, sorry.
>It's sad that the general public is so ill-educated that to highlight
>problems in mathematics education it is necessary to discuss
>elementary school topics.
The problems start there.
The quality of math literacy of elementary school teachers is so low,
it's scary. Take the elementary school teachers nationwide (in the
US), and give them all a standardized test in elementary algebra. The
results would be shockingly bad.
Now while it's true that elementary school teachers don't need to
actually _teach_ algebra (in the current curricula, anyway), you can't
confidently teach a given level of math unless you've at least
mastered a level or two above.
The solution is not to defer teaching fractions, but rather to train
better teachers. Require more knowledge of them before we let them
loose on our youth.
quasi
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> In fact I suspect most readers will have a hard time thinking
>> of any real-word problem that requires integral fractions as
>> opposed to decimal fractions. How about it naysayers?
>
> At race tracks in Great Britain, the betting odds are expressed
> in ratio form, with whole number oddments.
But that doesn't *require* integral fractions since the odds
could just as easily be presentated as decimal real number
approximations without any loss for this particular application.
There is nothing inherently integral in this case.
--Bill Dubuque
Tim Little
> But such ratios and proportions can just as easily be expressed in
> terms of decimal fractions for the purposes of the layperson.
How many decimal places do you want for 1/3?
I do see part of the point. There's a reason why virtually no
programming languages make any provision for dealing with rationals.
For practical purposes, integers suffice for almost all computations
that must be exact, and there are decimals (well, bicimals) for the
rest.
> In fact I suspect most readers will have a hard time thinking of any
> real-word problem that requires integral fractions as opposed to
> decimal fractions.
Yeah, most of the examples I could come up with could be eliminated by
a very simple rewording of the problem. Almost all of the remainder
were cases where using fractions would be misleadingly exact anyway.
> Perhaps DeTurck is proposing that one should delay the teaching of
> integral fractions until the student has sufficient background to
> appreciate some of these finer points, esp. if there is no other
> need to introduce them earlier.
The only practical (rather than pedagogical) advantage I see is that
fractions sometimes allow exact computation whereas decimals are
almost always inexact.
I haven't read DeTurck's proposal at all, but I think introducing
fractions along with other symbolic math concepts (e.g. basic algebra)
would be quite reasonable. Then again I think at least some parts of
symbolic math could and should be introduced a lot earlier than they
are.
- Tim
David Bernier
The video & transcript of the mini-lecture are under DeTurk here:
< http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D >
I just think being good with fractions can help with high school
algebra.
quasi
<davi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>rich burge wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 4:38 pm, amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>>>
>>
>> Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar.
Which of these is more beautiful?
(1/8) / (2/3)
.125 / .667
If you choose the second one, all I can say is "Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder".
>The video & transcript of the mini-lecture are under DeTurk here:
>
><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
>
>I just think being good with fractions can help with high school
>algebra.
It can help? It's critical!
Geez.
If that same proposal had come from one of the known sci.math cranks,
people would not have been so tentative in shooting it down.
DeTurck's argument is badly flawed, dangerous, and even somewhat
dishonest.
Most math books at the elementary school level _don't_ emphasize
fractions like 385/23. Thus, his example is a straw man argument (and
he surely knows it).
He claims teaching fractions requires rote memorization. In fact, just
the opposite is true. Unless the laws of fractions are justified by
relating them back to earlier laws or at least providing conceptual
plausibility using simple examples, fractions _can't_ be truly
mastered.
For example "1/5 + 2/5" is like "one apple plus 2 apples" so you get
3/5 (and not 3/10). Alternatively, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 (since one half a
cookie plus the other half equals the whole cookie), and also 2/2 = 1
(since if you have 2 cookies and you divide it among 2 people, you
each get one cookie). Once again, this conceptual argument convinces
the student that for like fractions, one adds the numerators, and
keeps the common denominator (and then reduces to lowest terms).
Similarly the concept of equivalent fractions can be justified
conceptually. Take 2 cookies and divide it equally for 4 people. How
much does each person get? Draw a picture, divide each cookie in half,
giving 4 equal parts. Thus, the student visually sees that 2/4 is the
same as 1/2.
These are just 2 examples, and they could be expounded even further.
The point is that fractions offer tons of opportunities for
emphasizing the underlying concepts, not just drilling with rote
memorized laws.
In fact, it's decimals which would require rote memorized laws unless
fractions are taught first (in which case, you can use fraction
concepts to explain why decimal operations work as they do).
For example, why is .2 x .3 = .06? Why isn't it .6? If you don't have
fractions as a prerequisite, it pretty much has to be based on a rote
memorized law. With fractions, it gets explained by
(.2)(.3) = (2/10)*(3/10) = 6/100 = .06
That way, when you next introduce the law of how the decimal point
moves when you multiply decimals, there is at least a motivating
example to fall back on.
In the same way, all the various fraction concepts motivate the
corresponding algebraic concepts. Don't think you can just wait until
they get to algebra and explain it all at once then. Fractions provide
intuition and motivating examples for many laws of algebra.
As an analogy, we don't teach Topology before Advanced Calculus. For
one thing, the student needs the intuition acquired from a year of
struggling with concepts relating to R and R^n in order to provide,
for example, a sense of what properties a continuous function should
have. In addition R^n and its subsets provide a wealth of examples to
fall back on. Also, we can't wait until Topology to teach rigorous
proof concepts -- that takes time. Even waiting until Advanced
Calculus is too late. For proofs, the earlier, the better.
Fractions also take time to learn, and the hard earned intuition
gained is critical to understanding algebra. Packing the teaching of
fractions into an algebra course risks not being able to depend on
that needed intuition.
For example, a/a = 1 -- just a law of fractions.
As another example, take laws of exponents such as x^a/x^b = x^(a-b)
If fractions are still too new, such a law tends to blur with other
laws. But if the students have been shown a simple motivating example
such as
x^5/x^3 = (x*x*x*x*x) / (x*x*x)
and then, by the laws of fractions, cancel the common factor x*x*x,
and voila, you get x^2/1 = x^2, same as predicted by the law of
exponents -- then the law makes sense.
Moreover, in teaching fractions, there is the early opportunity to
teach concepts of true depth -- factoring of natural numbers, primes,
composites, gcf, lcm -- thus giving students a first glimpse of some
subtle relationships that have fascinated humanity for thousands of
years.
Contrast that with adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing
decimals. It might be fun the first few times. After that it's
drudgery. No thinking necessary -- just follow the rules -- exactly.
All in all, DeTurck is way off base (or maybe on base, but stuck on
base 10). Worse, his message has the potential to do real damage.
quasi
Dave Seaman
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:17:01 -0500, David Bernier
><davi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>rich burge wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 4:38 pm, amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar.
Ding!
> Which of these is more beautiful?
> (1/8) / (2/3)
> .125 / .667
> If you choose the second one, all I can say is "Beauty is in the eye
> of the beholder".
Umm... I suggest you google for "vulgar fraction" to find out what he meant.
> Geez.
--
Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>
quasi
<dse...@no.such.host> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:07:17 -0500, quasi wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:17:01 -0500, David Bernier
>><davi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>rich burge wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 4:38 pm, amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good mathematics is always beautiful. Fractions can be vulgar.
>
>Ding!
>
>> Which of these is more beautiful?
>
>> (1/8) / (2/3)
>
>> .125 / .667
>
>> If you choose the second one, all I can say is "Beauty is in the eye
>> of the beholder".
>
>Umm... I suggest you google for "vulgar fraction" to find out what he meant.
Ah, ok -- I'd never heard that term before. So rich burge's reply was
intended as a pun! Now I get it.
Along the same lines, I just watched the video. Previously I had just
read the transcript. From the video, it's obvious to me that he's not
serious -- the tone and facial expression give it away. Thus, he
really _was_ trolling! At least, that's my current take.
So he's either a troll (practical joker to be a little nicer) or a
kook! Either way, he's not to be believed.
quasi
Angus Rodgers
<davi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>The video & transcript of the mini-lecture are under DeTurk here:
>< http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D >
I waited to see his actual words before trying to make a judgement.
From the transcript:
It’s not that writing ratios like 385 over 23 should be banned.
But such expressions should simply no longer be considered to
be numbers.
If he had only been proposing not to teach all children all of the
rules for calculating with fractions, he might have a decimal point,
and I'd even have 48.7134% of a mind to agree with him (and put all
the fuss down to poor reporting by the Press, or canny promotion of
his forthcoming book), although I'd be worrying about the education
of children who do have mathematical curiosity. I hope they would
have at least the option of learning how to work with fractions, so
that operations with decimals would make sense. I also don't see
how operations with decimals (i.e. decimal fractions - to give them
their full title) could possibly make sense to /anybody/ who hasn't
been taught at least what they /are/, as fractions. Which leads me
to ... "simply no longer be considered to be numbers"? That just
seems to be 99.999% unequivocally 'irrational'! I don't see how it
could even be explained away as being provocative, or making a joke.
After all, what kind of answer is "385 over 23," when "about
16.7" conveys the same information so much more directly?
The information being, sixteen and seven tenths? Or if not that,
then /what/ information? Just a string of decimal digits, to be
manipulated blindly, and with ignorant trust in the accuracy and
reliability of computing machinery?
Are we to have a mathematical Newspeak in which we can no longer
even think the thought that sqrt{2} is irrational? I say, teach
them Eudoxus's theory of proportions! Then the little blighters
will be glad only to have to worry about fractions! :-)
(The smiley is sadly necessary, because my modest proposal seems
scarcely any dafter than the one actually under consideration.)
I thought quasi was just being silly (after all, he has given me
the "kook" treatment once or twice), but after reading DeTurck's
actual words, I really do find myself wondering what on Earth he
thinks he's on about.
I keep thinking that, as an obviously respected researcher (also
a former associate editor of the American Mathematical Monthly),
he /must/ have a serious point, but he seems to be going to great
lengths to make it hard for anybody to see what his point is.
Am I just missing the joke?
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
Angus Rodgers
>Along the same lines, I just watched the video. Previously I had just
>read the transcript. From the video, it's obvious to me that he's not
>serious -- the tone and facial expression give it away. Thus, he
>really _was_ trolling! At least, that's my current take.
>
>So he's either a troll (practical joker to be a little nicer) or a
>kook! Either way, he's not to be believed.
I watched the video (twice) before reading the transcript, and I'm
still baffled. Perhaps he's a fully paid up Discordian, or member
of the Church of the SubGenius ...
A N Niel
<1feef522-ba56-41cd...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> ~A
Wait, we will have a generation of students who cannot compute
1/2 + 1/3 without a calculator? Or cannot compute
1/3+1/3+1/3=1 correctly because their calculator says 0.999999 ?
quasi
<twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:17:01 -0500, David Bernier
><davi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>The video & transcript of the mini-lecture are under DeTurk here:
>>< http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D >
>
>I waited to see his actual words before trying to make a judgement.
>
>From the transcript:
>
> It’s not that writing ratios like 385 over 23 should be banned.
> But such expressions should simply no longer be considered to
> be numbers.
>
>If he had only been proposing not to teach all children all of the
>rules for calculating with fractions, he might have a decimal point,
>and I'd even have 48.7134% of a mind to agree with him
Hehe.
>(and put all
>the fuss down to poor reporting by the Press, or canny promotion of
>his forthcoming book), although I'd be worrying about the education
>of children who do have mathematical curiosity. I hope they would
>have at least the option of learning how to work with fractions, so
>that operations with decimals would make sense. I also don't see
>how operations with decimals (i.e. decimal fractions - to give them
>their full title) could possibly make sense to /anybody/ who hasn't
>been taught at least what they /are/, as fractions. Which leads me
>to ... "simply no longer be considered to be numbers"? That just
>seems to be 99.999% unequivocally 'irrational'!
Haha.
>I don't see how it could even be explained away as being provocative,
>or making a joke.
Well, jokes have no real limits (I think that's a corollary to some
general theorem on comic sections).
> After all, what kind of answer is "385 over 23," when "about
> 16.7" conveys the same information so much more directly?
>
>The information being, sixteen and seven tenths? Or if not that,
>then /what/ information? Just a string of decimal digits, to be
>manipulated blindly, and with ignorant trust in the accuracy and
>reliability of computing machinery?
>
>Are we to have a mathematical Newspeak in which we can no longer
>even think the thought that sqrt{2} is irrational? I say, teach
>them Eudoxus's theory of proportions! Then the little blighters
>will be glad only to have to worry about fractions! :-)
Haha.
>(The smiley is sadly necessary, because my modest proposal seems
>scarcely any dafter than the one actually under consideration.)
>
>I thought quasi was just being silly (after all, he has given me
>the "kook" treatment once or twice),
That treatment was well deserved, but you've improved dramatically --
you must be taking your meds.
>but after reading DeTurck's actual words, I really do find myself wondering
>what on Earth he thinks he's on about.
>
>I keep thinking that, as an obviously respected researcher (also
>a former associate editor of the American Mathematical Monthly),
>he /must/ have a serious point, but he seems to be going to great
>lengths to make it hard for anybody to see what his point is.
>
>Am I just missing the joke?
It's a joke -- I'm almost sure of it.
Watch the video -- he can hardly keep a straight face.
Plus he's _reading_ the words. He can't bring himself to say such
ridiculous stuff and make it look like it's from the heart. In that
sense he's not a natural comic.
I'm sure the spoof is just a publicity stunt for his book, and that
the book probably makes the _opposite_ argument to its title. The book
probably opens with a similar spoof, and then he proceeds to shoots it
down, effectively messing with the reader's mind for a short while.
I'd _bet_ on it, but I wouldn't bet a lot -- for all I know, maybe he
really is a kook. But as I said before, it doesn't matter -- spoofster
or kook -- either way, he's not to be taken seriously.
quasi
Angus Rodgers
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:41:35 +0000, Angus Rodgers
><twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>I thought quasi was just being silly (after all, he has given me
>>the "kook" treatment once or twice),
>
>That treatment was well deserved, but you've improved dramatically --
>you must be taking your meds.
Never touch the stuff. No therapy, either. It must be a miracle.
Aatu Koskensilta
> They should stop teaching decimal expansions and concentrate more on
> fractions. People who don't understand that not every real number
> has a unique terminating decimal expansion are the biggest source of
> Cantor cranks and 1 != 0.999... idiots in this group.
The primary purpose of education is not, in all likelihood, to shield
sci.math from all sorts of idiocy.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Angus Rodgers
>I'm sure the spoof is just a publicity stunt for his book, and that
>the book probably makes the _opposite_ argument to its title. The book
>probably opens with a similar spoof, and then he proceeds to shoots it
>down, effectively messing with the reader's mind for a short while.
>I'd _bet_ on it, but I wouldn't bet a lot --
On reflection, I'd bet on it too. It's the only rational explanation.
Tim Norfolk
> quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> >amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thoughts?
>
> > He's a kook.
> > Without a solid understanding of ordinary fractions, a student
> > has little chance of understanding algebraic fractions.
> > Thus, "down with fractions" has, as a corollary, "down with algebra".
>
> Perhaps you misunderstand his proposal. He's not proposing to
> eliminate fractions. Rather I think he is proposing that one
> should teach decimal fractions first and delay the introduction
> of integral fractions until they are actually needed and can be
> better understood. I think that such a proposal shouldn't be
> dismissed without intelligent discussion (which "He's a kook"
> certainly is not). See my earlier post in this thread.
>
> --Bill Dubuque
Except that the article says that fractions should come after
Calculus. I already have students who took a year of high-school
Calculus, yet don't know any algebra or trig.
Jesse F. Hughes
Yeah, that'll be a big change, won't it?
--
"Now I realize that he got away with all of that because sci.math is
not important, and the rest of the world doesn't pay attention.
Like, no one is worried about football players reading sci.math
postings!" -- James S. Harris on jock reading habits
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> But such ratios and proportions can just as easily be expressed
> in terms of decimal fractions for the purposes of the layperson.
Um. Yeah?
Billy has a cake. He wants to share it with his two
friends John and Sam. How much of the cake will
each boy get? 0.33333, 333, uh, 3, uh, yeah.
Just as easily? How ever will you calculate that
0.33 etc. without knowing fractions? Are you going
to try to teach long division without fractions?
Are you going to try to explain what 0.33 etc. means
without explaining what 1/3 is?
As my friend explained why he declined to join
two other guys and a girl going skinny dipping:
Three into one does not go.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[snip]
> I do see part of the point. There's a reason why virtually no
> programming languages make any provision for dealing with rationals.
Um. A fairly common homework assignment learning
the C++ language is to write a class that does
rational number math. Add, subtract, multiply,
and divide. Lots of fun. Had to remember my
grade school stuff to remember the algorithm for
getting a common denominator.
Socks
mensa...@aol.com
Sure it does. At least on the videos I've seen.
> Socks
Tim Little
> Um. A fairly common homework assignment learning the C++ language is
> to write a class that does rational number math. Add, subtract,
> multiply, and divide. Lots of fun. Had to remember my grade school
> stuff to remember the algorithm for getting a common denominator.
Yes, that's my point. It's an exercise used for teaching, since it's
not part of the language. You'll probably never use it again.
I grant that there are languages that have rational arithmetic built
in. Those usually also include facility for manipulating polynomials,
doing modular arithmetic, and various other forms of symbolic math and
number theory.
- Tim
lits...@yahoo.com
What a 0.5-baked idea.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> ~A
Interestingly I had this discussion a few days ago with a professor
specializing in Math Ed.
I tend to think that we should keep fractions. After all, that is how
the Greek's defined non-integers (as ratios of two integers rather than
points on a number line).
My personal experience is that the best way to get good answers to these
kinds of questions is to ask professors from departments for whom math
is a service requirement. This includes economics, physics,
engineering. It is surprising the extent that these people really
prefer the traditional teaching approach, and the extent that they want
the courses to teach basic math skills rather than applications.
For example, ask a typical engineering professor what a good applied
mathematics course should contain, and they answer with things like
analytic functions, contour integrals, separation of variable techniques
for PDE, Bessel functions, Fourier series and Fourier transforms!
gcoo...@aol.com
> A N Niel <ann...@nym.alias.net.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article
> > amzoti <amz...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Wait, we will have a generation of students who cannot compute
> > 1/2 + 1/3 without a calculator? �Or cannot compute
> > 1/3+1/3+1/3=1 correctly because their calculator says 0.999999 ?
>
and turn it upside down and it says "HELLSBELLS"
you shouldn't try to take it away from me
ever,
peace: i am a math student i'd like to know what other numbers i can
put in there and turn it upside down and get nice words (perhaps the
word f#@k) if you know
thx
Michael Press
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
Odds representation makes calculating pay offs easier, much easier.
Calculating with odds makes many betting propositions
easier to calculate.
In a population of 1000 coins 1 coin always turns up
heads, and 999 are fair. A coin from the population is
flipped 10 times and shows heads all ten times.
At the beginning the odds for a
biased coin against a fair coin are 1:999.
The odds for a biased coin against a fair coin giving
10 out of 10 heads are 1:1024.
The odds that our coin is biased are
1:999 times 1024:1.
Pedagogical questions.
What is the formula for probability in terms of odds?
What is the formula for odds in terms of probability?
I propose that odds and betting propositions be taught in
all middle schools. Add in various sucker bets.
A hustler pulls six cards from a deck, four queens and two aces.
He shuffles the six cards and offers the player/mark even money
if the mark can pull two cards without hitting an ace.
Four queens against two aces. How tough could that be?
Very tough. The hustler is a 3:2 favorite.
--
Michael Press
Phil Carmody
> In article <y8zhcgu...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
> > >Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In fact I suspect most readers will have a hard time thinking
> > >> of any real-word problem that requires integral fractions as
> > >> opposed to decimal fractions. How about it naysayers?
> > >
> > > At race tracks in Great Britain, the betting odds are expressed
> > > in ratio form, with whole number oddments.
> >
> > But that doesn't *require* integral fractions since the odds
> > could just as easily be presentated as decimal real number
> > approximations without any loss for this particular application.
> > There is nothing inherently integral in this case.
>
> Odds representation makes calculating pay offs easier, much easier.
>
> Calculating with odds makes many betting propositions
> easier to calculate.
>
> In a population of 1000 coins 1 coin always turns up
> heads, and 999 are fair. A coin from the population is
> flipped 10 times and shows heads all ten times.
>
> At the beginning the odds for a
> biased coin against a fair coin are 1:999.
> The odds for a biased coin against a fair coin giving
> 10 out of 10 heads are 1:1024.
"much easier"? Sure?
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
mensa...@aol.com
Any words that only have o, e, i, h, s, l, or b.
> and get nice words
Lots of 'em (at least 3 letters):
word starting with
length b e h i l o s
3 30 26 27 22 29 25 32
4 69 27 49 21 45 30 58
5 78 21 54 13 42 19 64
6 50 7 36 11 27 12 36
7 31 3 17 1 15 4 20
8 2 7 2 6 3 8
9 4 1 2 4
10 1 1 1
11 1
13 1
> (perhaps the word f#@k) if you know
Sorry, no f words. But don't let that discourage you, there
are 1150 other words to choose from, for words starting with b
there are 78 5-letter words.
bebee bello bibio bilos blibe boehl bolle
bebel bells bible bilsh blish boese bolls
beebe besee biehl biose bliss bohle bolos
beele besse bilbe bisel blobs bohol boobs
beese bessi bilbi bises blois boies boohs
behle besso bilbo bisie blose boils boole
belee bhels biles bisso bloss boise boose
belie bhili bilio blebs bobbe boisi bosie
belis bibbo bille blees bobbi boles bosse
belle bibbs billi bleil bobbo bolio bossi
belli bibee bills bless bobol bolis bosso
bsele
And look what you get with 10 or more letters:
booboisies 10
hillbillies 11
isoleeolie 10
isoleeoliesee 13
loblollies 10
Surely you can make something interesting from all those
choices.
> thx
Michael Press
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> I wonder how one converts a decimal to base 2 without converting to a
> fraction first. I'm sure it can be done, but under the hood, it would
> effectively be a fraction conversion, anyway. Without explaining the
> method using the fraction concept, it would appear to the student as
> an essentially meaningless algorithm.
Calculations done in base ten.
Loop
Multiply by 2
Subtract the integer part
Output the integer part
Loop
See Knuth, ACP, 2.4.4.
--
Michael Press
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
Don't be dense. "Makes no provision for" is very different
from "not built in."
Vis:
Virtually no computer language has a "hello world" program
built in.
Compared that to:
Virtualy no computer language makes provision for a
"hello world" program.
In fact, you need to be able to write something like
a "hello world" program in the usual case of computer
languages. Just as when you can do integer arithemetic
you can do rationals up to the limit of memory.
As to "never use it again" there is a reason it is such
a common homework assignment. The algebra involved is
required for certain fairly common numerical methods.
And having a rational class around makes it easy.
Socks
rich burge
>
> Which of these is more beautiful?
>
> (1/8) / (2/3)
>
> .125 / .667
>
> If you choose the second one, all I can say is "Beauty is in the eye
> of the beholder".
>
Having made a serious (and painfully long) study of the poster of
decimal conversions on the wall of Mrs. White's seventh grade math
class, I must confess that, to this day, I find the decimal equivalent
of 91/128 to be quite beautiful. Kind of a weird aesthetic for a
student of the "new math", I know.
Rich
The Ghost In The Machine
<r3...@aol.com>
wrote
on Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:06:30 -0800 (PST)
<44962040-ce79-456a...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
0.7109375 = "Sleb oil" upside down? I'll admit it's interesting. :-)
Admittedly, 1/3 = 0.4 in base 12. That's kinda pretty. ;-)
Too bad almost no one uses base 12.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
rich burge
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> Too bad almost no one uses base 12.
>
Indeed. In the delightful book "Textbook of Algebra", Chrystal gives
the following problem: Find the number of square feet and inches in a
rectangular carpet, whose dimensions are 21' 3 1/2" by 13' 11 3/4".
He then proceeds to solve the problem by first expressing the lengths
in the duodecimal scale followed by a quick (and clever) multplication
and simple conversion. The area is 297 feet 92 inches. This should
answer the objections of the carpenters. Cooks, however, probably do
need fractions.
Rich
mensa...@aol.com
Couldn't I use base 16 in place of ounces?
>
> Rich
G. A. Edgar
<c7960e0a-2295-4048...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
rich burge <r3...@aol.com> wrote:
> The area is 297 feet 92 inches.
area in feet and inches?
--
G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/
Phil Carmody
> In article
> <c7960e0a-2295-4048...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> rich burge <r3...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The area is 297 feet 92 inches.
>
> area in feet and inches?
No, the units are clearly "feet inches", which are indeed a measure
of area.
rich burge
wrote:
> In article
> <c7960e0a-2295-4048-9ccf-2a271d1d7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Chrystal can be a curious read, I'll admit. Some quotes from the same
page (174):
"Hence the area is 297 feet 92 inches."
"On account of the duodecimal division of the English foot into 12
inches, the duodecimal scale is sometimes convenient in mensuration."
"If, following Oughtred's arrangement, we reverse the multiplier, and
put the unit figure under the last decimal place which is to be
regarded, the calculation runs thus--"
Rich
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<t...@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote:
[...]
> I do see part of the point. There's a reason why virtually no
> programming languages make any provision for dealing with rationals.
Rationals are part of scheme's number tower, as is the case in
Haskell. Perl has rational support in its standard libraries as does
Python (I think), C++ can be extended to support rationals.
David Moran
> Thoughts?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> ~A
Why is it that when something's hard people want to get rid of it? I
thought PDE was hard, but I studied and learned it. Seems like people
just need to put in more time studying.
Dave
mensa...@aol.com
Python has a wrapper (gmpy) for GMP which supports unlimited
precision rationals. Works real neat, too.
> C++ can be extended to support rationals.
And the underlying GMP can be used in both C and C++.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti <amz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm
>
> He's a kook.
I don't think that that kook is the right word. Its quite possable to have
unorthidox views and not be a kook.
Angus Rodgers
Careful. That makes you a kook. ;-)
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:27:27 GMT, "David Formosa
> (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>I don't think that that kook is the right word. Its quite possable to have
>>unorthidox views and not be a kook.
>
> Careful. That makes you a kook. ;-)
Possably, but I am of the view that one only becomes a kook when you
abandon the concept that ideas must be supported by reason. For example
both Constructivists and AntyCantor kooks reject Cantor's diagonal
proof.
Constructivism is an unorthidox mathimatical field. However its
logically consistant and even usefull in some cases. For example the
functional programing language camp uses constructivist via the
Curry-Howard isomporphism.
On the other hand the AntyCantor kooks are rarely logically consistant
and are never usefull.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Possably, but I am of the view that one only becomes a kook when you
> abandon the concept that ideas must be supported by reason. For example
> both Constructivists and AntyCantor kooks reject Cantor's diagonal
> proof.
Cantor's diagonal proof is constructively valid. I'm afraid you'll
have to look elsewhere for competent mathematicians rejecting the
argument. If you do, you'll find their rejection is based on quite
different considerations than those presented by "anti-Cantorists" of
the breed which frequents the news -- in particular, you'll find their
rejection is usually based on rejecting most if not all infinitary set
theoretic talk as meaningless, rather than on elusive supposed "flaws"
in the proof.
> Constructivism is an unorthidox mathimatical field. However its
> logically consistant and even usefull in some cases. For example the
> functional programing language camp uses constructivist via the
> Curry-Howard isomporphism.
Sure, constructivists are, on the whole, certainly not kooks.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Angus Rodgers
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:49:56 +0000, Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:27:27 GMT, "David Formosa
>> (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>[...]
>>>I don't think that that kook is the right word. Its quite possable to have
>>>unorthidox views and not be a kook.
>>
>> Careful. That makes you a kook. ;-)
>
>Possably, but I am of the view that one only becomes a kook when you
>abandon the concept that ideas must be supported by reason.
I was being ironic, hence the winking smiley face. I agree with you.
(Well, except possibly on how to define 'kook'. I don't really have
an opinion on that, except that being a kook has something to do with
being unreasonable - whatever reasonableness is.)
tommy1729
> In article
> <gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge...@4ax.com>,
> quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti
> <amz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008
> -01-23-fractions_N.htm
> >
> > He's a kook.
>
> When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
> maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime,
> I suggest you
> 1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
> 2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
> 3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the
> man himself.
>
> --
> Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for
> email)
so you support the idea ??
the idea is even too crazy for JSH !!
i dont know about america but here in europe you cant become a prof in math if you cant work with fractions. :p
abolish fractions ?? get real !!
he should have better said abolish aleph_3 instead of fractions.
will mathematics in the future include aleph 3 , aleph 4 , aleph 82 , beth 34 , epsilon 72 ...
but no longer fractions.
nice going america !!
why might as well replace sqrt(x) with a mathematical god proof.
( certain american religious politicians would be pleased )
what's next ? abolish non-euclidean geometry ???
abolish matrices ???
we might as well hand over the fields medal to JSH for his ring of objects then.
and since we dont work with fractions anymore we can also forget about divisions ...
and thus also factoring or primes...
in fact , abolish number theory id say.
the nutty professor 3 -> out now !!
regards
tommy1729
quasi
wrote:
But if you watch the video,
<http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
But he got taken literally, both by the news media, and by others as
well. Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously than they should
have for the simple reason that the idea was presented by a well
known, highly respected mathematician. In other words, "The Emperor's
Clothes" phenomenon.
I'll proudly point out that even before watching the video, I wasn't
fooled for a minute.
But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can be. Given that he
actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't he?), he could
inadvertently get taken seriously by the _funders_ of education, thus
seriously damaging math education in the US (and possibly the world --
after all -- if the US does it, it must be right, or at least, that's
what funders of education in other countries might conclude). Thus, a
silly joke, presumably intended to create publicity for his book, sets
mathematics back a few thousand years. Nice going, DeTurck!
As an analogy, to show how kidding can potentially be dangerous,
consider the following hypothetical scenario ...
Thus, what if Bush were to _joke_ publicly, saying that he thinks we
should "nuke" Iran. People might take him seriously. The next thing
you know, with the resulting paranoia, a world war might ensue.
quasi
The World Wide Wade
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
Nonsense. You called him a kook, as if he were serious about it.
Nowhere did you say it was a spoof. In fact, you argued the opposite.
See below.
--------
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:39:27 -0800 (PST), toni.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
>I think it's a troll made on purpose to draw attention.
Wow -- everyone is trying so hard to apologize for him.
So you are suggesting that he publicly declared "Down with fractions!"
and gave arguments to support it, all the while just trolling?
Not very credible, sorry.
--------------
Angus Rodgers
>But if you watch the video,
>
><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
>
>it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
>was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
>
>But he got taken literally, both by the news media, and by others as
>well. Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously than they should
>have for the simple reason that the idea was presented by a well
>known, highly respected mathematician. In other words, "The Emperor's
>Clothes" phenomenon.
>
>I'll proudly point out that even before watching the video, I wasn't
>fooled for a minute.
But calling him a "kook" isn't the same as saying that he's
kidding. (A "kook" is presumably kidding himself, which is
not the same as someone intentionally kidding others.)
>But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can be. Given that he
>actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't he?),
I have to say, it still isn't obvious to me what he is doing,
even after watching the video three times. (But I do have
some difficulty reading facial expressions - perhaps I'm a
bit autistic, I don't know.)
>he could
>inadvertently get taken seriously by the _funders_ of education, thus
>seriously damaging math education in the US (and possibly the world --
>after all -- if the US does it, it must be right, or at least, that's
>what funders of education in other countries might conclude). Thus, a
>silly joke, presumably intended to create publicity for his book, sets
>mathematics back a few thousand years. Nice going, DeTurck!
The trouble with the publicity theory is that the lecture was given
in 2004, and yet the book still isn't out, in early 2008 - which is
taking the idea of advance publicity too far! Such an intentional
spoof would only work if there was only a short time lag. So I'm
still baffled, and I still think I must be missing the joke.
quasi
No, I quickly qualified that in my next reply.
What I then said was:
"_If_ the USA today story is accurate, then the man is a kook".
I stand by that.
quasi
quasi
<twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:59:49 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
>>But if you watch the video,
>>
>><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
>>
>>it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
>>was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
>>
>>But he got taken literally, both by the news media, and by others as
>>well. Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously than they should
>>have for the simple reason that the idea was presented by a well
>>known, highly respected mathematician. In other words, "The Emperor's
>>Clothes" phenomenon.
>>
>>I'll proudly point out that even before watching the video, I wasn't
>>fooled for a minute.
>
>But calling him a "kook" isn't the same as saying that he's
>kidding. (A "kook" is presumably kidding himself, which is
>not the same as someone intentionally kidding others.)
>
>>But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can be. Given that he
>>actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't he?),
>
>I have to say, it still isn't obvious to me what he is doing,
>even after watching the video three times. (But I do have
>some difficulty reading facial expressions - perhaps I'm a
>bit autistic, I don't know.)
Well, as I said before, either way, he's not to be taken seriously.
That was what I meant when I said I wasn't fooled for a minute. I
admit, I had no idea he was kidding until I watched the video.
After watching the video, it became immediately clear to me that he
wasn't serious. Any poker player would know that in a nanosecond. Not
only can he not keep a straight face, he instinctively avoids making
eye contact with the camera. In other words, he's lying, but not very
good at it.
On the off chance that he actually _is_ serious, I qualified my final
conclusion, saying "He's either a kook or a spoofster, but either way,
one should not take him seriously". I certainly don't.
quasi
Gerry Myerson
<25426859.1202253966...@nitrogen.mathforum.org>,
tommy1729 <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerry myerson wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gig2q3d6ll02jc6ge...@4ax.com>,
> > quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:38:02 -0800 (PST), amzoti
> > <amz...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2008
> > -01-23-fractions_N.htm
> > >
> > > He's a kook.
> >
> > When you've accomplished one-tenth of what he has,
> > maybe you can call him a kook. In the meantime,
> > I suggest you
> > 1. don't believe everything you read in usatoday,
> > 2. keep a civil finger on your keyboard, and
> > 3. wait until you see a detailed exposition by the
> > man himself.
> >
> > --
> > Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for
> > email)
>
> so you support the idea ??
I support not calling people names.
I support refuting ideas, rather than smearing the people who hold them,
at least until such time as you know enough to be on firm ground when
you get personal.
Calling DeTurck a kook does nothing to advance the argument.
> and since we dont work with fractions anymore we can also forget about
> divisions ...
>
> and thus also factoring or primes...
Nonsense. All of elementary number theory (Division Theorem,
Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Factorization Theorem, etc.) can
be done in the ring of integers without ever making reference
to fractions. In fact I think that's how most textbooks do it.
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> Thus, what if Bush were to _joke_ publicly, saying that he thinks we
> should "nuke" Iran. People might take him seriously. The next thing
> you know, with the resulting paranoia, a world war might ensue.
Perhaps you're too young to remember when Reagan announced,
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed
legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five
minutes."
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/obits/reagan/audio_archive.html
be...@pop.networkusa.net
So we do 19'36 by 11'b9? How do you do that without knowing times
tables for base twelve? I guess you could convert 1936 and 11b9 back
into decimal, multiply out, convert back into duodecimal, divide by
10000, then convert back to decimal, but that seems like an awful lot
of work...
What I would do is: [42' 7" x 7' = 294'' 49"' - 21'" 3 1/2"" / 4 =
294'' 44'" - 15 1/2 "" / 4 = 294 '' 44'" - [4 - 1/8] "" = 294 '' 43 '"
8 1/8 "" = 297 '' 7'" 8 1/8 "" [ = 297 '' 92 1/8 "" ].
quasi
Especially your heros?
Would you call Hitler a name? No, no name-calling, eh?
How about someone who would "abolish math"?
>I support refuting ideas,
I gave a refutation.
In every reply where I called him a kook, I also defended the charge.
>rather than smearing the people who hold them,
>at least until such time as you know enough to be on firm ground when
>you get personal.
Nah -- that's your credo, not mine.
I call it the way I see it.
>Calling DeTurck a kook does nothing to advance the argument.
As I pointed out, I gave arguments -- several of them.
The label "kook" was to dramatically emphasize the idiocy of his idea.
>> and since we dont work with fractions anymore we can also forget about
>> divisions ...
>>
>> and thus also factoring or primes...
>
>Nonsense. All of elementary number theory (Division Theorem,
>Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Factorization Theorem, etc.) can
>be done in the ring of integers without ever making reference
>to fractions. In fact I think that's how most textbooks do it.
Wow -- the apologists for DeTurck's lunacy don't give up.
I almost 100% sure, had the idea been suggested by an unknown person,
you would have just as adamantly ridiculed the idea.
Which shows that JSH is right on a few observations, as much as I hate
to acknowledge it.
In my view -- what counts is the _idea_, not the reputation of the one
who suggests the idea. If the idea is crazy, then the person can
legitimately be called a kook.
It's not necessary to know _who_ he is. The idea is all that counts.
quasi
quasi
And what amazes me is, even after the link to the video was posted,
<http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
people are still taking him seriously!
Isn't it obvious that he's just kidding?
quasi
The World Wide Wade
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
You make little sense. You now say it was a spoof and that you weren't
"fooled for a minute." But there is nothing in your posts from last
week indicating that you thought it was a spoof. Quite the opposite,
as the below (somehow clipped from your response above) shows:
The World Wide Wade
Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:59:49 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
> >But if you watch the video,
> >
> ><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
> >
> >it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
> >was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
> >
> >But he got taken literally, both by the news media, and by others as
> >well. Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously than they should
> >have for the simple reason that the idea was presented by a well
> >known, highly respected mathematician. In other words, "The Emperor's
> >Clothes" phenomenon.
> >
> >I'll proudly point out that even before watching the video, I wasn't
> >fooled for a minute.
>
> But calling him a "kook" isn't the same as saying that he's
> kidding. (A "kook" is presumably kidding himself, which is
> not the same as someone intentionally kidding others.)
>
> >But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can be. Given that he
> >actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't he?),
>
> I have to say, it still isn't obvious to me what he is doing,
> even after watching the video three times. (But I do have
> some difficulty reading facial expressions - perhaps I'm a
> bit autistic, I don't know.)
I'm with you here. I don't trust the news reports, and the video
doesn't convince me it is a spoof. Recall that George Andrews, an
eminent mathematician (discoverer of the "lost notebooks" of
Ramanujan) and member of the National Academy of Sciences, responding
negativley to the "down with fractions!" business as if it were a
seriously proposed idea.
quasi
<aderam...@comcast.net> wrote:
I wasn't fooled for a minute into taking his _argument_ seriously.
>But there is nothing in your posts from last week indicating that you
>thought it was a spoof. Quite the opposite,
Right -- based on the USA Today article, I thought he _was_ serious.
In fact, even after reading the transcript of DeTurck's speech, I
still thought he was serious, hence I was even more convinced that the
guy was just an off-the-wall kook. What I mean't by saying "I wasn't
fooled" was that I wasn't lured into giving his _idea_ any degree of
validity. His reputation as a respected mathematician did not
influence me -- I focused on the idea. That's what I mean't when I
said I wasn't fooled, nothing more.
My feeling is that the only reason his idea wasn't ripped to shreds by
the most of the sci.math regulars is precisely because of DeTurck's
status as a respected mathematician. It reveals an essentially
aristocratic perspective -- a kind of hero worship. The fact is, hero
worship in the math community is very common, even if we don't all
have the same heros. Recognizing that, it's important to be extra
careful to stay objective, keeping the focus on the idea, not the
status of the idea's presenter.
In any case, after watching the video, I instantly concluded that he
was just putting us all on. Now I'm not 100% sure that he was just
kidding, but if not, then he really _is_ a kook. Either way, in my
opinion, he is not to be taken seriously.
Moreover, if he _was_ kidding, then he may not be a kook, but he _is_
a _fool_ -- a fool for not realizing that others might very well take
him seriously, thus potentially damaging the US educational system.
quasi
quasi
I just did a Google search on "George Andrews" "down with fractions"
and came up with this quote ...
"George Andrews is smarter than I am, and he says Dennis’ idea is
half-baked (rim shot, please). George is also a math professor and
president-elect of the American Mathematical Society. Yeah, he’s smart
all right.
“All of this is absurd,” he said. “No wonder mathematical achievements
in the country are so abysmal.”
Note -- George Andrews calls DeTurck's idea "half-baked" and "absurd"
-- not so far off from my way of putting it ("he's a kook").
Of course, I still don't really believe DeTurck was really serious,
but hey, you never know -- anyone can degenerate into kookdom, even a
previously well respected professor.
quasi
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> Note -- George Andrews calls DeTurck's idea "half-baked" and "absurd"
> -- not so far off from my way of putting it ("he's a kook").
And here's exactly where you are utterly mistaken.
There is an enormous difference between saying someone has a bad idea,
and saying that someone is a kook.
Hey, quasi, you've made a few mathematical mistakes here in this
newsgroup. I may have corrected the mistakes, but I never felt (and
don't now feel) the need to call you a moron. You're just someone
who made a few mathematical mistakes. I hope I've always been
able to attack the mistakes without attacking the person who made them.
Newton had some very bizarre ideas about alchemy.
Kepler had some very bizarre ideas about fitting the planetary orbits
with the Platonic solids, and working out the exact notes of "the music
of the spheres," the notes each planet makes somehow as it executes
its orbit.
Newton & Kepler were not kooks, and calling them kooks doesn't advance
the argument against their stranger beliefs.
Speak to the ideas, not the person - there is an enormous difference.
Gerry Myerson
Ah! You're the first to mention Hitler in this thread - doesn't that
mean I win?
Seriously, though, if you can't see the distinction between
1. someone who has done a considerable amount of good
mathematics and may now be going off the deep end on
a question of math education, and
2. the man who invaded Poland
then I'm not sure we have anything to talk about.
> >I support refuting ideas,
> >rather than smearing the people who hold them,
> >at least until such time as you know enough to be on firm ground when
> >you get personal.
>
> Nah -- that's your credo, not mine.
>
> I call it the way I see it.
You can do that without getting personal.
> The label "kook" was to dramatically emphasize the idiocy of his idea.
You can do *that* without getting personal.
> >Nonsense. All of elementary number theory (Division Theorem,
> >Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Factorization Theorem, etc.) can
> >be done in the ring of integers without ever making reference
> >to fractions. In fact I think that's how most textbooks do it.
>
> Wow -- the apologists for DeTurck's lunacy don't give up.
I thought you were convinced DeTurck is kidding,
but now you're back to calling his actions lunacy.
In any event, suggesting that one can prove UFT without mentioning
fractions, and that that's how the books do it, isn't apologizing
for anything; it's making a simple allegation of fact,
which can easily be supported or else refuted. Care to try?
> I almost 100% sure, had the idea been suggested by an unknown person,
> you would have just as adamantly ridiculed the idea.
It's not as if I ever supported the idea. I merely pointed out that you
shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers, and that you
shouldn't say nasty things about people you don't know.
> In my view -- what counts is the _idea_, not the reputation of the one
> who suggests the idea. If the idea is crazy, then the person can
> legitimately be called a kook.
No - see Newton, Kepler, etc., etc.
> It's not necessary to know _who_ he is. The idea is all that counts.
The idea - not the account of the idea given in usatoday, which is all
you had to go on when you called the man a kook. Maybe you don't
operate this way, but when I see what looks like a crazy idea attributed
to someone I respect, I give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe he
was misquoted, maybe he was just kidding, maybe he's exaggerating
to make some legitimate point. I withhold judgement until I have more
information. And I think you have to admit that I was right to do so in
this case, as you now believe that he was just kidding, and that while
he may be guilty of some bad judgement, he's not a kook. Do you see
the benefit of not jumping to conclusions, and of not attacking people
until you know what's actually going on?
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> My feeling is that the only reason his idea wasn't ripped to shreds by
> the most of the sci.math regulars is precisely because of DeTurck's
> status as a respected mathematician.
Not at all. Well, I can't speak for any other sci.math regulars,
but the main reason I didn't rip his idea to shreds was that
I wasn't convinced it was actually his idea. Because of DeTurck's
status, I decided, not that the idea was a really good one, but
that there probably was more to the story than what we read
in the original posting.
And I think you'll agree that there was more to the story,
which means I think you agree that I was right to wait for
the other shoe to drop, instead of wading in with personal
attacks.
No?
Michael Press
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can be. Given that he
> actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't he?), he could
> inadvertently get taken seriously by the _funders_ of education, thus
> seriously damaging math education in the US (and possibly the world --
> after all -- if the US does it, it must be right, or at least, that's
> what funders of education in other countries might conclude). Thus, a
> silly joke, presumably intended to create publicity for his book, sets
> mathematics back a few thousand years. Nice going, DeTurck!
If he got taken seriously enough as in your scenario,
then the state of affairs would already be dire, so
dire that making or not making the joke would not
influence the dire state of affairs.
--
Michael Press
quasi
From your point of view, you were right.
>No?
No, not from my point of view.
The potential for DeTurck's ideas to savage the teaching of math in
the US called for a strong counter. I didn't just call him a kook -- I
gave reasons. His proposal (assuming he's serious) is off base to the
point of being idiotic.
His potential to use his position of authority to negatively influence
an already embattled and politicized educational system calls for
maximum resistance. If his ideas were to be adopted, you would see the
next generation of students with absolutely no abstract reasoning
skills, but perfectly suited to be minimum wage cash register clerks.
His idea is both idiotic and dangerous.
To my view, there are times when you just have to call an idiot an
idiot -- this was one of those times. As it's clear that you don't
agree, I think we'll just have to disagree on this.
quasi
quasi
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>In article <rmeiq3930ta7vrn6s...@4ax.com>,
> quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
>> Note -- George Andrews calls DeTurck's idea "half-baked" and "absurd"
>> -- not so far off from my way of putting it ("he's a kook").
>
>And here's exactly where you are utterly mistaken.
>There is an enormous difference between saying someone has a bad idea,
>and saying that someone is a kook.
Not so enormous.
A kook is one with kooky ideas.
If I wanted to be more polite, I could have just said that the idea
was kooky, not the man. However in this case, the potential threat to
millions of students motivated a "gloves off" response on my part.
His proposal, if taken seriously, would result in a major "dumbing
down" effect.
>Hey, quasi, you've made a few mathematical mistakes here in this
>newsgroup. I may have corrected the mistakes, but I never felt (and
>don't now feel) the need to call you a moron.
I've been called that before.
>You're just someone who made a few mathematical mistakes.
>I hope I've always been able to attack the mistakes without attacking
>the person who made them.
Perhaps in those cases, such a strong response was not actually called
for. But sometimes it is, and when it is, I feel no need to substitute
a weaker, more diplomatic response.
>Newton had some very bizarre ideas about alchemy.
A kook for sure (with respect to those ideas).
>Kepler had some very bizarre ideas about fitting the planetary orbits
>with the Platonic solids, and working out the exact notes of "the music
>of the spheres," the notes each planet makes somehow as it executes
>its orbit.
Another kook (but perhaps not as bad -- less danger to science).
>Newton & Kepler were not kooks, and calling them kooks doesn't advance
>the argument against their stranger beliefs.
It certainly does. Not calling them kooks lets their prior
respectability give credence to their lunacy.
>Speak to the ideas, not the person - there is an enormous difference.
Well, I did both.
We each have our own style.
quasi
quasi
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
Ok, you win.
>Seriously, though, if you can't see the distinction between
>
>1. someone who has done a considerable amount of good
>mathematics and may now be going off the deep end on
>a question of math education, and
>
>2. the man who invaded Poland
>
>then I'm not sure we have anything to talk about.
Haha.
>> >I support refuting ideas,
>> >rather than smearing the people who hold them,
>> >at least until such time as you know enough to be on firm ground when
>> >you get personal.
>>
>> Nah -- that's your credo, not mine.
>>
>> I call it the way I see it.
>
>You can do that without getting personal.
I could have if I felt diplomacy was needed, yes.
>> The label "kook" was to dramatically emphasize the idiocy of his idea.
>
>You can do *that* without getting personal.
It's brief and gets the message across. Should I be worried about
possibly hurting his feelings? Not from my perspective.
>> >Nonsense. All of elementary number theory (Division Theorem,
>> >Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Factorization Theorem, etc.) can
>> >be done in the ring of integers without ever making reference
>> >to fractions. In fact I think that's how most textbooks do it.
>>
>> Wow -- the apologists for DeTurck's lunacy don't give up.
>
>I thought you were convinced DeTurck is kidding,
Well, that was my take from watching the video. The vocal tone, facial
expressions, eye and body language, etc -- all of that tells me that
he's lying (i.e. kidding), but it appears that many people, both in
sci.math and in the real world, are taking his message seriously, so I
don't really know for sure.
>but now you're back to calling his actions lunacy.
If he's serious, yes.
>In any event, suggesting that one can prove UFT without mentioning
>fractions, and that that's how the books do it, isn't apologizing
>for anything; it's making a simple allegation of fact,
>which can easily be supported or else refuted. Care to try?
Sure, you can avoid all discussion of rationals if you force it.
For example, you can modify the classical proof showing that sqrt(2)
is irrational to show instead that it's not a repeating decimal. Ugh!
Of course, with no discussion of rationals, it's a little difficult to
discuss algebraic number fields, but I guess it could all be done
somehow with decimals. Another ugh!
>> I almost 100% sure, had the idea been suggested by an unknown person,
>> you would have just as adamantly ridiculed the idea.
>
>It's not as if I ever supported the idea. I merely pointed out that you
>shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers,
Often I don't. In this case, I didn't see any reason to suspect that
the USA Today article was factually incorrect. In any case, after my
response was challenged, I did try to verify the facts. The transcript
only seemed to confirm the article. Later, I looked at the video, and
that seemed to make the whole thing appear to be a joke. But is it a
joke? I think so, but who knows?
>and that you shouldn't say nasty things about people you don't know.
We are from different cultures. In my culture, strong words can be
used if they seem right for the situation. I don't always resort to
name-calling, but when I do, I try to also give arguments to justify
such an attack. Thus, it's not just name-calling, but name-calling
with "with reasons".
>> In my view -- what counts is the _idea_, not the reputation of the one
>> who suggests the idea. If the idea is crazy, then the person can
>> legitimately be called a kook.
>
>No - see Newton, Kepler, etc., etc.
Kooks, all of them (at least when they were in kook-mode, spouting
nonsense).
>> It's not necessary to know _who_ he is. The idea is all that counts.
>
>The idea - not the account of the idea given in usatoday, which is all
>you had to go on when you called the man a kook. Maybe you don't
>operate this way, but when I see what looks like a crazy idea attributed
>to someone I respect, I give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe he
>was misquoted, maybe he was just kidding, maybe he's exaggerating
>to make some legitimate point. I withhold judgement until I have more
>information. And I think you have to admit that I was right to do so in
>this case, as you now believe that he was just kidding, and that while
>he may be guilty of some bad judgement, he's not a kook.
Perhaps.
>Do you see the benefit of not jumping to conclusions, and of not
>attacking people until you know what's actually going on?
That's a loaded question.
But as a general answer, jumping to conclusions is OK in my book if
one id usually right, and if a wrong conclusion does little harm. It's
not as if he was facing execution for a crime -- in that case, you
have to be more careful. All I did was call him a kook based on what
appeared to be valid evidence. No serious damage. If I'm proved wrong,
I just retract and apologize, but usually I'm right about these things
(at least that's my opinion of my own track record).
quasi
Bill Dubuque
>
> But if you watch the video,
> <http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
> it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
> was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
No, you're wrong about that. If you read a little more about
the MetroMath program it should become clear that DeTurck is
serious about the proposal of delaying the teaching of fractions
in elementary school. The point is that for the purposes of
elementary school arithmetic (and also most lay arithmetic)
one never needs the _exact_ arithmetic of fractions (rationals).
Instead it suffices to compute with the equivalent decimals.
Such decimal arithmetic is far easier to motivate intuitively
since it is a direct extension of the decimal arithmetic of
integers upon scaling by powers of 10 (which can be motivated
intuitively by viewing the number line at ever increasing
10x microscopic magnifications). This provides a simple
intuitive model of the reals that suffices for most all
lay arithmetic purposes. It avoids all the diophantine
complexity of rational arithmetic. E.g., one doesn't
need to worry about reducing fractions to normal forms
via gcds and the euclidean algorithm, or motivating
the definition of fraction addition, etc, all of which
prove to be major stumbling blocks for many students.
Indeed, Unique Fractionization (unique reduced fractions)
is equivalent to Unique Factorization. This is such a
strange concept that it was taken for granted till Gauss
gave a proof circa 1800 (and even still it was deemed
a 'law of thought' in many 20'th century textbooks,
cf. Davenport's remarks in his Higher Arithmetic). So why
complicate the teaching of lay arithmetic by introducing
such complexity long before it is needed? (if ever)
That's not to say that rational arithmetic should be abolished.
Indeed, it is absolutely essential for number theoretical purposes.
But the point is that these pure mathematical applications are
very far removed from layperson arithmetic in the real world.
So why not delay the teaching of rational numbers until they
are really needed and can be better appreciated? That is the
question that should be debated. I still have not see a word
of intelligent discussion on that matter here. The arguments
here against DeTurck's proposal are as ill-founded as were
the original attacks dismissing category theory as being
'abstract nonsense'. And by now we all know how well those
arguments fared. Try to keep your mind open to all of the
possibilities - that is essential for all mathematics.
--Bill Dubuque
quasi
wrote:
I gave a whole bunch of arguments against DeTurck's idea.
Rather than rehash my previous arguments, I'll just say this ...
(1) the teaching of mathematical ideas such as
factorization, primes composites, gcd, lcm
fractions concepts
algebraic reasoning
geometric reasoning
logical reasoning
general abstract reasoning
has substantial overriding value way beyond the ability to train
students how to balance a checkbook or work a cash register.
Teaching of these ideas should _not_ be deferred but rather, precisely
because they _are_ conceptually difficult, they should be started at
the earliest opportunity, so as to give the ideas time to be absorbed.
Symbolic math provides an excellent venue for teaching reasoning
skills. The degree of abstraction progresses naturally. The problems
can be precisely stated, and the answers are universally verifiable.
Moreover, the ideas are interesting. The fact that math has depth is a
good thing. It's one of the few parts of early education that does
offer a glimpse of depth. Don't rob the students of one of their few
early challenges. Just make sure the teachers are up to the task of
teaching it.
quasi
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>>
>> But if you watch the video,
>> <http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_archive.html#D>
>> it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not serious -- it
>> was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
>
>No, you're wrong about that. If you read a little more about
>the MetroMath program it should become clear that DeTurck is
>serious about the proposal of delaying the teaching of fractions
>in elementary school. The point is that for the purposes of
>elementary school arithmetic (and also most lay arithmetic)
>one never needs the _exact_ arithmetic of fractions (rationals).
>Instead it suffices to compute with the equivalent decimals.
>
>Such decimal arithmetic is far easier to motivate intuitively
>since it is a direct extension of the decimal arithmetic of
>integers upon scaling by powers of 10 (which can be motivated
>intuitively by viewing the number line at ever increasing
>10x microscopic magnifications).
But this notion of "scaling" is precisely what underlies the
concept of rational numbers (unless you want to take Eudoxus's
approach!). I assume you don't suggest teaching algorithms for
decimal arithmetic without any indication of what they mean?
What is "intuitive" about merely re-using the same familiar
algorithms in a wider context? It's convenient, and useful,
certainly, but where's the intuition?
>This provides a simple
>intuitive model of the reals that suffices for most all
>lay arithmetic purposes.
I can only understand this as the suggestion to operate with
rational numbers whose denominators are powers of ten. This
is conceptually more complex, not simpler, than working with
rational numbers in general, because it requires you /not/ to
think of the meaning of what you are doing, or else /not/ to
think of it in its natural generality, including such every-
day concepts as dividing something into two or more roughly
equal pieces, and in particular reading clock times as "half
past two", "a quarter to ten", and so on.
I'm struggling to express my objections clearly, because I'm
struggling to understand how you or DeTurck or anybody could
take this idea seriously in the first place. But I'm certainly
willing to discuss the matter ... rationally! ... and express
my points more clearly, if necessary.
>It avoids all the diophantine
>complexity of rational arithmetic. E.g., one doesn't
>need to worry about reducing fractions to normal forms
>via gcds and the euclidean algorithm, or motivating
>the definition of fraction addition, etc, all of which
>prove to be major stumbling blocks for many students.
I've already acknowledged that it may well make sense not to
teach all of the algorithms for rational computation at an
early stage (just so long as the needs of the mathematically
able are not ignored, amidst a general dumbing-down).
>Indeed, Unique Fractionization (unique reduced fractions)
>is equivalent to Unique Factorization. This is such a
>strange concept that it was taken for granted till Gauss
>gave a proof circa 1800 (and even still it was deemed
>a 'law of thought' in many 20'th century textbooks,
>cf. Davenport's remarks in his Higher Arithmetic).
Indeed, it's one of the places where real pure mathematics
seems to begin. Marvellous! And you make a very good point.
It is the very reverse of educational to expect children to
take such a subtle and non-trivial fact on faith, as if it
/should/ be obvious, when it is anything but. I had never
thought of this, and I would certainly support any change
in the teaching of elementary arithmetic that avoided this
difficulty, which on the face of it (I'll have to think some
more about it to be sure) does presently seem to lie in its
way. For what it's worth, I imagine it can be avoided,
simply by explaining only that (ac)/(bc) = a/b for all a, b, c,
and perhaps mentioning only in passing that this process of
cancellation terminates in a unique form (e.g. by giving a
few examples, and leaving pupils to notice the pattern,
perhaps with prompts). It should be an optional exercise,
not something that all children are required to learn (or
to parrot).
>So why
>complicate the teaching of lay arithmetic by introducing
>such complexity long before it is needed? (if ever)
How do you propose to decide /to whom/ should be taught mere
"lay arithmetic"? The epsilons of the social order? (Oh all
right, the gammas or deltas.) And before you take umbrage (I'm
sure you aren't really proposing a Brave New World!), please
re-read my last paragraph but one! There is a real problem here,
in that, although decimal computation suffices for most practical
/purposes/, you can't say that it suffices for most /individuals/,
unless and until they have been given a choice in the matter.
>That's not to say that rational arithmetic should be abolished.
But DeTurck does say just that! That's the amazing thing.
I quoted him exactly, from the transcript. Here it is
again:
It’s not that writing ratios like 385 over 23 should be banned.
But such expressions should simply no longer be considered to
be numbers.
(Whether or not you call it a ban, or an abolition, is mere
semantics. The second sentence stands on its own.)
>Indeed, it is absolutely essential for number theoretical purposes.
>But the point is that these pure mathematical applications are
>very far removed from layperson arithmetic in the real world.
No, they are not! Everybody in his/her everyday life is familiar
with the concept of dividing a quantity into roughly equal pieces.
Also (to use DeTurck's own example) how do you explain the meaning
of "16.7", other than as sixteen and seven tenths, i.e. a fraction?
(/Of course/ the "mixed number" form is often much more readily
comprehensible than the "improper fraction" form, but both forms
still represent the same rational number - even if they are both
decimal fractions!)
>So why not delay the teaching of rational numbers until they
>are really needed and can be better appreciated? That is the
>question that should be debated. I still have not see a word
>of intelligent discussion on that matter here.
I honestly can't see anything stupid in anything I've written
about this, but I'm open to criticism!
>The arguments
>here against DeTurck's proposal are as ill-founded as were
>the original attacks dismissing category theory as being
>'abstract nonsense'. And by now we all know how well those
>arguments fared. Try to keep your mind open to all of the
>possibilities - that is essential for all mathematics.
But I fear this is about closing minds, not opening them. (I
actually wish I knew /what/ it was about. As I keep saying,
I'm baffled as to DeTurck's motivation.)
tommy1729
the nutty professor ? no thanks. :p
>
> <http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/news/sixtysec_lectures_
> archive.html#D>
oh that video :)
still -> no thanks , i wont waste my time looking at a video of someones stupid claim , even if its just a stupid joke.
afterall such sence of humor is as insane as the idea.
and if hes doing this to sell his book , THAT PROF IS A DISCREASE.
all for money hmm !!!
a CONSPIRACY with the media , the education and the government !!
( on behalf of the taxpayers )
>
> it will be (almost) immediately obvious that he's not
> serious -- it
> was just a spoof. In other words, he's just kidding!
oh hahaha , but he is still a fucking liar , JUST to sell his book.
luckily i dont live in america else id be ashamed in his place !
>
> But he got taken literally, both by the news media,
> and by others as
> well.
to sell his book !! , no coincidence ! ; im not naive.
Many sci.math regulars took it more seriously
> than they should
> have for the simple reason that the idea was
> presented by a well
> known, highly respected mathematician.
thus proving there are many fools in sci.math who will believe ANYTHING " standard " or said by a " respected mathematician ".
this is a time for them to admit the " masters " do actually lie !!!
and for the same reason ( following the " master " blindfully ) they accept aleph_3.
unfortunately cantor did not live long enough in sanity to admit his joke.
in fact he was locked up in a nuthouse.
( wiki for it if you dont believe me , he was declared " mentally ill " by the doctors ; not to say LUNATIC )
In other
> words, "The Emperor's
> Clothes" phenomenon.
>
exactly , and if the emperor's clothes are aleph_3 , we support aleph_3.
no questions asked.
its like A ******* RELIGION.
( almost any anticantorian knows cantor was a religious fundamentalistic freak , and cantors theory is a " religion" rather than a fact , just as his " god proof ")
> I'll proudly point out that even before watching the
> video, I wasn't
> fooled for a minute.
i had my doubts too , but the prof is still a nut or a darn kapitalist !!! trying to sell his book.
lies for money !!
and the zombies follow the leader , instead of using their brains. ( or dont have brains of their own )
>
> But it just goes to show how dangerous kidding can
> be.
how kapitalistic !!!
lies are all over the planet.
reasons :
1) money , kapitalism , materialism , egocentrism
( you get the idea )
2) politics , religion and power ( to reach 1) indirectly )
3) lies to cover up other lies.
math is suppose to be about "abstract truth" , not about lies to sell a book or please dumb students.
they should take away his title of prof.
( unless he proves RH )
Given that he
> actually _is_ kidding (I mean he really is, isn't
> he?)
i hope so , else he's dementing.
( and thats not a good reason to buy his book either ! )
, he could
> inadvertently get taken seriously by the _funders_ of
> education, thus
> seriously damaging math education in the US (and
> possibly the world --
> after all -- if the US does it, it must be right, or
> at least, that's
> what funders of education in other countries might
> conclude). Thus, a
> silly joke, presumably intended to create publicity
> for his book, sets
> mathematics back a few thousand years. Nice going,
> DeTurck!
indeed ; nice going de turk.
( he doesnt deserve a capital letter anymore id say )
>
> As an analogy, to show how kidding can potentially be
> dangerous,
> consider the following hypothetical scenario ...
>
> Thus, what if Bush were to _joke_ publicly, saying
> that he thinks we
> should "nuke" Iran. People might take him seriously.
> The next thing
> you know, with the resulting paranoia, a world war
> might ensue.
you have no idea how likely that is, i dont think you wanna know.
>
> quasi
i was happy at least you did not fall for the lie or insanity.
if JSH would have said that , he'd be an imbecil , now that a prof said that ; its a great idea !!!
or a super joke.
BUT you cant fool tommy : its a insane stupid idea , or a insane stupid joke ; and if its a joke ; not so innocent !!!
a lot of damage to math reputation , and pure egocentrism to promote his book.
i certainly wont read it.
probably garbage anyways.
( like a big part of NKS , despite its popularity and superduper promises like : math of the future , a new kind of math etc )
if his book also mentions aleph_3 and aleph_4 i will buy them all.
to burn them down that is.
regards
tommy1729
tommy1729
> My feeling is that the only reason his idea wasn't
> ripped to shreds by
> the most of the sci.math regulars is precisely
> because of DeTurck's
> status as a respected mathematician. It reveals an
> essentially
> aristocratic perspective -- a kind of hero worship.
> The fact is, hero
> worship in the math community is very common, even if
> we don't all
> have the same heros. Recognizing that, it's important
> to be extra
> careful to stay objective, keeping the focus on the
> idea, not the
> status of the idea's presenter.
and the same applies to cantor and aleph_3.
btw notice that fractions are already undefined for infinite cardinals !!!
( that last sentence is jokingly said ;-) )
> a _fool_ -- a fool for not realizing that others
> might very well take
> him seriously, thus potentially damaging the US
> educational system.
>
> quasi
regards
tommy1729
tommy1729
cheer up quasi , i agree with you.
however i hope this does not give you a bad reputation, the inverse effect of the emperor's clothes ...
tommy1729
HA ! of course his book isnt out yet !!!
you cant write a decent math book without using fractions !!!
( you could of course restrict to aleph_3 , but that's no decent math of course )
in 2012 that book will still not be out !!!
regards
tommy1729
ps : stephen wolfram's books have also been coming out way to late :
its a bad sign , considering the large amount of useless pages in NKS.
despite the fuss of the title :
" a new kind of science !! "
and comments in the press like : book of the millenium !
best book ever !! ( non-fiction )
a new kind of math !!
etc
there were even rumours about a chapter in it about a new method to do integrals ; was not even in there !!
( however the NKS award was usefull )
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
merely be that he's unused to being videoed. seriously,
what could have actually been done to impliment this,
noncurriculum, as if calculators don't use McLaurin's series?...
is it a plot by the Harry Potter PS establishment,
to get USAians unused to the idea of *divide et impera* ??
the thing is, lots of kids are apparently doing tons
of complicated math via computers;
it is largely a fait-accompli of "computer sciece,"
a term that makes me chary ... or charredy.
anyway, since division is the inverse of multiplication,
it's a reinforcement or check on comprehension;
why, pretend that its embodiment as fractions,
doesn't exist, excepting the button?
thus:
Kepler's orbital constraints only account for what is accounted for
--
namely the 2-body problem qua Sun and one planet, or
whatever. Hook's "law" is just, then, a derived 2-body formulation.
> 16) why does einstein model the orbits of the planets better than newton if he is wrong ?
thus:
NE did not read M&M;
they did not find *much* of an annual "oscillation"
of the fringometry, but
it was apparently there. how
would your "XYZ interferometer" be superior
to that of the father of astronomical interferometry?...
personally, I do think,
it's better to analyze results without using a specialized x-axis,
at least when learning how to do it
-- folks would have to use the spatial pythag. th. -- but
how would that alter the experiment?...
I typed this, before, but couldn't get it to outload.
thus:
M&M's anomaly was a yearly one, but it was very, very small;
of course, it was guaged with the interference of the two beams,
split from the lasersource ... I mean, coherent/pinhole sunlight,
a la Young, Fresnel et al.
--Dick Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier Dick -- Run for Indy superVeep!
Al Gore, Best Actor,
Occidental Dino Awards!
Michael Press
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> My feeling is that the only reason his idea wasn't ripped to shreds by
> the most of the sci.math regulars is precisely because of DeTurck's
> status as a respected mathematician. It reveals an essentially
> aristocratic perspective -- a kind of hero worship. The fact is, hero
> worship in the math community is very common, even if we don't all
> have the same heros. Recognizing that, it's important to be extra
> careful to stay objective, keeping the focus on the idea, not the
> status of the idea's presenter.
There is a credible alternative. When someone earns
one's respect for his perspicacity, thoughts, words,
deeds, and a record of being found correct; one is
predisposed to take him seriously even when he says
something counter-intuitive.
--
Michael Press
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<aatu.kos...@xortec.fi> wrote:
> On 2008-02-05, in sci.math, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> Possably, but I am of the view that one only becomes a kook when you
>> abandon the concept that ideas must be supported by reason. For example
>> both Constructivists and AntyCantor kooks reject Cantor's diagonal
>> proof.
>
> Cantor's diagonal proof is constructively valid. I'm afraid you'll
> have to look elsewhere for competent mathematicians rejecting the
> argument.
Apprently I was missinfomred, it was my understanding that Cantor's
diagonal proof was considered nonconstrivist due to the fact that it
is RAA.
> If you do, you'll find their rejection is based on quite
> different considerations than those presented by "anti-Cantorists" of
> the breed which frequents the news -- in particular, you'll find their
> rejection is usually based on rejecting most if not all infinitary set
> theoretic talk as meaningless, rather than on elusive supposed "flaws"
> in the proof.
Exactly my point. There is a whole diffrence in the way kooks and
competent mathematicians reason even though they may come to simmler
conclusions.
Michael Press
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> That's not to say that rational arithmetic should be abolished.
> Indeed, it is absolutely essential for number theoretical purposes.
> But the point is that these pure mathematical applications are
> very far removed from layperson arithmetic in the real world.
> So why not delay the teaching of rational numbers until they
> are really needed and can be better appreciated? That is the
> question that should be debated. I still have not see a word
> of intelligent discussion on that matter here. The arguments
> here against DeTurck's proposal are as ill-founded as were
> the original attacks dismissing category theory as being
> 'abstract nonsense'. And by now we all know how well those
> arguments fared. Try to keep your mind open to all of the
> possibilities - that is essential for all mathematics.
I did write a note directly addressing the proposal,
but nobody thought it to be intelligent. I suggested
teaching betting odds to. They would find it
interesting and useful; and it would make introduction
of fractions easier.
Teaching decimal fractions has a huge problem. It is
approximation. To get something like an exact answer
requires limits, a much bigger learning project than
(implicit) rings and ideals. Translate to the classroom
the question `what is 0.9999...?' Teach numerical
analysis to ten year olds? I am convinced that
difficult as they are, fractions are simpler than
alternatives as soon as you consider teaching the alternatives.
--
Michael Press
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:56:14 GMT, Gerry Myerson
> <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>
> >In any event, suggesting that one can prove UFT without mentioning
> >fractions, and that that's how the books do it, isn't apologizing
> >for anything; it's making a simple allegation of fact,
> >which can easily be supported or else refuted. Care to try?
>
> Sure, you can avoid all discussion of rationals if you force it.
>
> For example, you can modify the classical proof showing that sqrt(2)
> is irrational to show instead that it's not a repeating decimal. Ugh!
>
> Of course, with no discussion of rationals, it's a little difficult to
> discuss algebraic number fields, but I guess it could all be done
> somehow with decimals. Another ugh!
Please. I said nothing about algebraic number fields. I claimed
that the elements of number theory, up to and including the Unique
Factorization Theorem, can be (and frequently are) taught without
resort to fractions.
There is no mention of fractions in the statement or proof of
The Division Theorem.
There is no mention of fractions in the definition of "divides".
There is no mention of fractions in the definitions of prime
and composite.
There is no mention of fractions in the definition of gcd.
There is no mention of fractions in the statement or proof of
the Euclidean Algorithm.
Etc.
So, I made no claim about irrationality proofs or algebraic
number fields.
But since you brought up those topics, let's talk about them.
First of all, my understanding is that DeTurck, if we take his words
at face value, is not suggesting banning fractions altogether, but
postponing them until after (say) calculus. Hardly anybody studies
algebraic number fields until after studying calculus, so even under
a fundamentalist reading of DeTurck, the teaching of algebraic
number fields would be unaffected - fractions would be permitted.
The same would apply, I think, to Diophantine Approximation; few
people see Dirichlet's Theorem on approximating irrationals by
rationals before they've done calculus, so that would be a red
herring. You can keep fractions in the traditional Diophantine
Approximation syllabus - the students, even in DeTurck's world,
are ready for them.
Now, the irrationality of the square root of 2 - well, technically,
you can't even define irrationality in the usual way without recourse
to fractions. But if you really, really wanted to do without fractions,
you could get the same mathematics across without fractions and
without proving anything about the decimal expansion of sqrt2.
You simply state
Theorem: There is no non-zero integer b such that b sqrt 2 is
an integer
and then prove it in any of a number of ways, staying in the integers
(that is, with recourse to neither fractions nor decimals).
Now I'm not recommending this approach to sqrt2 - it's not the way
I'd do it - it is, as you say, avoiding rationals by force - I'm just
noting that it can be done. This will be useful to you if you ever
find yourself talking about sqrt 2 to someone who has been educated
in DeTurck World.
> >No - see Newton, Kepler, etc., etc.
>
> Kooks, all of them (at least when they were in kook-mode, spouting
> nonsense).
No - brilliant men, with a few kooky ideas.
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:28:16 GMT, Gerry Myerson
> <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>
> >There is an enormous difference between saying someone has a bad idea,
> >and saying that someone is a kook.
>
> Not so enormous.
>
> A kook is one with kooky ideas.
No. A kook is a person with a lot of kooky ideas, or a person
with very little other than kooky ideas. It does no one any good
to lump Isaac Newton in with Element 94.
> >Newton & Kepler were not kooks, and calling them kooks doesn't advance
> >the argument against their stranger beliefs.
>
> It certainly does. Not calling them kooks lets their prior
> respectability give credence to their lunacy.
Calling them kooks raises the temperature without increasing the
illumination. It deflects the argument from ideas to personalities.
And in the case of Newton & Kepler, it makes you look silly, as
everyone is aware of their great accomplishments.
Gerry Myerson
quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> To my view, there are times when you just have to call an idiot an
> idiot -- this was one of those times. As it's clear that you don't
> agree, I think we'll just have to disagree on this.
I think we do agree that there are times when you have to call
an idiot an idiot. I think where we disagree is on the amount and
quality of evidence needed to conclude that a given person is
an idiot, and on the seriousness of calling someone an idiot when
it turns out he isn't an idiot.
tommy1729
suppose JSH said : we should abolish fractions.
then you would not have needed evidence to conclude he is an idiot.
similar if some newbie said it ,
( who might or might not be good at math , YOU DONT KNOW THAT )
then he's an idiot too.
but when someone with a better reputation gives ( and this is crucial -> ) THE EXACT SAME CLAIM , we suddenly need a proof for his claim to be stupid or he being an idiot.
that's not being objective !
( as an axiom i state here the correctness of the media , but it appears so , since he even made a video for it )
>
> --
> Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for
> email)
and this kind of behavior ( and im sorry to say this gerry myerson , nothing personal )
is not good to get new theorems accepted.
or do i need to remind all of you to the history of e.g.
non-euclidean geometry.
the earth is not flat.
complex numbers.
..
same " worshipping " of the emperor('s clothes) slowed down the progress.
regards
tommy1729
mensa...@aol.com
> Gerry wrote:
> > In article
> > <c7tiq3ht53k3pde975r73mpm76codq6...@4ax.com>,
> > quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
> > > To my view, there are times when you just have to
> > call an idiot an
> > > idiot -- this was one of those times. As it's clear
> > that you don't
> > > agree, I think we'll just have to disagree on this.
>
> > I think we do agree that there are times when you
> > have to call
> > an idiot an idiot. I think where we disagree is on
> > the amount and
> > quality of evidence needed to conclude that a given
> > person is
> > an idiot, and on the seriousness of calling someone
> > an idiot when
> > it turns out he isn't an idiot.
>
> suppose JSH said : we should abolish fractions.
He did say it:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a13c716c745f071b?dmode=source
>
> then you would not have needed evidence to conclude he is an idiot.
>
> similar if some newbie said it ,
>
> ( who might or might not be good at math , YOU DONT KNOW THAT )
>
> then he's an idiot too.
>
> but when someone with a better reputation gives ( and this is crucial -> ) THE EXACT SAME CLAIM , we suddenly need a proof for his claim to be stupid or he being an idiot.
>
> that's not being objective !
>
> ( as an axiom i state here the correctness of the media , but it appears so , since he even made a video for it )
>
>
>
> > --
> > Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for
> > email)
>
> and this kind of behavior ( and im sorry to say this gerry myerson , nothing personal )
>
> is not good to get new theorems accepted.
>
> or do i need to remind all of you to the history of e.g.
>
> non-euclidean geometry.
>
> the earth is not flat.
>
> complex numbers.
>
> ..
>
> same " worshipping " of the emperor('s clothes) slowed down the progress.
>
> regards
> tommy1729- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gerry Myerson
<1981102.12023409374...@nitrogen.mathforum.org>,
tommy1729 <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerry wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <c7tiq3ht53k3pde97...@4ax.com>,
> > quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> >
> > > To my view, there are times when you just have to
> > call an idiot an
> > > idiot -- this was one of those times. As it's clear
> > that you don't
> > > agree, I think we'll just have to disagree on this.
> >
> > I think we do agree that there are times when you
> > have to call
> > an idiot an idiot. I think where we disagree is on
> > the amount and
> > quality of evidence needed to conclude that a given
> > person is
> > an idiot, and on the seriousness of calling someone
> > an idiot when
> > it turns out he isn't an idiot.
>
> suppose JSH said : we should abolish fractions.
> then you would not have needed evidence to conclude he is an idiot.
> similar if some newbie said it ,
> ( who might or might not be good at math , YOU DONT KNOW THAT )
> then he's an idiot too.
Can you show me where I've called a newbie an idiot?
If not, then please retract your accusation.
At the risk of repeating myself:
You can call an idea idiotic,
you can even demonstrate that an idea is idiotic,
without descending to the level of calling someone an idiot.
I'm not sure that I've lived up to that ideal on sci.math,
but I hope I have.
> but when someone with a better reputation gives ( and this is crucial -> )
> THE EXACT SAME CLAIM , we suddenly need a proof for his claim to be stupid or
> he being an idiot.
>
> that's not being objective !
To me, objectivity involves finding out the facts of the case instead of
jumping to conclusions. To me, to decide objectively whather a person
is an idiot involves looking at the whole person, not just one thing he
has said, much less one thing he is reported to have said.