CROSS ROADS = DANGER: COME ON YOU "GENIUSES" - SOLVE IT !
Wotan
a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
C R O S S
R O A D S
-----------------
= D A N G E R
And, needless to say, none of the people who puff themselves
in these newsgroups as being "highly intellegent" and "geniuses"
managed to solve it, or even came near !
No attention span, or backbone, you see.
So, in the wider distribution of this thread, would anybody like
to demonstrate their deductive capabilities ? Remember,
this is for 1950's 11 year olds !
----------
The governments of the last 30 years, run by solicitors - who
are, by definition, useless, incompetent and corrupt - have
actively discouraged education that includes the development
of deductive and mental manipulative skills in children.
Naturally, they don't want a population who is versed in
deductive skills who might work out what a gang of lying,
thieving crooks they are, now do they ?
British education has been maliciously and wilfully held
back to allow our enemies in Europe to catch up and
overtake our own children. It is one of the less well
understood Marxist "social engineering projects" which
they have deployed against our people and nation.
But when this relatively simply question was set, Britain
led the world in science, engineering and technology.
Can you match up to the British children of the 1950's
who routinely ate problems like this one ?
And please, will the thick Marxist rabble who are so fond
of posing as "clever dicks" here, spare us all the old lame
excuses about "not understanding the problem" and "can't
be bothered" and "having better things to do with their
time", like getting drunk, watching TV and listening to
"pop crap" ?
They have told us (at some length) how "clever" they are
(and how stupid/mad/deranged - delete as appropriate)
I am. So now's their chance to prove it !
(For the sane majority, I have used this little problem as
an entrance test for programmers for the last 25 years.
And if you like this one, I have an even harder one for
you. But since you are probably not 11 years olds,
don't feel embarrassed if it takes you more than 10 mins.
Between 15-30 mins is about average. But the best I
have ever seen was 7 mins.)
Blackthorn
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:109302095...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
> a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
> You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>
> C R O S S
> R O A D S
> -----------------
> = D A N G E R
>
> And, needless to say, none of the people who puff themselves
> in these newsgroups as being "highly intellegent" and "geniuses"
> managed to solve it, or even came near !
C=R=O=S=D=A=N=G=E= zero seems to work for me.
Wotan
"Blackthorn" <nena...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2omp2aF...@uni-berlin.de...
Since 0+0 cannot carry (and certainly not a 0) I'm
afraid your score is zero ! Try looking at D. Good luck.
Blackthorn
I don't need good luck. I am aware that in your mind the D must be a 1
however in the problem as you set it there is absolutely no reason why all
of the digits cannot be zero, you were not precise enough with your
instructions and I am afraid that my solution is perefctly correct. If you
don't believe me I'd suggest you seek a second opinion from any competant
mathematician.
Wotan
Speaking as a competent mathematician (who makes his living
from math's) I assure you that you cannot use 0 for all the
values in the problem, because if C & R are 0, then A is
0 and cannot propagate any value to the left. And certainly
not 0 ! If D was 0 then it would not be shown in the
problem.
You are not solving the problem, you are attempting a cop
out - also attempted in a previous thread - and you would
not get any marks for your "smart alex" answer.
D is obviously 1. Now given that, what is your solution
for the rest of the values ? Or is that too hard for you ?
SammyM
> I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
> a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
> You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>
> C R O S S
> R O A D S
> -----------------
> = D A N G E R
C= 9
R= 6
O= 2
S= 3
A= 5
D= 1
N= 8
G= 7
E= 4
But I was an 11 year old in the 1950's doing my 11+ :-)
SammyM
Blackthorn
Your argument is flawed by your assumption that the way you learned to
perform addition (e.g. carrying to the left) somehow defines what addition
is. Incidentally I don't believe the problem you set even mentions
addition. Now go ask a real mathematician if 00000+00000=000000 is true or
false.
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:109302095...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
Funny how the schools didn't teach this sort of thing in the 70s and 80s.
They taught us real stuff like maths, english, latin, french, and so on.
If kids in the 1950s were taught stuff like that, and routinely ate such
problems - then why is the country in such a mess today?
The kids of the 1950s are the people who were adults in 1960s/1970s onwards.
So what did they do wrong?
That generation either screwed up or failed to act.
My generation hasn't had enough time yet to make significant differences, or
to correct the mistakes of the past.
Maybe its a good thing we weren't taught such stuff.
Martin <><
>
>
>
John
each has £10
they see a clock in the local shop window priced at £30
so they go in and ask the assistant for it
that will be £30 he says.
Would you like it gift wrapped they say yes,
while he is in the back of the shop wrapping the clock the owner comes in
and says I knew if we lowered the price to £25 that clock would sell.
It was still £30 the assistant says well give them £5 back the owner says.
the assistant decides to keep some of the change and puts £2 in his pocket
he then gives each child £1 each back
so now each child has paid £9 3x9=27 plus the £2 in the pocket =£29 where is
the missing £1
;)
Blackthorn
"John" <firef...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41264577$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
There is no missing £1. The clock was £25, the children paid £27 and the
assistant kept £2. Either that or it's that bloody clock tax.
Robin Carmody
news:0yrVc.236350$a8.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Funny how the schools didn't teach this sort of thing in the 70s and 80s.
> They taught us real stuff like maths, english, latin, french, and so on.
>
> If kids in the 1950s were taught stuff like that, and routinely ate such
> problems - then why is the country in such a mess today?
> The kids of the 1950s are the people who were adults in 1960s/1970s
onwards.
>
> So what did they do wrong?
The single biggest mistake was to assume that there would be vast numbers of
unskilled jobs for life throughout the working life of the generation who
were at school in the 1950s. So children in secondary modern schools were
taught little of great academic value because they'd be down the pits all
their lives, wouldn't they? Except they weren't, and once the pits,
steelworks &c. had closed (and the number of unskilled jobs in rural areas
on farms &c. had greatly declined) successive governments had to grudgingly
spend vast amounts of money on "retraining" those who had been made
redundant to do more skilled jobs. Just think of all the time and money
that could have been saved in the last twenty years had more time and money
been spent, in the twenty years after the war, on educating the majority of
children who failed the 11-plus exam. We are still counting the costs of
the damage done by the "sheep and goats" system and the tunnelling of most
of the money allocated to state education into schools which educated only a
small minority.
The equation of training for industrial jobs with inferior schools, and the
overt genuflection towards anti-industrial public-school values that
characterised the grammar schools, also reinforced the idea that working in
industry was somehow not for the highly educated, which furthered Britain's
long industrial decline - Martin Wiener was right to see something rotten in
the British system in this respect.
Personally I have always supported the comprehensive system. Comparing
various generations of my own family, I can see that being educated
alongside the brightest and best in your school's catchment area has an
enormous psychological effect to improve the confidence of the "stragglers"
(those who would have been put on the scrapheap at the age of 11 in the
1950s) and therefore to improve their academic performance.
RC
Martin Davies
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg5hhh$neg$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Our local comprehensive (in the town I used to live in) beat the local
private schools one year for GCSE and A level results.
I'm not a big fan of private schools - despite going to one. The low class
sizes can be an advantage, plus the hefty homework every night. But any
school could do the same - with enough classrooms and teachers.
And you do need decent teachers in any school.
If a lot more was put into schools, and into teaching - I daresay we woul
eventually reap the rewards. Would take quite a while though.
Some of the best teachers we had were people who had worked in industry
(including one ex miner). Oh well, not something I could ever do.
Martin <><
>
>
Wotan
No it does not. You are expected to deduce that yourself by
from number on the left (D)
Now go ask a real mathematician if 00000+00000=000000 is true or
| false.
Yes, yes, Blackthorn. We have now heard your cop out
ad naseum. Now are you going to solve the real problem
or not ?
Blackthorn
I already have solved it. It amuses me that you are trying to make a point
about standards of maths when you yourself cannot clearly define a problem
and then throw your rattle out of the pram when this is pointed out to you.
What you should have included was something along the lines of "all letters
are natural numbers and D > 0" but you didn't, so my solution is perfectly
correct. Do you really dispute that 00000+00000=000000?
Wotan
"SammyM" <Sam...@world.com> wrote in message
news:2oms6gF...@uni-berlin.de...
WELL DONE, SAMMY ! You have helped to prove the
argument that we got a decent education in the 1950's -
and the remainder in this thread (so far) have only
managed to prove that they did not and are better at
finding excuses than solving problems.
By co-incidence, as I was reworking the answer to this
on my desk to post it here if nobody solved it, my gardeners
walked in to bring some beans from the herb garden.
And as I know the lady of this husband and wife team
like puzzles, I gave it to her for fun.
Her husband phoned up this afternoon to say that she
had taken it down the summer house - and solved it
in 5 mins !
Which is the fastest time I have ever heard of. She
said it was probably something to do with going to
school in 1946 ! I rest my case :o)
Wotan
"Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0yrVc.236350$a8.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
|
| news:109302095...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
| > I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
| > a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
| > You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
| >
| > C R O S S
| > R O A D S
| > -----------------
| > = D A N G E R
| >
| > an entrance test for programmers for the last 25 years.
| > And if you like this one, I have an even harder one for
| > you. But since you are probably not 11 years olds,
| > don't feel embarrassed if it takes you more than 10 mins.
| > Between 15-30 mins is about average. But the best I
| > have ever seen was 7 mins.)
| >
|
| Funny how the schools didn't teach this sort of thing in the 70s and
80s.
| They taught us real stuff like maths, english, latin, french, and so
on.
|
Your (expected) cop out is noted, Martin. You really
are a fraud !
And the former 7 min. record has now been broken.
By the lady half of the husband and wife team who
look after my herb garden. In 5 minutes, this afternoon.
But then she said it was "probably something to do
with her being in school in 1946".
Any more excuses to offer ?
Legs Larry
"John" <firef...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41264577$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Is the answer 0?
Wotan
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg5hhh$neg$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
You make some good points in this post, Robin, with some
of which I agree. But I cannot agree with you about
comprehensives, which I think have been a disaster.
And on a point of order, m'lud, up to the 11+ everybody
got the same education in primary school. :o)
(Sorry, it must be the influence of the clown Martin Davies)
SammyM
> WELL DONE, SAMMY ! You have helped to prove the
> argument that we got a decent education in the 1950's -
> and the remainder in this thread (so far) have only
> managed to prove that they did not and are better at
> finding excuses than solving problems.
>
> By co-incidence, as I was reworking the answer to this
> on my desk to post it here if nobody solved it, my gardeners
> walked in to bring some beans from the herb garden.
> And as I know the lady of this husband and wife team
> like puzzles, I gave it to her for fun.
>
> Her husband phoned up this afternoon to say that she
> had taken it down the summer house - and solved it
> in 5 mins !
>
> Which is the fastest time I have ever heard of. She
> said it was probably something to do with going to
> school in 1946 ! I rest my case :o)
Yes, '46 and '47 were good years :-)
(I started school in '47 !! )
SammyM
Wotan
|
|
| Our local comprehensive (in the town I used to live in) beat the
local
| private schools one year for GCSE and A level results.
| I'm not a big fan of private schools - despite going to one. The low
class
| sizes can be an advantage, plus the hefty homework every night.
Not enough to teach you simple deductive skills, apparantly.
But any
| school could do the same - with enough classrooms and teachers.
| And you do need decent teachers in any school.
|
| If a lot more was put into schools, and into teaching - I daresay we
woul
| eventually reap the rewards. Would take quite a while though.
| Some of the best teachers we had were people who had worked in
industry
| (including one ex miner). Oh well, not something I could ever do.
No, you could not. You would want every pupil to
produce his birth certificate and passport every morning
at registration to prove his identify. And with a link to
a web page to confirm it.
I come from a long line of teachers, and there is nothing
to it if you understand your subject and want to see
children succeed.
Which is why the Marxist rabble who infest our classrooms
today cannot teach.
Wotan
"John" <firef...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41264577$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Except they did not, of course. :o) Each child paid £8.33R
25/3 = 8.33R Had the shop assistant returned the whole
£5 to the children in equal amounts, he would have had
to have given two of them £1.66 and the 3rd £1.67.
Wotan
Well, now that Sammy, who went to school in the 1950's
and, therefore, got an education, has saved your face you
can relax.
However, I have a really nasty one for you next ;o)
Robin Carmody
I would certainly have had much less of a problem with a system where
academically selective schools still existed, but the non-selective schools
were of a higher quality and offered a much wider range of courses and
career choices, &c (as with the non-selective schools in areas which retain
grammar schools).
I would have seen nothing wrong with the development of high-quality
technical schools (akin to modern City Technology Colleges) in all major
towns to run alongside the grammar schools, as was planned at the time of
the 1944 Education Act. When I lived just outside Dartford in the early
1990s it had a CTC alongside its grammar schools - virtually all major towns
in France and Germany have what are effectively grammar schools alongside
technical schools / CTC equivalents, and they haven't done too badly since
the war.
I would even have been prepared to countenance a 13+ exam as opposed to the
11+.
I merely believe that the system as set up in the 1950s did Britain a great
deal of harm in the long term, through. As I said, it *could* have been
different had technical schools been fully developed as originally envisaged
in 1944. But, for various reasons (some due to unavoidable financial
limitations after Britain had bankrupted itself saving Europe from Fascism,
but others due to venal class-consciousness and anti-industrial prejudice
among far too much of our ruling elite) that did not happen. That is why,
hard though it may be for you to admit, the 1964 Labour government was
necessary.
> And on a point of order, m'lud, up to the 11+ everybody
> got the same education in primary school. :o)
I do know that, you know!
It should be remembered that in early comprehensive schools such as my
mother attended (from 1955 - the first purpose-built comprehensive school in
Britain) the 11-plus was still taken, so as to identify which "stream"
children would go in. That would have been a perfectly acceptable system,
because crucially you could move up or down a "stream" if you improved or
regressed, so late developers could rise from the stream roughly on
secondary modern level to the stream roughly on grammar school level, while
those who shone at an early age but then regressed could fall back from the
more academic stream to the less academic one. It was the failure to make
allowances for the fact that some children improve academically after the
age of 11, whereas others decline, which was a key failing of the system
used in most of the UK during the 1950s.
RC
Wotan
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9OraDfsL...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
|
|| >
| Yawn.....
|
| Each child has paid £9.00, each child has £1.00 remaining in their
| pocket - total £30.00
|
| Shopkeeper has £25.00, assistant has £2.00, children have £3.00 -
total
| £30.00.
|
| Next!
Well, if Sammy, who started school in 1947, had not already
solved it for you, you could have tried solving the problem
in this thread. But I note than neither you nor any of your
gang of thick spotty layabouts did !
Wotan
"Legs Larry" <legs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:shsVc.3849$Hn2.46...@news-text.cableinet.net...
|
||
| Is the answer 0?
LOL Oh, please, you are giving me hysterics !
So you noticed that ever popular cop out in this
thread ? :o)
Blackthorn
Hmmmmm....please answer this simple question.
Is the statement 00000+00000=000000 true or false?
Wotan
|
| I already have solved it.
No you have not. But Sammy (who went to school in
1946) and the lady half of my gardening team ( who also
went to school in 1946) have. The later in 5 minutes !
| Do you really dispute that 00000+00000=000000?
Yes, I do. There is no such notation as that you
suggest. You have just copped out with a fatuous
excuse instead of trying the task.
Had you done so it would probably have taken you
less time that writing your idiotic responses. Which
sums up most of the problems with the products of
modern (so-called) education.
Line dodging is all they seem to teach you morons !
Blackthorn
>
> "Blackthorn" <nena...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2on1d5F...@uni-berlin.de...
> |
> | I already have solved it.
>
> No you have not. But Sammy (who went to school in
> 1946) and the lady half of my gardening team ( who also
> went to school in 1946) have. The later in 5 minutes !
>
>
> | Do you really dispute that 00000+00000=000000?
>
> Yes, I do. There is no such notation as that you
> suggest.
Oh dear......I'm not using any different notation to you. 0 =00 =000 etc.
>You have just copped out with a fatuous
> excuse instead of trying the task.
You failed to define the task correctly as that which you wanted it to be
due to your own mathematical limitations.
> Had you done so it would probably have taken you
> less time that writing your idiotic responses.
What idiotic responses? Do you mean 'responses to idiots'?
>Which
> sums up most of the problems with the products of
> modern (so-called) education.
You have no idea when or where I was educated.
anonimulo
> I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
> a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
> You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>
> C R O S S
> R O A D S
> -----------------
> = D A N G E R
>
> And, needless to say, none of the people who puff themselves
> in these newsgroups as being "highly intellegent" and "geniuses"
> managed to solve it, or even came near !
>
> No attention span, or backbone, you see.
>
> So, in the wider distribution of this thread, would anybody like
> to demonstrate their deductive capabilities ? Remember,
> this is for 1950's 11 year olds !
>
> ----------
From a visual inspection we can judge the following:
R (least significant digit in DANGER) must be even as it is 2xS
C,R,D are *probably* non-zero but we cannot be certain of this from the
question being asked.
Assuming C,R,D are non zero then D=1 because the only other value it could
be is zero.
Assuming R is non zero then S cannot equal 5 and E cannot equal 7.
After that I got stuck so I wrote a program (below) which turned out
multiple solutions, the last of which were the following:
68999
89519
------
158518
78999
89619
------
168618
88999
89719
------
178718
98999
89819
------
188818
The program is here and I will admit it is not very refined. For example,
the d For loop is unnecessary as we know d is 1. Also the s*10+s is
wasteful but is probably optimised out during the compile and I have left
it in for clarity.
If anyone wants to compile it for themselves, then feel free to. The program
takes about 2 minutes on a pentium II 333MHz:
------begin-------
#include <stdio.h>
int main ()
{
int c,r,o,s,a,d,n,g,e;
for (s=0;s<=9;s++)
{
for (r=0;r<=9;r++)
{
for (o=0;o<=9;o++)
{
for (c=0;c<=9;c++)
{
for (d=0;d<=9;d++)
{
for (a=0;a<=9;a++)
{
for (g=0;g<=9;g++)
{
for (e=0;e<=9;e++)
{
for (n=0;n<=9;n++)
{
if ( ((c*10000+r*1000+o*100+s*10+s)+
(r*10000+o*1000+a*100+d*10+s))==
(d*100000+a*10000+n*1000+g*100+e*10+r))
{
fprintf(stderr," %d%d%d%d%d\n",c,r,o,s,s);
fprintf(stderr," %d%d%d%d%d\n",r,o,a,d,s);
fprintf(stderr,"------\n");
fprintf(stderr,"%d%d%d%d%d%d\n\n",d,a,n,g,e,r);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
-------end--------
Ian Smith
CROSS
+ROADS
------
DANGER
96233
+62513
------
158746
The method appears to be substitution until a set of unique numbers is
found.
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Martin
>
> I already have solved it. It amuses me that you are trying to make a point
> about standards of maths when you yourself cannot clearly define a problem
> and then throw your rattle out of the pram when this is pointed out to you.
> What you should have included was something along the lines of "all letters
> are natural numbers and D > 0" but you didn't, so my solution is perfectly
> correct. Do you really dispute that 00000+00000=000000?
You include zero in the set natural numbers do you?
Not a dig, it seems to be about 1/2 and 1/2. Peano did as well, so
you're in good company
>
>
Blackthorn
news:cg5osq$cuk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Blackthorn wrote:
>
> >
> > I already have solved it. It amuses me that you are trying to make a
point
> > about standards of maths when you yourself cannot clearly define a
problem
> > and then throw your rattle out of the pram when this is pointed out to
you.
> > What you should have included was something along the lines of "all
letters
> > are natural numbers and D > 0" but you didn't, so my solution is
perfectly
> > correct. Do you really dispute that 00000+00000=000000?
>
> You include zero in the set natural numbers do you?
I'd have preferred to write it in the notation with which I am familair but
my keyboard doesn't allow that hence my careful wording 'something along the
lines of' to indicate that some boundaries on the permissable values of the
letters was required. I don't contend that what I wrote above is the only
approproate or even an appropriate limitaion on the values, simply that
wotan neglected to include such a limitation.
Martin Davies
Thats nothing new.
There seems to be plenty he forgets to mention even when he says he quotes
something.
Martin <><
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
You may have had a decent education in the 1950s. But others who were also
educated in that time period seem to have messed up the country.
Or was that you?
>
> By co-incidence, as I was reworking the answer to this
> on my desk to post it here if nobody solved it, my gardeners
> walked in to bring some beans from the herb garden.
> And as I know the lady of this husband and wife team
> like puzzles, I gave it to her for fun.
>
> Her husband phoned up this afternoon to say that she
> had taken it down the summer house - and solved it
> in 5 mins !
>
> Which is the fastest time I have ever heard of. She
> said it was probably something to do with going to
> school in 1946 ! I rest my case :o)
So she went to school almost 60 years ago.
Does that mean standards were better then? Or the stuff taught was merely
different?
Dunno about anyone else, I'm quite happy with my education.
Martin <><
>
>
Borderline Genius
@despina.uk.clara.net:
> Speaking as a competent mathematician (who makes his living
> from math's)
Despite your (no doubt spurious) claim of making a living from it, you seem
incapable of spelling it! It's 'maths' for firk sake!
--
Borderline Genius
http://www.guimp.com/
http://www.communistsforkerry.com/
http://www.starspangledicecream.com/
http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
>
> "Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BZrVc.236727$a8.3...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> |
> |
> | Our local comprehensive (in the town I used to live in) beat the
> local
> | private schools one year for GCSE and A level results.
> | I'm not a big fan of private schools - despite going to one. The low
> class
> | sizes can be an advantage, plus the hefty homework every night.
>
> Not enough to teach you simple deductive skills, apparantly.
>
Plenty of deductive skills.
Just not in the same format as the puzzle you posted.
Ours were more along the lines of languages, maths, sciences, computing and
sports.
>
> But any
> | school could do the same - with enough classrooms and teachers.
> | And you do need decent teachers in any school.
> |
> | If a lot more was put into schools, and into teaching - I daresay we
> woul
> | eventually reap the rewards. Would take quite a while though.
> | Some of the best teachers we had were people who had worked in
> industry
> | (including one ex miner). Oh well, not something I could ever do.
>
> No, you could not. You would want every pupil to
> produce his birth certificate and passport every morning
> at registration to prove his identify. And with a link to
> a web page to confirm it.
No, I wouldn't.
Just another of your ideas from your fantasy world.
>
> I come from a long line of teachers, and there is nothing
> to it if you understand your subject and want to see
> children succeed.
>
And the kids come where in your little world?
You have 40 kids in a classroom - how much attention do you give the ones
who are interested, and how much attention do you give the ones who can't be
bothered?
Knowing your subject and being able to teach that subject so that others
understand - not every teacher seems able to do that.
If there is nothing to it, then maybe thats why the exam results keep
getting better year after year.
Or is there another reason?
> Which is why the Marxist rabble who infest our classrooms
> today cannot teach.
>
Ah, again with the Marxist word.
How many Marxists must there be in the country if everyone who doesn't agree
with you is one, if the politicians are all marxists, and if the teachers
are marxists too.
Must be plenty of them.
No, wait. Must be that you are just deluded.
You spray the label of Marxist around like a toddler who has learnt the word
"no".
Do you spray the word around in your teaching too?
What about when you have your daily briefs - do you spray the word around a
lot then?
Martin <><
>
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
You didn't have private schools teaching junior level back then?
Funny that - mine did teach from age 7 over 80 years ago.
So the education wasn't the same.
And why did they drop teaching stuff like your little puzzle. Was it because
the people who decide what should be taught figured out that it wasn't as
much use as actually teaching other stuff?
Martin <><
>
>
Blackthorn
> If there is nothing to it, then maybe thats why the exam results keep
> getting better year after year.
> Or is there another reason?
Unfortunately it is the obvious reason, the exams are easier every year.
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
>
> "Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0yrVc.236350$a8.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> |
> | "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
> | news:109302095...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> | > I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
> | > a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
> | > You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
> | >
> | > C R O S S
> | > R O A D S
> | > -----------------
> | > = D A N G E R
> | >
> || > (For the sane majority, I have used this little problem as
> | > an entrance test for programmers for the last 25 years.
> | > And if you like this one, I have an even harder one for
> | > you. But since you are probably not 11 years olds,
> | > don't feel embarrassed if it takes you more than 10 mins.
> | > Between 15-30 mins is about average. But the best I
> | > have ever seen was 7 mins.)
> | >
> |
> | Funny how the schools didn't teach this sort of thing in the 70s and
> 80s.
> | They taught us real stuff like maths, english, latin, french, and so
> on.
> |
>
> Your (expected) cop out is noted, Martin. You really
> are a fraud !
>
What cop-out is that?
I'm a child of the 70s, not the 40s & 50s.
Stuff like that was never taught to us - possibly because it was useless?
Your edcation was different to mine. You lost out a bit perhaps.
I rather doubt that I missed anything important to me.
> And the former 7 min. record has now been broken.
> By the lady half of the husband and wife team who
> look after my herb garden. In 5 minutes, this afternoon.
>
> But then she said it was "probably something to do
> with her being in school in 1946".
>
> Any more excuses to offer ?
That you are an old idiot? That your schooling was in stuff thats not
needed?
Martin <><
>
>
>
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
Who is a layabout?
Who is spotty?
Martin <><
>
Martin Davies
I thought so.
Martin <><
Jack
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
> I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
> a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
> You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>
> C R O S S
> R O A D S
> -----------------
> = D A N G E R
>
> in these newsgroups as being "highly intellegent" and "geniuses"
> managed to solve it, or even came near !
>
> No attention span, or backbone, you see.
>
> So, in the wider distribution of this thread, would anybody like
> to demonstrate their deductive capabilities ? Remember,
> this is for 1950's 11 year olds !
>
> ----------
>
> are, by definition, useless, incompetent and corrupt - have
> actively discouraged education that includes the development
> of deductive and mental manipulative skills in children.
>
> Naturally, they don't want a population who is versed in
> deductive skills who might work out what a gang of lying,
> thieving crooks they are, now do they ?
>
> British education has been maliciously and wilfully held
> back to allow our enemies in Europe to catch up and
> overtake our own children. It is one of the less well
> understood Marxist "social engineering projects" which
> they have deployed against our people and nation.
>
> But when this relatively simply question was set, Britain
> led the world in science, engineering and technology.
>
> Can you match up to the British children of the 1950's
> who routinely ate problems like this one ?
>
> And please, will the thick Marxist rabble who are so fond
> of posing as "clever dicks" here, spare us all the old lame
> excuses about "not understanding the problem" and "can't
> be bothered" and "having better things to do with their
> time", like getting drunk, watching TV and listening to
> "pop crap" ?
>
> They have told us (at some length) how "clever" they are
> (and how stupid/mad/deranged - delete as appropriate)
> I am. So now's their chance to prove it !
Col
> >
>
> Who is a layabout?
> Who is spotty?
Perhaps everybody is getting into the spirit of things and
pretending they are back in that 1947 playground........
Col
--
You say I have lost my belief in the politicians
They all seem like gameshow hosts to me.
Col
>
> Hmmmmm....please answer this simple question.
>
> Is the statement 00000+00000=000000 true or false?
It's a silly question.
A row of zeros beyond an initial zero does not mean
anything more than that initial zero.
Adding 5 zeros to 5 zeros to get 6 zeros is meaningless
as well.
However to answer your question for what it's worth,
It is true.
Col
--
I just know that something good is gonna happen.
Andrew Fenton
news:2341184.a...@4ax.com...
> C,R,D are *probably* non-zero but we cannot be certain of this from the
> question being asked.
Yeah, although these sort of puzzles usually come with the qualifier that
letters represent different numbers. With 9 different letters, you can be
pretty sure there will be no zero to be found (zeros make these puzzles
really easy). Also, they are made infinitely more difficult if there are
carryovers in the middle somewhere, so that usually doesn't occur.
1) Anyway, as you say, D is obviously 1
2) R is an even number: 2 4 6 8
3) S is then 2 3 4 6 7 8 9. If S=5, then R=0, unlikely. If S=8 then E=0, not
likely. S=9 makes E=1, taken. Thus S is 2 3 4 6 7
4) Trial and error a bit. If R=2, then C must equal 9 to create the
carryover to make D=1 (C=8 doesn't work, because R=2 means S=6 and thus
E=8). A=C+R=9+2=11 .... 10 gets carried, A=1. Oops, 1 is taken. thus R
cannot be 2
5) If R=4, then S=2 and E=3. C must be 7 or more to break 11, but 7 doesn't
work either cos that makes A=1 (taken). If C is 8, then A=2, taken. If C=9,
then A=3, taken. R cannot equal 4
6) If R=6........ worked this through, and couldn't find a contradiction.
7) If R=8, S=4 or 9. However, if S=9, then E=0, unlikely, thus S=4 and E=5.
R+C must be in double digits > C cannot be 1 (taken), 2 (makes C zero),
can't be 3 cos that means A=1 (taken), can't be 4 or 5 or 8 cos they're
taken, can't be 6 cos that makes A=4 (taken). That leaves C as 7 or 9. If C
is 9, then A is 7. Look at O+A, which can't be >10, making O=2 (1 is taken)
and O(2)+A(7)=9, which is impossible. That makes C=7, thus A=5, and A(5)+O
having to be <10 again - 1 and 4 are taken, 3 leaves G=8 (taken), and 2
leaves R(8)+O(2)= zero. Dead end, thus R cannot be 8, leaving the only
remaining possible as 6.
8) 2S=R, so S is 3 or 8. The latter is extremely unlikely, as it takes
things into carryover city. S=3
9) D(1) + S(3) = E = 4
10) O+R(6) can't be more than 10 again, so O is 1 (taken),
3(taken)..........or 2.
11) R(6)+O(2)=N=8
12) Only 5, 7 or 9 left. If C is 5, A=1 (taken). If C is 7, A=3(taken). C=9
13) Filling in the gaps, A=5 and G=7
CROSS
+ROADS
=DANGER
96233
+62513
158746
Not terribly diffficult, and more reliant on understanding puzzle norms than
anything. I'm glad this sort of thing isn't taught in schools, since the
skills required to solve it are entirely useless in the real world.
Tealc
clever dick has done
John of Aix
> "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in news:1093024294.41128.0
> @despina.uk.clara.net:
>
>> Speaking as a competent mathematician (who makes his living
>> from math's)
>
> Despite your (no doubt spurious) claim of making a living from it,
> you seem incapable of spelling it! It's 'maths' for firk sake!
I think he means he's a supermarket check-out person.
Col
"John of Aix" <j.mu...@nospamlibertysurf.fr> wrote in message
news:cg6u9j$vu8$1...@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr...
>
> I think he means he's a supermarket check-out person.
Berating shoppers for buying Israeli goods, no doubt.
Andrew Fenton
message news:412691db$1...@127.0.0.1...
> 7) If R=8, S=4 or 9. However, if S=9, then E=0, unlikely, thus S=4 and
> E=5.
<snip>
> 8) 2S=R, so S is 3 or 8. The latter is extremely unlikely, as it takes
> things into carryover city. S=3
Just realised that I'd already proved earlier that S can't be 8 or 9, so the
above is extraneous *doh*
Anyone got a more elegant solution? I'm a bit pissed I can't find one, but
then it's hard to motivate yourself when you have the answer already :-)
Cynic
wrote:
>I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
>a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
>You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>
> C R O S S
> R O A D S
> -----------------
>= D A N G E R
98344
83714
---------
172058
It took me longer than 10 minutes. I doubt any 11 year old, even in
the 1950's would have solved it in that time (unless there were
additional clues in the problem that you have not reproduced)
The only obvious starting point is that "D" must be 1, and "R" must be
an even number but not 0. The rest is really "suck it and see"
I would agree that the standard of education has fallen in the past 50
years BTW.
--
Cynic
Martin Davies
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4seei0t9kepbqmdcs...@4ax.com...
Who is to blame for the standard reducing?
The teachers? The kids? The parents? The curriculum (though that has to
change over time)? The government? The people deciding what should be
taught? Or a combination of all of those?
Standards are different now.
Few subjects taught today will be exactly the same as the subjects taught 50
years ago. Better equipment, more methods of teaching (videos, computers and
interactive stuff), changes in what is accepted in the subject (chemicals
used, new methods of doing things and so on).
Plus some things will be of less value now - metalwork or woodwork, latin
(though very useful). And some subjects taught that I would suspect didn't
exist in the classrooms back then - computers, electronics, childcare.
So the subjects have changed, the teaching methods have changed, the
teaching aids have changed, and exams have changed (far more coursework
now).
If standards have dropped to make things easier - possibly for political
purposes, possibly for morale purposes - then the way to improve standards
is to improve the teaching.
Locally there were recently grants given out to the local schools for
assistance with teaching. You know, where extra help is needed by some
pupils.
It varied widely between the schools - from less than £4000 per pupil
requiring help on average, to almost £20000 per pupil requiring help at a
different school.
That can range from interpreters, to equipment, to teaching assistants, to
facilities.
Back in the 1950s, how many kids were dyslexic? How many had attention
problems? How many had to cope with major problems? How many left school
without doing any qualificaions?
Yet today there is money thrown at some of these problems - and there are
plenty of courses run out of hours, or outside schools. Plenty of education
available - so if standards are dropping its not that there's a lack of
education available.
Martin <><
Cynic
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:59:09 +0100, "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
>>a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
>>You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
>>
>> C R O S S
>> R O A D S
>> -----------------
>>= D A N G E R
>
> 98344
> 83714
>---------
>172058
>
>It took me longer than 10 minutes.
... to arrive at the wrong answer!
--
Cynic
Wotan
|
| I'd have preferred to write it in the notation with which I am
familair but
| my keyboard doesn't allow that hence my careful wording 'something
along the
| lines of' to indicate that some boundaries on the permissable values
of the
| letters was required. I don't contend that what I wrote above is
the only
| approproate or even an appropriate limitaion on the values, simply
that
| wotan neglected to include such a limitation.
You really are devoting a lot of energy to prove that the
world is flat, aren't you ?
If all of the values had been 0, then the letters would all
have been the same. That the letters indicating the values
are different indicates that the values are different.
You are supposed to deduce that, since this is a test of
deductive ability.
Presumably you are used to being spoon fed the answers
- and if you still get them wrong - of suing the examining
body for offences against your human right to be given a
free meal ticket by the rest of us.
You are an idiot - and an innumerate idiot at that.
Blackthorn
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
> If all of the values had been 0, then the letters would all
> have been the same. That the letters indicating the values
> are different indicates that the values are different.
You are claiming that 2 unkowns can never be the same, you are therefore the
idiot.
> You are supposed to deduce that, since this is a test of
> deductive ability.
>
> Presumably you are used to being spoon fed the answers
> - and if you still get them wrong - of suing the examining
> body for offences against your human right to be given a
> free meal ticket by the rest of us.
The whole point of my answer is to illustrate that you, who scorns others
mathematical abilities, cannot even ask a question with precision.
Wotan
|
| I merely believe that the system as set up in the 1950s did Britain
a great
| deal of harm in the long term, through. As I said, it *could* have
been
| different had technical schools been fully developed as originally
envisaged
| in 1944.
They were, Robin. Both myself and my brother went to
one. And although money is not the only, or perhaps even
best, measure of "success", he retired a multi-millionaire.
Whereas I am still grafting. (sulk)
| It was the failure to make
| allowances for the fact that some children improve academically
after the
| age of 11, whereas others decline, which was a key failing of the
system
| used in most of the UK during the 1950s.
I think what you say is true. It is certainly the case that
some children, boys in particular, are late starters and some
even get into their thirties before they finally get their arses
in gear.
Wotan
|
| And why did they drop teaching stuff like your little puzzle. Was it
because
| the people who decide what should be taught figured out that it
wasn't as
| much use as actually teaching other stuff?
|
"Stuff" ? What is "stuff" - and can you provide a link to
the definition of this substance ?
Wotan
That puts you bang in the middle of the "3 lost decades"
of children whose brains were addled and senses
subverted by trash. Which you are still pathetically
spouting today.
Which explains a great deal and serves to prove beyond
question the claims of this and a former thread that your
generation is under educated, subverted and useless.
| Stuff like that was never taught to us - possibly because it was
| useless?
To those engaged in none-professions such as soliciting,
perhaps.
But without science, engineering and technology, you
would live in a cave and eat berries. Which is as much
as you deserve.
| Your edcation was different to mine. You lost out a bit perhaps.
| I rather doubt that I missed anything important to me.
Like how to obfusticate, mangle the English language
and provide clouds of useless smoke to cover the evils
of those engaged in the subversion of the nation, for
example ?
What have you ever created ? What use are you ?
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
A two part question as the word has been used more than once.
1. tests and puzzles
2. Other subjects.
And the link is here:
http://www.nc.uk.net/index.html
You see, unlike you, other people can give links when asked.
As you may know if you have kids or grandkids, the type of puzzle you posted
was dropped, likely before some of us were even born.
Is it of any use in the world these days?
Martin <><
>
>
>
Wotan
"Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
news:41265d2a$0$14407$a826...@news.titannews.com...
| Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
|
| CROSS
| +ROADS
| ------
| DANGER
|
|
| 96233
| +62513
| ------
| 158746
|
|
| The method appears to be substitution until a set of unique numbers
is
| found.
Well done, and you are absolutely correct. Finding D and S
is fairly easy and E is then resolved. After that it is pretty
much, as you say, a case of finding the values for A & O
by substitution.
If you enjoyed that, I have a real little swine for you, which
I will post later today :o)
Wotan
"Jack" <ja...@anything.com> wrote in message
news:cg5ua5$ka8$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
| you sad, sad person
|
You thick, thick sod !
Wotan
Wotan
| wrote:
|
| >I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
| >a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
| >You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
| >
| > C R O S S
| > R O A D S
| > -----------------
| >= D A N G E R
|
| 98344
| 83714
| ---------
| 172058
Good try, Cynic - and very nearly right. But there is a small
mistake in the left most column.
(3+7 = 10, carry 1 - then 9+8 + the 1 carried = 18)
96233
62513
-----------
1 58746
| It took me longer than 10 minutes. I doubt any 11 year old, even in
| the 1950's would have solved it in that time (unless there were
| additional clues in the problem that you have not reproduced)
Well an 11 year old from 1946 ( my lady gardener ) managed
it in 5 minutes yesterday, although I confess that I took a lot
longer than that to re-work-it-out for this thread this time
around. :o)
| The only obvious starting point is that "D" must be 1, and "R" must
be
| an even number but not 0. The rest is really "suck it and see"
Yes, it is a suck it and see sort of problem - and there is an
element of luck in guessing the right values for A and O
early on.
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
And who taught my generation all about trash? Yours perhaps?
I can't see that our brains were addled and senses subverted by trash. Maybe
your students were that way, but then again, just look at the teacher!
> Which explains a great deal and serves to prove beyond
> question the claims of this and a former thread that your
> generation is under educated, subverted and useless.
And just think - its my generation paying for your pension.
Boy, are you in trouble now.
My generation is perhaps less likely to vote than yours is - but who raised
us? Your generation did.
So if my generation turned out badly in your eyes, is it the fault of the
kids or the people who taught them and raised them? ie - your generation.
>
>
> | Stuff like that was never taught to us - possibly because it was
> | useless?
>
> To those engaged in none-professions such as soliciting,
> perhaps.
And you got information that I was a solicitor from some little pixie in
your fantasy world perhaps?
Whatever gave you this wierd idea that I was a solicitor? I wouldn't take
the drop in income to become one.
>
> But without science, engineering and technology, you
> would live in a cave and eat berries. Which is as much
> as you deserve.
So I'm not a scientist or qualified engineer. Big deal.
I suppose you are? As well as being a teacher?
>
>
> | Your edcation was different to mine. You lost out a bit perhaps.
> | I rather doubt that I missed anything important to me.
>
> Like how to obfusticate, mangle the English language
Your writing manages to mangle it well enough for anyone. Come on, you
couldn't even type "maths" correctly.
So yes, you are correct about your ability to mangle the language.
> and provide clouds of useless smoke to cover the evils
> of those engaged in the subversion of the nation, for
> example ?
>
You admit that you are engaged in the subversion of the nation?
At last.
And you even admit to providing clouds of useless smoke too.
Must print this off and keep it forever. Wotan actually admitting something.
> What have you ever created ? What use are you ?
LOL.
You really haven't a clue have you?
Never mind. One day when you grow up you'll understand. :)
Martin <><
>
>
Wotan
| Who is to blame for the standard reducing?
| The teachers? The kids? The parents? The curriculum (though that has
to
| change over time)? The government? The people deciding what should
be
| taught? Or a combination of all of those?
|
| Standards are different now.
| Few subjects taught today will be exactly the same as the subjects
taught 50
| years ago. Better equipment, more methods of teaching (videos,
computers and
| interactive stuff), changes in what is accepted in the subject
(chemicals
| used, new methods of doing things and so on).
And yet, with all these advantages, they are still as thick
as pig shit ! Now why would that be, I wonder, unless
somebody was trying deliberately to deny them education.
Hmm ?
|
| Back in the 1950s, how many kids were dyslexic?
I don't know how many young goats were dyslexic, but
I expect that there were just as many dyslexic children
as now, but they were not recognised or given any
allowance for their disability.
How many had attention
| problems? How many had to cope with major problems? How many left
school
| without doing any qualificaions?
| Yet today there is money thrown at some of these problems - and
there are
| plenty of courses run out of hours, or outside schools. Plenty of
education
| available - so if standards are dropping its not that there's a lack
of
| education available.
No. It is the lack of any people in education who actually
want to educate children and an excess of Marxists who
are very clear that the last thing in the world they want is
an educated British population who are competitors for
our enemies in the "EU" and elsewhere.
Richard Kaulfuss
<mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> | Your edcation was different to mine. You lost out a bit perhaps.
>> | I rather doubt that I missed anything important to me.
>>
>> Like how to obfusticate, mangle the English language
>
>Your writing manages to mangle it well enough for anyone. Come on, you
>couldn't even type "maths" correctly.
It's worse than that - he can't even spell "obfuscate" correctly.
>So yes, you are correct about your ability to mangle the language.
>
Quite.
--
Dick
Robin Carmody
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cg5kb2$6f1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> |
> | I merely believe that the system as set up in the 1950s did Britain
> a great
> | deal of harm in the long term, through. As I said, it *could* have
> been
> | different had technical schools been fully developed as originally
> envisaged
> | in 1944.
>
> They were, Robin. Both myself and my brother went to
> one.
I am not denying that some excellent technical schools were developed in the
post-war years.
I am merely stating that they were not developed to anything like the extent
envisaged in 1944, and that it depended unfairly on where you were. You may
well have had a great technical school in your area. In some other areas,
though, all secondary schools other than the local grammar schools were
no-hope sinks.
> | It was the failure to make
> | allowances for the fact that some children improve academically
> after the
> | age of 11, whereas others decline, which was a key failing of the
> system
> | used in most of the UK during the 1950s.
>
> I think what you say is true. It is certainly the case that
> some children, boys in particular, are late starters and some
> even get into their thirties before they finally get their arses
> in gear.
We can agree on that, at least.
RC
Robin Carmody
There is something horribly hypocritical about someone who believes that
everything was great in the 50s before it went to shit in the 60s, 70s and
80s talking about the importance of science, engineering and technology.
The British elite in the 50s dismissed and downgraded science, engineering
and technology to such an extent that the lead we had at the start of the
decade, with many of the greatest inventions coming from our shores, had by
1960 been permanently lost to the USA and Germany. At least British
governments did attempt, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, to write the wrongs
done by the anti-science prejudice of our old elite. No decade will ever be
more disastrous for the development of British science and technology than
the 1950s proved to be.
RC
Robin Carmody
Certainly the fact that children's entire future could be decided *at the
age of eleven* by whether or not they could do puzzles like this makes my
blood boil. It is one of the key reasons why Britain lost so much
competitive ground between 1950 and 1960 (search "Peter Kellner" +
ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk in Google Groups if you don't believe me).
RC
Martin Davies
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
>
> "Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NAHVc.255173
>
> | Who is to blame for the standard reducing?
> | The teachers? The kids? The parents? The curriculum (though that has
> to
> | change over time)? The government? The people deciding what should
> be
> | taught? Or a combination of all of those?
> |
> | Standards are different now.
> | Few subjects taught today will be exactly the same as the subjects
> taught 50
> | years ago. Better equipment, more methods of teaching (videos,
> computers and
> | interactive stuff), changes in what is accepted in the subject
> (chemicals
> | used, new methods of doing things and so on).
>
> And yet, with all these advantages, they are still as thick
> as pig shit ! Now why would that be, I wonder, unless
> somebody was trying deliberately to deny them education.
>
> Hmm ?
Your generation perhaps?
It won't be my generation trying to deny my generation education.
And if they are thick as pig shit - then you will have to live with the fact
that your generation couldn't teach us properly.
However, I don't believe my generation is thick as pig shit. We have a
better handle on computers and technology in our everyday lives than your
generation mostly had.
We grew up with home computers, word processing, disks, programming for fun,
and so on.
So will we likely exceed what your generation did? Quite possibly. Check
again in about 20 - 30 years time and see what we did.
>
> |
> | Back in the 1950s, how many kids were dyslexic?
>
> I don't know how many young goats were dyslexic, but
> I expect that there were just as many dyslexic children
> as now, but they were not recognised or given any
> allowance for their disability.
So you didn't allow for that in their education? What did you do - just
class them as thick?
How do you teach them now?
>
>
> How many had attention
> | problems? How many had to cope with major problems? How many left
> school
> | without doing any qualificaions?
> | Yet today there is money thrown at some of these problems - and
> there are
> | plenty of courses run out of hours, or outside schools. Plenty of
> education
> | available - so if standards are dropping its not that there's a lack
> of
> | education available.
>
> No. It is the lack of any people in education who actually
> want to educate children
So you are saying all teachers can't be bothered about educating children?
Rather cynical view.
And yet, in spite of you having that view, kids are getting educated.
and an excess of Marxists
Ah, that most common of your words again.
who
> are very clear that the last thing in the world they want is
> an educated British population who are competitors for
> our enemies in the "EU" and elsewhere.
You really are into this "marxist conspiracy to do us all in" business
aren't you?
Great conspiracy theory.
Tell me - as you are a teacher - are you also a Marxist? And do you really
not want to educate children?
Or are you the sole exception who isn't a Marxist and who does want to
educate children? What happened - did your application form to join the
Marxist club get lost in the post?
Must say, I love how you make sweeping statements about teachers just days
after telling us all that you are one.
Martin <><
>
>
Cynic
<mart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I would agree that the standard of education has fallen in the past 50
>> years BTW.
>
>Who is to blame for the standard reducing?
>The teachers? The kids? The parents? The curriculum (though that has to
>change over time)? The government? The people deciding what should be
>taught? Or a combination of all of those?
I believe that it is a combination of a few factors. The main one is
that teachers have lost standing in the community, and so respect for
teachers is not instilled into the children, and teachers do not have
as high a regard to maintain a high standard. Another is that
protection of children has gone overboard and resulted in the
inability of teachers to maintain effective discipline.
--
Cynic
Martin Davies
Ah, the days of slipper and cane........
These days it seems as if telling a kid off causes no end of problems. Will
things get better?
Protection of kids has rather gone overboard - for those it protects. There
will always be some who slip through the cracks.
While few would argue that children shouldn't be protected, I have to wonder
about the harm done by punishing, and the harm done by not punishing.
Martin <><
Derek *
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:44:36 +0100, "Robin Carmody"
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You make some good points in this post, Robin, with some
>> of which I agree. But I cannot agree with you about
>> comprehensives, which I think have been a disaster.
They are not good.
There are 3 local comprehensives where we live but we don't get to
choose which one. The council just says they are all full, you get
which one you're allocated and that's it.
If I appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman the Council only has to
procrastinate 10 - 12 weeks until the kids have already gone back to
school (which they did) and the parents right to choose a school is
trumped well and truly. Ultimately after protest their only submission
to the LGO was half a page of photocopied minutes from our appeal 3
months previous (which is what we were appealing against !).
>
>I would certainly have had much less of a problem with a system where
>academically selective schools still existed,
Thinking back to 1956/7 in each year there were 4 classes, I was in
the top class of the 4 but of the rest at least 2 classes were
complete headbangers/lunatics, as the headmaster said at the time
"What can you do when half of them are under a Psychiatrist? "
However some of the second class down would have been "saveable" as
Billy Conolly put it.
They are a concern. I went to a Grammar/Technical school, by 1958
standards no problem with it, although even then it was teaching
technology that was 100 years out of date. I suspect, even then that
there was little demand for people who could make tinplate mugs
soldered with *lead* (Too hot to drink from BTW if you are not
familiar, & hence your beverage cools too quickly ), or make butcher's
"S" hooks given only a blacksmith's forge, a supply of mild steel rod,
a sledge hammer and an anvil.
The isue remains however
>but the non-selective schools
>were of a higher quality and offered a much wider range of courses and
>career choices, &c (as with the non-selective schools in areas which retain
>grammar schools).
>
>I would have seen nothing wrong with the development of high-quality
>technical schools (akin to modern City Technology Colleges) in all major
>towns to run alongside the grammar schools, as was planned at the time of
>the 1944 Education Act. When I lived just outside Dartford in the early
>1990s it had a CTC alongside its grammar schools - virtually all major towns
>in France and Germany have what are effectively grammar schools alongside
>technical schools / CTC equivalents, and they haven't done too badly since
>the war.
>
>I would even have been prepared to countenance a 13+ exam as opposed to the
>11+.
>
>I merely believe that the system as set up in the 1950s did Britain a great
>deal of harm in the long term, through. As I said, it *could* have been
>different had technical schools been fully developed as originally envisaged
>in 1944. But, for various reasons (some due to unavoidable financial
>limitations after Britain had bankrupted itself saving Europe from Fascism,
>but others due to venal class-consciousness and anti-industrial prejudice
>among far too much of our ruling elite) that did not happen.
Well it wouldn't really matter what else happened. If the
establishment did not intend to embrace modern technology (because it
would have to surrender a lot of power to technologists)
-The game's a bogy.
>That is why,
>hard though it may be for you to admit, the 1964 Labour government was
>necessary.
>
But absolutely incompetant.
>> And on a point of order, m'lud, up to the 11+ everybody
>> got the same education in primary school. :o)
>
>I do know that, you know!
>
>It should be remembered that in early comprehensive schools such as my
>mother attended (from 1955 - the first purpose-built comprehensive school in
>Britain) the 11-plus was still taken, so as to identify which "stream"
>children would go in. That would have been a perfectly acceptable system,
>because crucially you could move up or down a "stream" if you improved or
>regressed, so late developers could rise from the stream roughly on
>secondary modern level to the stream roughly on grammar school level, while
>those who shone at an early age but then regressed could fall back from the
>more academic stream to the less academic one. It was the failure to make
>allowances for the fact that some children improve academically after the
>age of 11, whereas others decline, which was a key failing of the system
>used in most of the UK during the 1950s.
>
It's only 5 years from 11+ to "O" level, and there was a possibility
of a transfer at 13+. The last 2 years before the "O" level exam
formed what was described as your GCE course. I suspect they covered
the GCE syllabus in those two years, so changing horses in those two
years would have been a No- No.
>RC
>
Robin Carmody
news:109309672...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
>
> I don't know how many young goats were dyslexic, but
> I expect that there were just as many dyslexic children
> as now, but they were not recognised or given any
> allowance for their disability.
Do you think this was a good thing?
RC
Robin Carmody
news:cg8kgb$b3t$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Maybe
> the 11+ was aimed at Rupert fans.
There is certainly a case for saying that it was slanted in favour of those
who had what could be described as a bourgeois cultural background (our own
Paris certainly believes that).
Rupert Annuals were published by the Daily Express. The Express was indeed
a crucial part of Middle England in that era - essentially it was to
Macmillan what The Sun was to Thatcher, every bit as era-defining, but
crucially not for the entire population.
RC
Martin
> If all of the values had been 0, then the letters would all
> have been the same.
so in an equation x can never equal y. Are you really being serious?
> That the letters indicating the values
> are different indicates that the values are different.
no, i indicates a poorly written question. If you meant that, you should
have stated that.
> You are supposed to deduce that, since this is a test of
> deductive ability.
You're not a mathematician, are you! On what basis would you deduce
anything of the sort?
> Presumably you are used to being spoon fed the answers
no, but I would expect to solve a well conditioned question.
> - and if you still get them wrong - of suing the examining
> body for offences against your human right to be given a
> free meal ticket by the rest of us.
If you're so smart...try a real maths question rather than simple
algebra that a 5 year old could solve.
Given a rectangle of perimeter p, prove that the maximum area is
enclosed when the rectangle is a square.
Should take about 10 minutes.
Go ahead.
Frank F. Matthews
> "Blackthorn" <nena...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2on7obF...@uni-berlin.de...
> |
> | I'd have preferred to write it in the notation with which I am
> familair but
> | my keyboard doesn't allow that hence my careful wording 'something
> along the
> | lines of' to indicate that some boundaries on the permissable values
> of the
> | letters was required. I don't contend that what I wrote above is
> the only
> | approproate or even an appropriate limitaion on the values, simply
> that
> | wotan neglected to include such a limitation.
>
> You really are devoting a lot of energy to prove that the
> world is flat, aren't you ?
>
> If all of the values had been 0, then the letters would all
> are different indicates that the values are different.
>
> deductive ability.
>
> body for offences against your human right to be given a
> free meal ticket by the rest of us.
>
Sorry, Wotan, but the problem appears to have been stated in a poor
manner. Nowhere in the statement is there a requirement that the
letters all represent different digits. The zero solution simply
exploits a flaw in the problem statement.
Wotan
|
| "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
|
|
| The whole point of my answer is to illustrate that you, who scorns
others
| mathematical abilities, cannot even ask a question with precision.
|
Since you have made no attempt at solving the problem,
and made much at trying to pass off a scam, I think we
can presume that you are incapable of solving the
problem, which you have not attempted.
Wotan
"Martin" <martin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cg8ogb$nu5$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
| > That the letters indicating the values
| > are different indicates that the values are different.
|
| no, i indicates a poorly written question. If you meant that, you
should
| have stated that.
You are supposed to know that without being told.
| > You are supposed to deduce that, since this is a test of
| > deductive ability.
|
| You're not a mathematician, are you! On what basis would you deduce
| anything of the sort?
How about a basic grounding in algebrae, for example ?
| > Presumably you are used to being spoon fed the answers
|
| no, but I would expect to solve a well conditioned question.
One where you don't have to do any actual work or
rely on your own judgement, for example ?
But then you are fairly notorious in these newsgroups for
not relying on your own judgement, demanding that
everything be proved to you before you take the risk
of a response, are you not ?
It is symptomatic of persons brought up in a feather
bedded socialist state where thinking for yourself is
considered treason !
| If you're so smart...try a real maths question rather than simple
| algebra that a 5 year old could solve.
|
| Given a rectangle of perimeter p, prove that the maximum area is
| enclosed when the rectangle is a square.
When you have first solved the problem set, at which
you have made no attempt at all.
Wotan
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ciSVc.8960.
|
| Sorry, Wotan, but the problem appears to have been stated in a poor
| manner. Nowhere in the statement is there a requirement that the
| letters all represent different digits. The zero solution simply
| exploits a flaw in the problem statement.
It does not, Frank. It attempts to cheat in the hope
that nobody would notice that the "zero solution" is
a fraud and mathematical nonsense.
I have restated the problem as it was set. Pupils are
expected to know that different letters will, naturally,
represent different values in an algebraic statement.
It would not take any 11 year old from the 1950's
any time at all to deduce that it was an algebraic
statement, since they will have been dealing with that
in their lessons. Nor should it cause any problem
to any adult today who had been given a basic
education.
They are also expected to know that you cannot propagate
a 0 to the left by adding two 0's, as suggested by the
cheat, Blackthorn.
Wotan
|
| "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
| >
| > "SammyM" <Sam...@world.com> wrote in message
| > news:2oms6gF...@uni-berlin.de...
| > | "Wotan" wrote :-
| > |
| > | > I posted this problem (from a 1950's 11+ exam paper) in
| > | > a previous thread about the dismal level of current education.
| > | > You have 10 mins to resolve the values.
| > | >
| > | > C R O S S
| > | > R O A D S
| > | > -----------------
| > | > = D A N G E R
| > |
| > |
| > | R= 6
| > | O= 2
| > | S= 3
| > | A= 5
| > | D= 1
| > | N= 8
| > | G= 7
| > | E= 4
| > |
| > | But I was an 11 year old in the 1950's doing my 11+ :-)
| >
| >
| > WELL DONE, SAMMY ! You have helped to prove the
| > argument that we got a decent education in the 1950's -
| > and the remainder in this thread (so far) have only
| > managed to prove that they did not and are better at
| > finding excuses than solving problems.
|
| You may have had a decent education in the 1950s. But others who
were also
| educated in that time period seem to have messed up the country.
| Or was that you?
No, it was bloody useless solicitors like you who decided
to do the country even more damage by becoming
politicians.
Wotan
|
| "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
| > |
| > | And why did they drop teaching stuff like your little puzzle.
Was it
| > because
| > | the people who decide what should be taught figured out that it
| > wasn't as
| > | much use as actually teaching other stuff?
| > |
| >
| > "Stuff" ? What is "stuff" - and can you provide a link to
| > the definition of this substance ?
| >
| >
|
| A two part question as the word has been used more than once.
| 1. tests and puzzles
| 2. Other subjects.
| And the link is here:
| http://www.nc.uk.net/index.html
A link to the National Curriculum (predictably with the
picture of a foreign child) does not provide a defintion
of "stuff".
|
| You see, unlike you, other people can give links when asked.
But not, in your case, a valid one.
| As you may know if you have kids or grandkids, the type of puzzle
you posted
| was dropped, likely before some of us were even born.
| Is it of any use in the world these days?
Not to parasites like you who produce only clouds of
pointless smoke to cover your own incompetence.
But to people engaged in the real professions, who
pay for people like you to live, such skills are not only
necessary, but vital.
Perhaps it may have occurred to you to wonder why
the (real) professions (like mine) are finding that they
are losing work to India, where the children benefit
from an education system founded on the post war
English education system ?
No, silly question. Such a thought would not have
entered your woolly head. Or if it did, you would
almost certainly consider it "a good thing" - without
pausing for one moment to wonder who was going
to grow the next money tree in England to pay for
you and your ever increasing band of free loaders.
And I was not aware that education was provide for
young goats in school in your socialist paradise world
of lunatics. But I am prepared to believe anything
so far as you illiterate and innumerate imbeciles are
concerned.
I and others will have noted that you have not attempted
the problem, although you have tried to escape in
the confusion by demanding that we should solve
one you have set yourself.
Wotan
Wotan
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg7n19$mra$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
| > But without science, engineering and technology, you
| > would live in a cave and eat berries. Which is as much
| > as you deserve.
|
| There is something horribly hypocritical about someone who believes
that
| everything was great in the 50s before it went to shit in the 60s,
70s and
| 80s talking about the importance of science, engineering and
technology.
|
| The British elite in the 50s dismissed and downgraded science,
engineering
| and technology to such an extent that the lead we had at the start
of the
| decade, with many of the greatest inventions coming from our shores,
had by
| 1960 been permanently lost to the USA and Germany. At least British
| governments did attempt, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, to write the
wrongs
| done by the anti-science prejudice of our old elite. No decade will
ever be
| more disastrous for the development of British science and
technology than
| the 1950s proved to be.
Once again, you are right about the betrayal of science
and technology, but not in the period you suggest.
Notwithstanding, it was Churchill who (notoriously) said
"If they scientists want to rule the world, then let them
get elected." Possibly one of the stupidest things he
ever said !
But it was through the 60's to 80's that the real betrayal
took place, with idiot politicians actually squashing
British science.
Passing over Blue Streak (a "perfect rocket") and TSR2
(squashed at the demand of the Yanks) and the sell out
of our computer industry (again by Churchill) a recent
example from the last few years involves a husband and
wife team researching a cure for heart disease provided
by a rare shell fish called the "piddock".
The DTI lent them some money. A bad mistake is
to have anything to do with the DTI. Just as they came
to the point of delivering their (completely successful)
results - the DTI called in the loan and closed down the
programme.
Why ? The excuse was that the two people involved
had not drawn their salaries - and this was a breech of
the terms of the loan - so they called it in !!!
I rest my case.
Wotan
| "Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
| >
| > "Legs Larry" <legs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:shsVc.3849$Hn2.46...@news-text.cableinet.net...
| > |
| > ||
| > | Is the answer 0?
| >
| > LOL Oh, please, you are giving me hysterics !
| > So you noticed that ever popular cop out in this
| > thread ? :o)
|
|
| Hmmmmm....please answer this simple question.
|
| Is the statement 00000+00000=000000 true or false?
|
False. The notation is nonsense.
Blackthorn
>
> They are also expected to know that you cannot propagate
> a 0 to the left by adding two 0's, as suggested by the
> cheat, Blackthorn.
Addition is not, in any way, dependant on 'propagating to the left', that is
just a method that you learned to perform addition.
Wotan
Yes, I think you have the core of the problem.
Without discipline the teachers have no hope at all.
Blackthorn
You have made no attempt to define the problem in a way that allows only the
solution you envisage.
Blackthorn
If you think it is false you clearly are not a mathematician. The
'notation' is not at all nonsense, siimply uneconmical in terms of paper/ink
or staorage space on a computer.
Wotan
"anonimulo" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2341184.a...@4ax.com...
| In alt.politics.british on Friday 20 August 2004 18:59, Wotan wrote:
|
|| >
| > C R O S S
| > R O A D S
| > -----------------
| > = D A N G E R
| >
|
|
| R (least significant digit in DANGER) must be even as it is 2xS
|
| C,R,D are *probably* non-zero but we cannot be certain of this from
the
| question being asked.
|
| Assuming C,R,D are non zero then D=1 because the only other value it
could
| be is zero.
No, it could not be 0, because you cannot propagate a
0 to the left.
| Assuming R is non zero then S cannot equal 5 and E cannot equal 7.
|
| After that I got stuck so I wrote a program (below) which turned out
| multiple solutions, the last of which were the following:
Ooo ! You naughty cheater, you ! I have always found that
writing and checking a program takes longer than just doing it
on paper. Still, let's have a look at 'em.....
|
| 68999 No, you have 9 as the value of both O & S
| 89519
| ------
| 158518
|
| 78999 As above
| 89619
| ------
| 168618
|
| 88999 And again
| 89719
| ------
| 178718
|
| 98999 Same again
| 89819
| ------
| 188818
|
| The program is here and I will admit it is not very refined. For
example,
| the d For loop is unnecessary as we know d is 1. Also the s*10+s is
| wasteful but is probably optimised out during the compile and I have
left
| it in for clarity.
Loops can be tricky little bastards :o)
Especially if you are using a matrix or vector and you
lose control of your subscripts - and especially in one
as deep as the one you have written.
| If anyone wants to compile it for themselves, then feel free to. The
program
| takes about 2 minutes on a pentium II 333MHz:
|
| ------begin-------
| #include <stdio.h>
|
| int main ()
| {
| int c,r,o,s,a,d,n,g,e;
|
| for (s=0;s<=9;s++)
| {
| for (r=0;r<=9;r++)
| {
| for (o=0;o<=9;o++)
| {
| for (c=0;c<=9;c++)
| {
| for (d=0;d<=9;d++)
| {
| for (a=0;a<=9;a++)
| {
| for (g=0;g<=9;g++)
| {
| for (e=0;e<=9;e++)
| {
| for (n=0;n<=9;n++)
| {
| if (
((c*10000+r*1000+o*100+s*10+s)+
|
(r*10000+o*1000+a*100+d*10+s))==
|
(d*100000+a*10000+n*1000+g*100+e*10+r))
| {
| fprintf(stderr,"
%d%d%d%d%d\n",c,r,o,s,s);
| fprintf(stderr,"
%d%d%d%d%d\n",r,o,a,d,s);
| fprintf(stderr,"------\n");
|
fprintf(stderr,"%d%d%d%d%d%d\n\n",d,a,n,g,e,r);
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
| }
|
| }
|
| -------end--------
I certainly think you deserve an "E+" for effort Anonimulo !
I don't have time to write one myself, and I sure as hell am
not going to give it to any of the boys, because they will
spend all day on it - and then go on to produced a
generalised version which would solve the answers to the
bloody universe ! Which would be fine if we were living
off government funding - but we're not !
But I think I would start off with a few vectors pre-loaded
( I am a great believer in matrix arithmetic ) and a receiver
bank.
The way you do it on paper is by ticking off the used
values, so the process would do the same thing in the
shadow matrix, if you see what I mean ?
Mabon Dane
Mabon
Blackthorn
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
....and there Mr Wotan, I agree with you.
Wotan
"Andrew Fenton" <andrew...@spammerscanpissoff.lineone.net> wrote
in message news:412691db$1...@127.0.0.1...
from the
| > question being asked.
|
that
| letters represent different numbers. With 9 different letters, you
can be
| pretty sure there will be no zero to be found (zeros make these
puzzles
| really easy). Also, they are made infinitely more difficult if there
are
| carryovers in the middle somewhere, so that usually doesn't occur.
|
| 1) Anyway, as you say, D is obviously 1
| 2) R is an even number: 2 4 6 8
| 3) S is then 2 3 4 6 7 8 9. If S=5, then R=0, unlikely. If S=8 then
E=0, not
| likely. S=9 makes E=1, taken. Thus S is 2 3 4 6 7
| 4) Trial and error a bit. If R=2, then C must equal 9 to create the
| carryover to make D=1 (C=8 doesn't work, because R=2 means S=6 and
thus
| E=8). A=C+R=9+2=11 .... 10 gets carried, A=1. Oops, 1 is taken. thus
R
| cannot be 2
| 5) If R=4, then S=2 and E=3. C must be 7 or more to break 11, but 7
doesn't
| work either cos that makes A=1 (taken). If C is 8, then A=2, taken.
If C=9,
| then A=3, taken. R cannot equal 4
| 6) If R=6........ worked this through, and couldn't find a
contradiction.
| 7) If R=8, S=4 or 9. However, if S=9, then E=0, unlikely, thus S=4
and E=5.
| R+C must be in double digits > C cannot be 1 (taken), 2 (makes C
zero),
| can't be 3 cos that means A=1 (taken), can't be 4 or 5 or 8 cos
they're
| taken, can't be 6 cos that makes A=4 (taken). That leaves C as 7 or
9. If C
| is 9, then A is 7. Look at O+A, which can't be >10, making O=2 (1 is
taken)
| and O(2)+A(7)=9, which is impossible. That makes C=7, thus A=5, and
A(5)+O
| having to be <10 again - 1 and 4 are taken, 3 leaves G=8 (taken),
and 2
| leaves R(8)+O(2)= zero. Dead end, thus R cannot be 8, leaving the
only
| remaining possible as 6.
| 8) 2S=R, so S is 3 or 8. The latter is extremely unlikely, as it
takes
| things into carryover city. S=3
| 9) D(1) + S(3) = E = 4
| 10) O+R(6) can't be more than 10 again, so O is 1 (taken),
| 3(taken)..........or 2.
| 11) R(6)+O(2)=N=8
| 12) Only 5, 7 or 9 left. If C is 5, A=1 (taken). If C is 7,
A=3(taken). C=9
| 13) Filling in the gaps, A=5 and G=7
|
|
| CROSS
| +ROADS
| =DANGER
|
| 96233
| +62513
| 158746
Well done, and lovely working out shown ! I had a feeling that
if you joined this thread you would solve it.
| Not terribly diffficult, ....
Aparently too difficult for the majority in this thead, at
least one of whom has spent more time trying to duck
the issue that he would have done solving the bloody
problem !
But I have another little lulu for you if you thought
that was easy. Which, in truth, it is.
| ...and more reliant on understanding puzzle norms than
| anything. I'm glad this sort of thing isn't taught in schools, since
the
| skills required to solve it are entirely useless in the real world.
Hmm, really ?
Well, how about "If the MoD get £7000 million, squilliion
per annum - but it can't afford shoes, bullets or flak jackets
for the troops in Iraq, and the RAF cannot afford spares to
keeps its planes flying, and the Royal Navy cannot afford
the fuel to run its ships - then where did the rest of the
money go ?
Or, "If Blunkett says that he is trying to control immigration
- but it continues not only unabated but actually accelerates
- then is he lying ?"
No, Andrew, deductive powers - quite apart from their
very real applications in science, engineering and
technology - are something that people need in the
"real world" more than they have ever needed them in
our long history !
And how many billions of pounds/dollars - to say
nothing of lives - would have been saved if some people
had been a little more versed in deductive powers, that
insist that if D = 1 then C + R must be > 10 ?
I respectfully suggest to you that is not a small figure,
and certainly not zero ;o)
Especially if less people relied on programs to do
the calc's for them, as our enthusiastic programmer,
Anonmulo, as demonstrated for us. Bless him !
(No offence, Anonmulo. I have a lot of time for
people who have a good try !)