Engineering Mathematics
Phil O. Sopher
mathematical background is desirable for the model engineer,
perhaps even if only Pythagoras' Theorem and understanding
Sines (for setting up a Sine bar).
Even so, despite that there is great criticism of the decline in the
standards of mathematics taught by today's teachers (All of
whom are bullshitters and many of whom are not even qualified in
mathematics), perhaps even the mathematics that we learnt at school in
the 1970s was much reduced in scope compared to that
of earlier years?
I am reading from an 1898 school arithmetic book, and the pupils
were expected to be able to easily calculate ...
"How many francs (perhaps Euros today) profit would a man make
by purchasing 750 metres of silk at 4 Fr 50c per metre and selling
it at 4/2d per yard?"
for which paper and pencil were allowed, but for mental
arithmetic, the pupil was expected to be able to work out
in his head, "How many hectares are there in a field containing
25 acres"?
Tony Jeffree
times perhaps?
Regards,
Tony
lemel_man
when I was about 9 years old.
It wasn't easy because it was just a hard slog - no calculators of
course. We didn't just have to contend with LSD (no, not that sort of
LSD - but pounds, shillings and pence), we also had to grapple with
tons, hundredweights, quarters, stones, pounds and ounces - and an
ordinary pen and ink. Metal nib and ink in an inkwell.
How about, "If it takes a week to walk a fortnight, how many apples in a
bunch of grapes?"
.
.
.
Answer: "Three blind mice".
--
Regards, Gary Wooding
(To reply by email, change gug to goog in my address)
David Littlewood
<inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Although we live in an age of calculators and computers, some
>mathematical background is desirable for the model engineer,
>perhaps even if only Pythagoras' Theorem and understanding
>Sines (for setting up a Sine bar).
>
>Even so, despite that there is great criticism of the decline in the
>standards of mathematics taught by today's teachers (All of
>whom are bullshitters and many of whom are not even qualified in
>mathematics), perhaps even the mathematics that we learnt at school in
>the 1970s was much reduced in scope compared to that
>of earlier years?
I'm sure this is a trolling attempt, but I can't resist. Your comments
are sheer bollocks.
My wife has been a maths teacher all her career (having a first from
King's College London and an MSc in differential topology), ending as
head of maths and a senior level examiner*. I would say the A level
courses she deals with now are at least as hard as they were in the 60s
when I did it, though more varied. General view among those concerned is
that the kids have to work significantly harder than 30-40 years ago.
Many of her colleagues over the years have been similarly well qualified
and dedicated to education. True, it can be hard to find staff with
qualifications of this level, especially in state schools, but that is
due largely to the very low salaries we pay our teachers; blame a system
that pays real idiots millions to piss our money down a drain but pays
peanuts to those on whom our economic future depends (which means I
suppose blame the politicians who claim to be in control of things).
Another major problem is the decline in the number of kids wanting to do
maths - generally reckoned (correctly) as one of the most difficult
subjects ate A level. Even those pupils who do not go to university no
longer go into apprenticeships in manufacturing companies (because there
are virtually none to be had, and because most of them want to do
something they perceive as more "cool").
Many things need to be put right, but ignorant ranting like yours really
does not help the debate.
>
>I am reading from an 1898 school arithmetic book, and the pupils
>were expected to be able to easily calculate ...
>
>"How many francs (perhaps Euros today) profit would a man make
>by purchasing 750 metres of silk at 4 Fr 50c per metre and selling
>it at 4/2d per yard?"
Insufficient information.
>
>for which paper and pencil were allowed, but for mental
>arithmetic, the pupil was expected to be able to work out
>in his head, "How many hectares are there in a field containing
>25 acres"?
To be fair, sufficient information (and pretty trivial) if you happen to
know the conversion factor. Why anyone should be expected to know
thousands of conversion factors when they can have a book of them on
their desk is doubtful.
David
*The opinions expressed are mine, not hers.
--
David Littlewood
News
news:6qc5g5lr6qe9d7eie...@4ax.com...
> Yes, they don't make mathematics like they used to. A sine of the
> times perhaps?
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
It's cos they don't tan the kids for every sin :-)}
Guy
--
Guy Morgan
First Light Services
nb Virgo, WFB, Stockton, GU
Cliff Coggin
"David Littlewood" <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lt0fMXDF$uAL...@dlittlewood.co.uk...
>
> I'm sure this is a trolling attempt, but I can't resist. Your comments are
> sheer bollocks.
>
>
> --
> David Littlewood
David.
I admire your spirited defence of modern teaching standards which may very
well be true, but that does not alter the fact that most children leave
school as mathematical cretins, which bodes ill for this country's
technological future.
Cliff Coggin.
Phil O. Sopher
news:lt0fMXDF$uAL...@dlittlewood.co.uk...
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>Although we live in an age of calculators and computers, some
>>mathematical background is desirable for the model engineer,
>>perhaps even if only Pythagoras' Theorem and understanding
>>Sines (for setting up a Sine bar).
>>Even so, despite that there is great criticism of the decline in the
>>standards of mathematics taught by today's teachers (All of
>>whom are bullshitters and many of whom are not even qualified in
>>mathematics), perhaps even the mathematics that we learnt at school in
>>the 1970s was much reduced in scope compared to that
>>of earlier years?
> I'm sure this is a trolling attempt, but I can't resist.
Not at all. Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop social skills?
>Your comments are sheer bollocks.
Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop social skills?
>
> My wife has been a maths teacher all her career (having a first from
> King's College London and an MSc in differential topology), ending as head
> of maths and a senior level examiner*. I would say the A level courses she
> deals with now are at least as hard as they were in the 60s when I did it,
> though more varied.
My experience differs, I was emailing recently (for such is the power of the
Internet to locate and get in touch with former acquaintances) the guy who
was
my maths tutor at Uni, and who has just retired as the emeritus
professor of mathematics and he opined that compared to the undergrads of
40 years ago, today's intakes need an extra year of maths tuition to bring
them
up to the entry standards of those times.
> Another major problem is the decline in the number of kids wanting to do
> maths - generally reckoned (correctly) as one of the most difficult
> subjects ate A level.
If maths is perceived as difficult, it is because the teachers are crap as
well as being bullshitters. In my time, there were large 'A' level maths
classes.
> Many things need to be put right, but ignorant ranting like yours really
> does not help the debate.
Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop social skills?
>>I am reading from an 1898 school arithmetic book, and the pupils
>>were expected to be able to easily calculate ...
>>
>>"How many francs (perhaps Euros today) profit would a man make
>>by purchasing 750 metres of silk at 4 Fr 50c per metre and selling
>>it at 4/2d per yard?"
>
> Insufficient information.
Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop knowledge of the
conversion constants, which were common knowledge at the
time of the book?
>>for which paper and pencil were allowed, but for mental
>>arithmetic, the pupil was expected to be able to work out
>>in his head, "How many hectares are there in a field containing
>>25 acres"?
>
> To be fair, sufficient information (and pretty trivial) if you happen to
> know the conversion factor.
As discussed above. Therefore your whole diatribic rant would seem to be
because you are irritated at your own state of ignorance, the remedy for
which is in your own hands?
Phil O. Sopher
news:7mgmf6F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Tony Jeffree" <to...@jeffree.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6qc5g5lr6qe9d7eie...@4ax.com...
>> Yes, they don't make mathematics like they used to. A sine of the
>> times perhaps?
>
>
That strikes a chord!
Phil O. Sopher
news:hdujv0$la7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> How about, "If it takes a week to walk a fortnight, how many apples in a
> bunch of grapes?"
Which we had as, "How many apples in a pound of pears?"
..... "Four oranges!"
David Littlewood
<inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
>> I'm sure this is a trolling attempt, but I can't resist.
>
>Not at all. Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop social skills?
>
>>>
>>>"How many francs (perhaps Euros today) profit would a man make
>>>by purchasing 750 metres of silk at 4 Fr 50c per metre and selling
>>>it at 4/2d per yard?"
>>
>> Insufficient information.
>
>Perhaps it is not too late for you to develop knowledge of the
>conversion constants, which were common knowledge at the
>time of the book?
>
Plonk!
--
David Littlewood
Cliff Ray
It says it all in his address - invalid cubed :)
bromide
Stanley Matthews a better player than David Beckham?" conditions change and
I doubt few would want to compare the skills of a C++ programmer with those
of an abacus user 2 millenia ago.
The need for mental arithmetic is passing, just as the need to calculate
with complex numbers was unnecassary a century ago.
I believe the biggest threat to education is the growing number of pupils
without English as a first language and the disruption caused by learning
being "un-cool". Mathematics will always be hit hardest because, in the best
circumstances, it is a difficult, dry boring subject to 85% of the
population
Dave
"Phil O. Sopher" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdtrr4$hug$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Brian Reay
news:ash7g59cibrg9ontc...@4ax.com...
> was matrices. But to my amazement I found that the majority of the
> students on the course were unable to do algebraic long division.
That latter problem stems from primary school (really!).
Traditional long division isn't always taught in primary schools- it is
replaced with things like "chunking" or "successive subtraction" (or even
Fourier division which, while an interesting method, isn't that useful in
"pen and paper" use).
The better secondary schools will "reteach" division in year 7 (old 1st year
secondary) on the assumption that it will be needed later algebraic
division.
You can often see the difference in a 6th form class which has a mix of
internal and external pupils if the latter only know one of the other
division techniques.
If they know short division it isn't too bad, it comes down to just layout
changes, but chunking etc. has no real synergy with long division in this
context.
Having said that, while I regard being able to do long algebraic division as
a key skill, there are other methods to replace it- eg the factor theorem
and remainder theorem in some applications.
Brian
Brian Reay
news:2eydnW97wIBWFJnW...@giganews.com...
>I think there is a real danger in comparing to days gone by; rather like
>"is Stanley Matthews a better player than David Beckham?" conditions change
>and I doubt few would want to compare the skills of a C++ programmer with
>those of an abacus user 2 millenia ago.
> The need for mental arithmetic is passing, just as the need to calculate
> with complex numbers was unnecassary a century ago.
Actually, that isn't true (either bit). Mental maths is key to good
numeracy (ie working with numbers), if only as a check / estimate. OFSTED
would give a teacher a bad time if they thought mental maths was being
ignored. At least one major application of complex numbers was "starting
up" about a century ago- electronics.
> I believe the biggest threat to education is the growing number of pupils
> without English as a first language and the disruption caused by learning
> being "un-cool". Mathematics will always be hit hardest because, in the
> best circumstances, it is a difficult, dry boring subject to 85% of the
> population
Maths is neither "uncool" or boring. Our A level classes have grown by at
least 50% in the last few years and we've had to introduce extra sets as the
classes were getting to large.
Plus, the EAL students are often are highly focused in Maths.
Brian
willowkevin
something i found out about maths, is that when you dont use any for a
good few years, trig gets a lot more complicated....
--
willowkevin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
willowkevin's Profile: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=50732
View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1143790