4 ms·

Algebra (the art of rearranging equations) is not necessary anymore (you just need to know how to realize how things can be quantified - the naming of variables

Algebra (the art of rearranging equations) is not necessary anymore (you just need to know how to realize how things can be quantified - the naming of variables of computer programming). Arithmetic beyond use of calculator is useless. Maths as traditionally taught is the leading cause of high school dropouts rates and probably a lot more damage than tahat (people who might have been scientists turning to arts instead).

lutusp 14y ago
> Algebra (the art of rearranging equations) is not necessary anymore ... False, and false. * As to the first, in common use, algebra is the abstraction of mathematical values and operations. If we can abstract a value to a symbol, we then can operate on the symbol rather than the value, greatly increasing the generality of mathematical ideas. Which operation is more useful: sqrt(2) or sqrt(x)? Another example -- which is more useful: D(7^n) = 7^n * log(7) or D(x^n) = n * x^(n-1)? (The first can only be applied to 7, the second can be applied to any values of x and/or n.) * As to the second, algebra is much more useful now than it was 100 years ago. Those who don't learn algebra are inviting politicians to lie to them, which they will certainly do if given a chance. > Maths as traditionally taught is the leading cause of high school dropouts rates ... This confuses cause and effect. If we drop math education to prevent dropouts, we will have implicit dropouts (people who drop out but without physically leaving) instead of explicit ones. > ... people who might have been scientists turning to arts instead ... One's preference for art over science has deeper roots than a lack of comprehension of mathematics. And again, it confuses cause and effect.
- marshallp 14y ago
  I'll just have to disagree with you there. Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people. Where are they going to apply log or sqrt in everday life or even equations as you outlined (in my viewpoint, machine learning will automagically figure out equations or they will be apps on your smartphone). I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. People's identity has more to do with performance than innate ability. Many people are mistakenly led to believe science is about symbolic equation rearrangement on paper (high school maths) + rote memorization and so choose arts instead. For many people, but not all, this is the reason why they don't pursue science careers. If they understood it was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively, I'm certain we'd see different choices made.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I'll just have to disagree with you there. But you aren't disagreeing, you're trying to redefine algebra based on personal preferences, in other words, you're arguing for the ascendancy of postmodernism (the idea that there are no shared truths, that everything is a matter of opinion and outlook). The problem with arguing from a postmodern perspective is that the argument instantly self-destructs (it applies first to itself, which means if you're right, then I have the right to ignore you). The essential foundation of dialogue is consensus, shared ideas, and shared word definitions. Without those, there's no possibility for dialogue. > Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people. Utility is not the basis on which words are defined. Words mean what they mean, how we feel about those meanings is irrelevant. > I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. So those who are qualified to be in school can be surrounded by those who aren't? > If they understood it [science] was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively ... That's not what science is about, unless plumbing is about wrenches. You're confusing the practice of science with the idea of science.
    - marshallp 14y ago
      I'm not doing some post-modernism or whatever sneaky jab you're throwing in. You're implying that you have some definition of algebra that is truer than mine. But that is all meaningless arguments over words anyway. The real issue is that I'm arguing that the vast, vast majority of people only need to know that concepts can be "quantified" - "variabilized" or "symbolized". This is mostly so that they can interact with computers for the purposes of computer programming, or for creating tables of data to be fed into machine learning black boxes. You've also think you know a truer definition of science than me. I think science today is about collecting data and having computers make predictions, increasingly use black box machine learning. I'm inferring that you think it's about theorizing from data and writing out simple equations. I have disagree with you on that (though you'll probably turn around with your post-modernist jabs).
      - lutusp 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> Algebra (the art of rearranging equations) is not necessary anymore ... False, and false. * As to the first, in common use, algebra is the abstraction of mathematical values and operations. If we can abstract a value to a symbol, we then can operate on the symbol rather than the value, greatly increasing the generality of mathematical ideas. Which operation is more useful: sqrt(2) or sqrt(x)? Another example -- which is more useful: D(7^n) = 7^n * log(7) or D(x^n) = n * x^(n-1)? (The first can only be applied to 7, the second can be applied to any values of x and/or n.) * As to the second, algebra is much more useful now than it was 100 years ago. Those who don't learn algebra are inviting politicians to lie to them, which they will certainly do if given a chance. > Maths as traditionally taught is the leading cause of high school dropouts rates ... This confuses cause and effect. If we drop math education to prevent dropouts, we will have implicit dropouts (people who drop out but without physically leaving) instead of explicit ones. > ... people who might have been scientists turning to arts instead ... One's preference for art over science has deeper roots than a lack of comprehension of mathematics. And again, it confuses cause and effect.

marshallp 14y ago
I'll just have to disagree with you there. Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people. Where are they going to apply log or sqrt in everday life or even equations as you outlined (in my viewpoint, machine learning will automagically figure out equations or they will be apps on your smartphone). I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. People's identity has more to do with performance than innate ability. Many people are mistakenly led to believe science is about symbolic equation rearrangement on paper (high school maths) + rote memorization and so choose arts instead. For many people, but not all, this is the reason why they don't pursue science careers. If they understood it was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively, I'm certain we'd see different choices made.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I'll just have to disagree with you there. But you aren't disagreeing, you're trying to redefine algebra based on personal preferences, in other words, you're arguing for the ascendancy of postmodernism (the idea that there are no shared truths, that everything is a matter of opinion and outlook). The problem with arguing from a postmodern perspective is that the argument instantly self-destructs (it applies first to itself, which means if you're right, then I have the right to ignore you). The essential foundation of dialogue is consensus, shared ideas, and shared word definitions. Without those, there's no possibility for dialogue. > Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people. Utility is not the basis on which words are defined. Words mean what they mean, how we feel about those meanings is irrelevant. > I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. So those who are qualified to be in school can be surrounded by those who aren't? > If they understood it [science] was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively ... That's not what science is about, unless plumbing is about wrenches. You're confusing the practice of science with the idea of science.
  - marshallp 14y ago
    I'm not doing some post-modernism or whatever sneaky jab you're throwing in. You're implying that you have some definition of algebra that is truer than mine. But that is all meaningless arguments over words anyway. The real issue is that I'm arguing that the vast, vast majority of people only need to know that concepts can be "quantified" - "variabilized" or "symbolized". This is mostly so that they can interact with computers for the purposes of computer programming, or for creating tables of data to be fed into machine learning black boxes. You've also think you know a truer definition of science than me. I think science today is about collecting data and having computers make predictions, increasingly use black box machine learning. I'm inferring that you think it's about theorizing from data and writing out simple equations. I have disagree with you on that (though you'll probably turn around with your post-modernist jabs).
    - lutusp 14y ago