4 ms·

This test is so, so bad. If this is how I had been exposed to math when I was in the first grade, I hate to think how my life would have been different. (I have

This test is so, so bad. If this is how I had been exposed to math when I was in the first grade, I hate to think how my life would have been different. (I have two degrees in mathematics.) I've heard stories of my first grader niece crying while trying to complete her daily homework. I'm starting to understand why.

anaphor 13y ago
I think grade school math curriculums are incredibly bad in most of the world, though. I know it's awful here in Ontario. Everything I learned about mathematics was from non-textbooks (e.g. Dover math books), lectures, papers and blog posts. School didn't teach me a thing. I think the only decent "textbook" I have is Concrete Mathematics, and that's not even close to most textbooks. It's probably been posted a million times before on here, but http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
- revelation 13y ago
  Wonderful article, but one verdict turns out to be wrong: Translating from one base to another is an utterly useless thing. If you can do it, maybe it's entertaining; if you can't do it, forget it. There's no point to it.
  - anaphor 13y ago
    Well, it was written before writing things in octal or hex was common, I think, so you'll have to cut him some slack there.
  - jerf 13y ago
    Do not mistake "tradition" for "useful", and especially in the context of a math cirriculum. It is useless to learn it in school. For that fraction of a percent that goes on to not only program computers, but also routinely dabble in bit-bashing, let them take the time to learn it (and they'll probably only learn special cases anyhow). Don't jam it down everyone's throat, and pile on one more reason on the already voluminous pile of reasons to hate math and think it's useless. (A conclusion that our school system does its level best to make the rational conclusion based on the evidence!)
  - pmiller2 13y ago
    I'd say it's still a generally true statement. Other than base 2, 8, or 16, there isn't much use for translating from one base to another.
    - impendia 13y ago
      The purpose of working in number bases other than 10 is to reinforce the meaning of place value, and to implicitly teach students that the way we write numerals is (1) very logical and sensible, but (2) an accident of biology. What we should really do is make students add and multiply in Roman numerals. Quick, what's LXXVII x XLIV? Attempting that will make you appreciate decimal notation real quick.
  - mturmon 13y ago
    It's inevitable to link to this now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA It's Tom Lehrer, about 50 years ago, explaining subtraction in the context of the "new" math (the base-8 stuff starts at 2:40). Worth a listen.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  Dover maths books are good readin'. In Blackwells in Oxford (UK) there used to be a budget section with loads of old Dover books. I remember one about Fourier series that was translated from a Russian text.

anaphor 13y ago

I think grade school math curriculums are incredibly bad in most of the world, though. I know it's awful here in Ontario. Everything I learned about mathematics was from non-textbooks (e.g. Dover math books), lectures, papers and blog posts. School didn't teach me a thing. I think the only decent "textbook" I have is Concrete Mathematics, and that's not even close to most textbooks. It's probably been posted a million times before on here, but http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

revelation 13y ago
Wonderful article, but one verdict turns out to be wrong: Translating from one base to another is an utterly useless thing. If you can do it, maybe it's entertaining; if you can't do it, forget it. There's no point to it.
- anaphor 13y ago
  Well, it was written before writing things in octal or hex was common, I think, so you'll have to cut him some slack there.
- jerf 13y ago
  Do not mistake "tradition" for "useful", and especially in the context of a math cirriculum. It is useless to learn it in school. For that fraction of a percent that goes on to not only program computers, but also routinely dabble in bit-bashing, let them take the time to learn it (and they'll probably only learn special cases anyhow). Don't jam it down everyone's throat, and pile on one more reason on the already voluminous pile of reasons to hate math and think it's useless. (A conclusion that our school system does its level best to make the rational conclusion based on the evidence!)
- pmiller2 13y ago
  I'd say it's still a generally true statement. Other than base 2, 8, or 16, there isn't much use for translating from one base to another.
  - impendia 13y ago
    The purpose of working in number bases other than 10 is to reinforce the meaning of place value, and to implicitly teach students that the way we write numerals is (1) very logical and sensible, but (2) an accident of biology. What we should really do is make students add and multiply in Roman numerals. Quick, what's LXXVII x XLIV? Attempting that will make you appreciate decimal notation real quick.
- mturmon 13y ago
  It's inevitable to link to this now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA It's Tom Lehrer, about 50 years ago, explaining subtraction in the context of the "new" math (the base-8 stuff starts at 2:40). Worth a listen.
NAFV_P 13y ago
Dover maths books are good readin'. In Blackwells in Oxford (UK) there used to be a budget section with loads of old Dover books. I remember one about Fourier series that was translated from a Russian text.