Son's teacher needs to go back to school

Meepster

Humphrey10 wrote: »

I mean, don't just teach people what it is called, also of more importance is how it works.
You can't just say ' > is a greater than symbol ' then expect people to work out that x > y is equivalent to y < x, that 30>x doesn't mean x is greater than 30 despite the only symbol being a greater than symbol.
It might be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to many people, especially primary school children.

Are you trying to wind us up? Really? You think it's a good idea to not call something by it's name? Especially when its name tells you EXACTLY what it does?

Maybe if these school children were being taught it PROPERLY they wouldn't find it as difficult?

If they are taught correctly, they will understand that > means "is greater than" and then realise that as it shows 30>x, it means that 30 is greater than x.

If they can't get to grips with that, then what chance have they got of understanding something like:

30>x>10 ???

Rocket science it is not...

DVardysShadow

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Then why would I interview young people clutching A* passes in Modern Mathematics, and find that they were utterly incapable of doing practical arithmetic?

Presumably because Arithmetic is only a tiny part of Mathematics.

I imagine if you clutched an A* pass in Ancient Mathematics, I might find you utterly incapable of doing practical recursive algorithms or Boolean Algebra and I might be similarly disappointed.

DVardysShadow

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

No - it means that the thing on the left is greater than the thing on the right. It also means that the thing on the right is less than the thing on the left. It can't 'always mean' something because it only means something when there is something on one side or both sides of it.

SN, you are mistaken

onlyroz wrote: »

In computing you might have something like:

if (30 > 60) then...

Such a statement would always return false because 30 isn't greater than 60 and never will be. It would still be a perfectly valid statement and the program would compile with no problems (doesn't mean that the person who wrote it wasn't bloody stupid though).

">" ALWAYS means "greater than", even if the expression using it is false.

Note that OR said "in computing". And what OR states above is correct - for computing. Note very carefully the subtle differences between Computing and Mathematics.

Mathematics only permits true statements to be written. So

• 3 = 1+1 is not permitted
• (3 = 1+1) = FALSE is permitted

Computing allows statements to be tested

• if (A = 1+1) is permitted, even though A may be 3

and also allows values to be changed

• A= (1+1) is permitted even though A was initially 3

SN, I know you have me on ignore. It is ironic, because you put me on ignore because you read me as saying what you wanted to make out as wrong - rather than reading what I actually said. Now you are chewing over OR not for what she said but for what you want to disagree with.

welshgirl78

Glad my return is eagerly awaited, ironically I have been doing Core 3 calculus papers, that would give us something to discuss!

I agree that > is usually greater than. I do however stand by my thoughts that it may be read by someone as less than if there is no symbol to clarify. I agree that a mistake was made but I was trying to understand why. I also thought it was a little harsh that the following poster and another implied that I must be a terrible teacher with no understanding of the basic concepts, and the glee that another had in that!

Lets have more discussion about fractions and decimals - there are LOTS of misconceptions there.

PS Reading back again, I also agree with humphrey, the confusion between x > y and y < x where x is greater both times creates problems. Which is why I think you need an expression x > 30, Not just a random mathematical symbol.

DVardysShadow

As for the crocodiles, I had never come across them. But

smaller < larger

really grates with me if you use crocodiles. The smaller swallows the larger? It really does go completely against nature, where larger usually swallows smaller.

I prefer to think that < and > have small ends and large ends. And the smaller and larger numbers sit at the smaller and larger ends respectively.

bestpud

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Glad my return is eagerly awaited, ironically I have been doing Core 3 calculus papers, that would give us something to discuss!

I agree that > is usually greater than. I do however stand by my thoughts that it may be read by someone as less than if there is no symbol to clarify. I agree that a mistake was made but I was trying to understand why. I also thought it was a little harsh that the following poster and another implied that I must be a terrible teacher with no understanding of the basic concepts, and the glee that another had in that!

Lets have more discussion about fractions and decimals - there are LOTS of misconceptions there.

PS Reading back again, I also agree with humphrey, the confusion between x > y and y < x where x is greater both times creates problems. Which is why I think you need an expression x > 30, Not just a random mathematical symbol.

If it usually means greater than, what does it mean the rest of the time then??? :cool:

I'm not sure why you want to talk about fractions (smoke screen perhaps...) or throw in what you've been doing today.

It's certainly not convincing me you are a maths expert when you are saying the greater than symbol doesn't always mean greater than!!!

Of course it does!!!

You've still not answered how > can mean <.

x is the numbers that needed sorting...

Meepster

welshgirl78 wrote: »

I agree that > is usually greater than.

No, not usually, always...

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Lets have more discussion about fractions and decimals - there are LOTS of misconceptions there.

Happily, could we throw some fuzzy sets, complex analysis and operator theory in there too?

welshgirl78 wrote: »

PS Reading back again, I also agree with humphrey, the confusion between x > y and y < x where x is greater both times creates problems. Which is why I think you need an expression x > 30, Not just a random mathematical symbol.

Again, it's not hard, and it certainly isn't random, in ANY situation:

> = greater than
< = less than

If you remember those two basic mathematic fundaments, you can really go wrong. Putting an x (or any other letter in there) can render the statement confusing.

e.g. There are <30 apples

would be changed to

There are x<30 apples

The x is completely redundant and serves no purpose...

meritaten

All I can think is that I THOUGHT I Knew what < and > meant! now, can you mathematical geniuses please clarify whether:
+ means addition
- means subtraction
* or X means multiplication
and / or (the symbol missing from the keyboard ie a dash with a dot above and below) means division.

I am now totally confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meepster

meritaten wrote: »

All I can think is that I THOUGHT I Knew what < and > meant! now, can you mathematical geniuses please clarify whether:
+ means addition
- means subtraction
* or X means multiplication
and / or (the symbol missing from the keyboard ie a dash with a dot above and below) means division.

I am now totally confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This one: ÷ ??

You'll be happy to know that the others are spot on

(well, it's a small x that means multiplication. A big X is something completely different...)

redpete

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

> on it's own is meaningless until something is on either side.

With all due respect, I am allowed to see that, as this is how I see things.

You are allowed to think that, people are allowed to think the Sun orbits the Earth, or that the moon is made of cheese, or that "would of" means the same as "would've" but these are not correct either.