Son's teacher needs to go back to school

gunsandbanjos

Meepster wrote: »

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


...

Oooh, can I come and play? Maybe chuck a Banach space around? I've spent my day doing Runge Kutta LTE expansions! This thread is hilarious:rotfl:

welshgirl78

Meepster, I like your points, they are considered and well made, unlike some which appear to be jumping on some imaginary bandwagon.

Genuinely, why do you (or do you?) have a problem with the > symbol being read in either direction? I am honestly not being argumentative, I am intrigued. In my opinion it is equally important it can be understood from both directions, children should know that x > y is both x is greater than y AND y is less than x. Modulus inequalities at A level are often mentioned in examiners reports as being an area for improvement (which some might believe justifies this entire thread!) but in all seriousness I would have thought interpreting the statement as being read in both directions would make this clearer?

Believe it or not, I think discussion about ideas and misconceptions is important. Me being short fused doesn't help either I accept!

*max*

Well, this all thing has driven me to drink, and I am holding you all responsible.

"Saturday Night" being the environment, then *max* + drink > *max*

I shall live by that statement.

Edit: I'm feeling a bit put out that there isn't an "immensely, extraordinarily greater than" sign.

Maths...they let you down. *sigh*

bestpud

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Meepster, I like your points, they are considered and well made, unlike some which appear to be jumping on some imaginary bandwagon.

Genuinely, why do you (or do you?) have a problem with the > symbol being read in either direction? I am honestly not being argumentative, I am intrigued. In my opinion it is equally important it can be understood from both directions, children should know that x > y is both x is greater than y AND y is less than x. Modulus inequalities at A level are often mentioned in examiners reports as being an area for improvement (which some might believe justifies this entire thread!) but in all seriousness I would have thought interpreting the statement as being read in both directions would make this clearer?

Believe it or not, I think discussion about ideas and misconceptions is important. Me being short fused doesn't help either I accept!

FWIW it is OK to say it like that as that is not denying > means greater than.

However, I think it's essential to make sure children are absolutely clear what each symbol means before you start reversing it.

The problems start when people firmly believe < and > are interchangeable.

DVardysShadow

bestpud wrote: »

The problems start when people firmly believe < and > are interchangeable.

That is the problem with using the symbols naked or seminaked.

It is true to say that x<y and y>x are interchangeable.

Poppy9

So are other symbols like +, -, x, = etc. interchangeable?

welshgirl78

I didn't intend it as I wrote it, I did apologise above. I was then irritated and didn't reread / explain it properly

Thinking this over again and again (!) I think the best way to say it is that it is pointing at the thing that is less than so it could WRONGLY be thought as "oh that is less than so it must be less than 30" Which is what I intended by literally. Please please lets not start this all again, I honestly do know what I was talking about and as I am sure the more rational (ho ho) among you understand!

I hope this (plus all the other explanations!) have made the misconception I was trying to talk about clearer? (although I still strongly disagree with the person who asked why I was trying to explain what I know is wrong, surely that is what teachers do? And that is also why I brought up other common misconceptions) I stand by the statement that > can be read either way though!

At the time I was trying to be helpful, not cause the WW3 discussion that was generated. When I logged on this evening I was expecting this thread to be on page 7!


PS I didn't just start saying this all again, I was asked a question which has disappeared and now I look weird!

welshgirl78

Poppy9 wrote: »

So are other symbols like +, -, x, = etc. interchangeable?

If you want to talk about change side change sign - a highly debated method by very experienced maths teachers and professionals ... then I could say YES

DVardysShadow

Poppy9 wrote: »

So are other symbols like +, -, x, = etc. interchangeable?

No they are not, except for individual special cases like 2*2 and 2+2, where * and + can be interchanged

Poppy9

welshgirl78 wrote: »

If you want to talk about change side change sign - a highly debated method by very experienced maths teachers and professionals ... then I could say YES

I assume you mean in equations when you are trying to find the value of x but if you move a + figure to the other side it becomes a - or x / but the sign itself changes then, so it's not really interchangeable as you use a different sign when you move it.:D