Son's teacher needs to go back to school

redpete

*max* wrote: »

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

">>" = "very much greater than"
">>>" = "immensely, extraordinarily greater than"

*max*

redpete wrote: »

">>" = "very much greater than"
">>>" = "immensely, extraordinarily greater than"

Thank you! Maths is, after all, surprisingly encompassing! :T

bestpud

welshgirl78 wrote: »

I didn't intend it as I wrote it, I did apologise above.

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

Oops, sorry, I asked a question before realising you'd answered it in your earlier post, so I deleted it!

You'd obviously already started answering though!

welshgirl78

Thank you for saying, look how warm and cosy this thread is now!

Poppy9

redpete wrote: »

">>" = "very much greater than"
">>>" = "immensely, extraordinarily greater than"

you forgot for love

peaceandfreedom

welshgirl78 wrote: »

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!

Not sure if you mean me, but my issue wasn't that you were trying to explain how a misconception might occur (which would be fair enough).

The point was, you didn't say the original teacher was wrong. You said that it could be read as 'less than 30'. I could not understand (and found it very worrying) that a secondary maths teacher could say such a thing. And then come back and rather crossly repeat the assertion.

I have no bandwagon to jump on either - I have nothing against teachers generally (in fact I am usually the first to defend teachers as I am fully aware of what life inside a modern secondary school is like). I just couldn't sit back and let what you said go unchallenged.

The whole thread's been good fun though - I wonder if the OP will come back at some point and tell us what the original teacher says about it.

peaceandfreedom

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

There's no need to be quite so rude.

I didn't mean to be rude. This is one of my favourite sketches, never fails to make me chuckle, and I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

Apologies if you were offended.

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Not everyone in the world was taught maths reading from the left to the right.

For me, I see '>' meaning that the thing on the left is greater than the thing on the right.

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

> on its own means 'is greater than' just as '+' means 'plus' and '-' means minus.

thistledome

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

At least we agree that everyone else is wrong.

No, but we can agree that you think everyone else is wrong.

welshgirl78

peaceandfreedom wrote: »

Not sure if you mean me, but my issue wasn't that you were trying to explain how a misconception might occur (which would be fair enough).

The point was, you didn't say the original teacher was wrong. You said that it could be read as 'less than 30'. I could not understand (and found it very worrying) that a secondary maths teacher could say such a thing. And then come back and rather crossly repeat the assertion.

I have no bandwagon to jump on either - I have nothing against teachers generally (in fact I am usually the first to defend teachers as I am fully aware of what life inside a modern secondary school is like). I just couldn't sit back and let what you said go unchallenged.

The whole thread's been good fun though - I wonder if the OP will come back at some point and tell us what the original teacher says about it.

I perhaps should leave but hey ho, I seem to have started so ...

I didn't mean you, I have no problem at all with well thought out posts, whether I agree with them or not (although I happily admit I will not always respond perfectly!) I agree my first post and possibly parts of others were not clearly worded. As ever what one thinks in ones head is not always what appears on the page - and then I wandered off and came back to pages of people not "getting" what I was trying to get across, which I probably did sound "cross" about (I like the use of the word cross!)

Lesson learnt, don't post after 12...opps, appears lesson not learnt after all!

peaceandfreedom

welshgirl78 wrote: »

I perhaps should leave but hey ho, I seem to have started so ...

I didn't mean you, I have no problem at all with well thought out posts, whether I agree with them or not (although I happily admit I will not always respond perfectly!) I agree my first post and possibly parts of others were not clearly worded. As ever what one thinks in ones head is not always what appears on the page - and then I wandered off and came back to pages of people not "getting" what I was trying to get across, which I probably did sound "cross" about (I like the use of the word cross!)

Lesson learnt, don't post after 12...opps, appears lesson not learnt after all!

Nope, I haven't learned that lesson either. :rotfl:

Defo off to my bed now though and it's Sunday so I'm not setting the alarm in the morning.