tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post375445452313233332..comments2008-05-19T15:27:16.774-07:00Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-20952055888804179282008-05-19T15:27:00.000-07:002008-05-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

If you were designing a computer algorithm at the bit level knowledge of all these methods might be of some use. For every day work - a waste of time with too many complications.

M. Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-79869489440889134502008-05-19T15:15:00.000-07:002008-05-19T15:15:00.000-07:00

I'm certain.Well, I can't think of anything else I could be referring to since there was only one point at which you thought I was telling you what an algorithm is because you thought that I thought that you didn't know.OK. I'd be interested if the two of us could put our heads together and find out which method educators prefer and why.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-76302573559071530202008-05-19T10:02:00.000-07:002008-05-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

Keith, Are you sure you are not mixing up the cluster method with the partial products method?I interpreted your paragraph on reiteration differently, I didn't know exactly what you were referring to, considering you had started out the sentence with"I hate to break it to you, but ..."Both groups of educators I mentioned are educators, as opposed to "educrats".

uǝǝlıƎhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-35679396146398437342008-05-19T08:37:00.000-07:002008-05-19T08:37:00.000-07:00

Educators or educrats? The first one implies actual teachers and the second implies the giant educational bureaucracy that consider ideas in a theorectical vaccuum, implementing without testing. I think that most educrats would disagree with me because, frankly, educrats fell in love with partial products in the first place (thus this math textbook).Quite simply, Eileen, because while I was a

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-17360880386111649982008-05-18T18:45:00.000-07:002008-05-18T18:45:00.000-07:00

ok,So if YOU do not think that my statement 2, is true, that explains why you do not like the algorithm.I think that most educators would disagree with you on this one. My statement 3, is where you and many professional educators would likely be in agreement (and other professional educators would be in disagreement). This may be the most valid reason I would see for not wanting to teach this to

uǝǝlıƎhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-9608906773141961162008-05-18T17:47:00.000-07:002008-05-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

No, not an algorithm in general but an algorithm in this specific instance. The purpose of an educational mathematical algorithm is probably different than the purpose of a computer algorithm.By "simple" I mean what I specifically said earlier: "accomplishes the task with the fewest steps in the shortest time with the highest rate of accuracy." The best one achieves those three requirements in

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-34719060339608187742008-05-18T15:11:00.000-07:002008-05-18T15:11:00.000-07:00

In other discussions, where more facts have been presented, those that did not fit with your view, were declared irrelevant.But I will admit that this particular discussion, really is low on facts from either of us.I showed the algorithm to multiple people, presented as a positive thing, instead of a negative thing, and they liked it, and thought it was an improvement over the standard one they

uǝǝlıƎhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-54519922065417182672008-05-17T20:54:00.000-07:002008-05-17T20:54:00.000-07:00

You've presented no additional data. You've presented additional personal opinion but personal opinion isn't data.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-13819768320359807792008-05-17T20:30:00.000-07:002008-05-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

Anything Keith does not understand, or can not easily correlate, is seen as irrelevant.Once determined to be irrelevant, no additional data will alter that view.Got It Keith.

uǝǝlıƎhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-75176281464211259382008-05-17T20:29:00.000-07:002008-05-17T20:29:00.000-07:00

So you are no sure the answer is "no"?If your only exposure to the methods discussed in the video, is the video, I can see why you would draw that conclusion.Her ability to present it as negative, by pretending to have trouble figuring it out, was very well done.

uǝǝlıƎhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-21674290899587353432008-05-17T01:05:00.000-07:002008-05-17T01:05:00.000-07:00

However, that is not relevant. The relevant facts all concern whether or not it shares with the standard verical multiplication algorithm the distinction of being independently sufficient to equip a child with the ability to do multiplication. As the answer to the relevant question is "no", the algorithm is a bad one in relation to the alternative. For the purpose of mathematical education, my

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-40143794587581459152008-05-16T23:40:00.000-07:002008-05-16T23:40:00.000-07:00

Keith,Not all algorithms are for the purpose of minimizing the number of steps to the fewest possible.Fewer steps is not always even the most simple algorithm.And I no longer feel like arguing the definition of an algorithm with you.It is futile.Personally I have complete confidence in my mathematical knowledge, and in my knowledge related to the what the definition and purpose of an algorithm is

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-92177759388545379042008-05-15T22:11:00.000-07:002008-05-15T22:11:00.000-07:00

It's not just my view, Eileen... by definition, to simplify something is to reduce it to its most basic components i.e. reducing the number of steps and making each step take less time and effort. Sometimes, this is synonymous with making something more efficient. In mathematics, the purpose of an alogrithm is to accomplish the task with the fewest steps in the shortest time with the highest rate

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-86932650649224571002008-05-15T19:01:00.000-07:002008-05-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

Klatu,The lady on the video got confused on purpose, to try to make a point.Yes, the method required slightly more thinking than our standard algorithm, but I think it was very useful thinking.I do NOT believe she had any difficulty understanding how to do the computations, or why they resulted in the correct answer.Although klatu, as long as you mention both HP and Education, here is what our

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-14264347660473725722008-05-11T00:08:00.000-07:002008-05-11T00:08:00.000-07:00

eileen said: I just see some merit in these other methods, when used to supplement.Klatu said: So you liked how the ladie on the video became "CONFUSED" right from the start. We don't need the supplement eileen "THOSE 2 BOOKS".It didn't surprise me when she said most kids became confused.Oh and EILEEN HP was on the list along with practically the whole HIGH TECH Industry pushing the failed

Klatuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03632035951246465376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-90517351878613738432008-05-10T15:48:00.000-07:002008-05-10T15:48:00.000-07:00

I did watch all of it... you capitalized your references so I thought you were referring to something really specific like the US Tour in golf as opposed to a section of a book.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-31753951941109791202008-05-10T15:46:00.000-07:002008-05-10T15:46:00.000-07:00

You know what reiteration is, right? Repetition of a mutually recognized fact to make a point? There's a difference between that and hitting someone over the head with a fact because you think they're ignorant.It's superior because it's simple; Ockham's Razor, more or less.Waste of time to teach that which is either unneccessary or unneeded. A more complex, lengthy, and counterintuitive method of

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-38272058270127699832008-05-10T14:41:00.000-07:002008-05-10T14:41:00.000-07:00

Keith,The US Tour and World Tour, were mentioned, as the curriculum in one of the math books mentioned in the video.How much of the video did you watch.Your conclusion that you needed to tell me what an algorithm was (in a rather condescending way, as if I had indicated I didn't get it), is the reason I asked if you knew what my degree was in, or what my profession is. You perception of my

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-60774133067821023102008-05-10T13:52:00.000-07:002008-05-10T13:52:00.000-07:00

I didn't say that, as an impartial reading of my comments would prove. I reiterated the purpose of an algorithm because it's the most siccinct proof that the traditional method is the best. As to your degree and profession, I find that it makes no difference to me whether you're a math PHD, a shoe-in for the world's teacher of the year, or the VP of sales for Merck. How is your profession

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-34763400892580370922008-05-10T11:27:00.000-07:002008-05-10T11:27:00.000-07:00

Keith,So now you don't think I know what an algorithm is, or what its purpose is. Interesting.It makes me wonder if you understood anything I said, or how you possibly came to this conclusion.(You have no idea what my degree is in, or what my profession is, do you?).The method I preferred, for teaching the masses, is an algorithm. Not necessarily the old one, but the partial products method.I

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-36702639617338036732008-05-10T10:17:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:17:00.000-07:00

I hate to break it to you, Eileen, but the whole point of an algorithm is simplification. In fact, one of the most basic things that you learn in algebra and other variable-related mathematics is to reduce an equation down to its simplest terms. The algorithms that are traditional do that; these new teaching theories do not.You're probably right... these overly complicated methods were probably

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-82604442537616616752008-05-10T04:52:00.000-07:002008-05-10T04:52:00.000-07:00

Hey Cim-Cam returns in Washington Stateand Oregon Again. Anyone surprised. I was fighting CIM-CAM CRAPback in 1994. I had a Teacher at a CommunityCollege back in 1980 that had to use a Calculatorto do problem solving(He could not do mental Arithmeticin his head) and this was 1980. Notice retailersuse more and more hand held scanners, and stationaryscanners. No need to use or know Mental

Klatuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03632035951246465376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-27152532874325234692008-05-09T23:07:00.000-07:002008-05-09T23:07:00.000-07:00

I actually loved some of the methods they were using.They seemed to invoke thought about the mathematical process, instead of just having kids perform algorithms.The cluster method encouraged the student to really think about numbers, and how they work. It seemed like it would be really good practice, for learning to estimate. But this alone, would leave the student at a disadvantage.But didn't

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-63688463426921006042008-05-09T21:37:00.000-07:002008-05-09T21:37:00.000-07:00

I wholeheartedly agree. Efficient change happens from the bottom up, much as effective education policy does.Busting the unions would help too but let's take one thing at a time.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-78844639485790701702008-05-09T12:30:00.000-07:002008-05-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

Keith, the only thing I kow of that can stop them will be to spread this far and wide and get parents and others to demand an end to it. Ofcourse, voting in Politicians that will oppose this will help, but first, we ned to wake people up and give children back to the parents.

Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.com