Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Crackpot alarms. Someone get me the ISBN for this thing and I'll order a copy from Penn State's vast resources.
I read chapter one. I don't think he is a crackpot. His book is written toward math instructors and other mathmaticians. I don't know if anything will come of it but I think it might be worth exploring. There are probably teachers out there who can take what he is proposing and better present it for students. It is far too premature to discard his methodology or to rush into class with it.
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Crackpot alarms. Someone get me the ISBN for this thing and I'll order a copy from Penn State's vast resources.
I read chapter one. I don't think he is a crackpot. His book is written toward math instructors and other mathmaticians. I don't know if anything will come of it but I think it might be worth exploring. There are probably teachers out there who can take what he is proposing and better present it for students. It is far too premature to discard his methodology or to rush into class with it.
I have no doubt that his method WORKS, it's just that I have SEVERE doubts about the ability to interrelate it with higher math and even moreso about how much "easier" it is.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Crackpot alarms. Someone get me the ISBN for this thing and I'll order a copy from Penn State's vast resources.
I read chapter one. I don't think he is a crackpot. His book is written toward math instructors and other mathmaticians. I don't know if anything will come of it but I think it might be worth exploring. There are probably teachers out there who can take what he is proposing and better present it for students. It is far too premature to discard his methodology or to rush into class with it.
I have no doubt that his method WORKS, it's just that I have SEVERE doubts about the ability to interrelate it with higher math and even moreso about how much "easier" it is.
That's what I said... his system is equivalent. He just takes different relationships and gives them different names, completely bypassing angles. That was relatively brilliant. Super. But, he's an idiot for believing his method is easier for students to understand.
Maybe they should be taught spelling first??Originally posted by: ngvepforever2
I don't see a need to get rid of them. Kids should just be taught not to memorize sh!t in math because almost everything (Theorems) has a reason and a proof. Therefore, they should be taught to analize stuff and learn where sine,cosine and tangent come from .
<===loves sine, cosinge and tangent
Regards
ng
Originally posted by: sundevb
Maybe they should be taught spelling first??Originally posted by: ngvepforever2
I don't see a need to get rid of them. Kids should just be taught not to memorize sh!t in math because almost everything (Theorems) has a reason and a proof. Therefore, they should be taught to analize stuff and learn where sine,cosine and tangent come from .
<===loves sine, cosinge and tangent
Regards
ng
Originally posted by: Jpark
I'm a surveyor/engineer and we use sine cosine and tangent everyday. I'm interested to see if this will impact us.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Crackpot alarms. Someone get me the ISBN for this thing and I'll order a copy from Penn State's vast resources.
I read chapter one. I don't think he is a crackpot. His book is written toward math instructors and other mathmaticians. I don't know if anything will come of it but I think it might be worth exploring. There are probably teachers out there who can take what he is proposing and better present it for students. It is far too premature to discard his methodology or to rush into class with it.
I have no doubt that his method WORKS, it's just that I have SEVERE doubts about the ability to interrelate it with higher math and even moreso about how much "easier" it is.
That's what I said... his system is equivalent. He just takes different relationships and gives them different names, completely bypassing angles. That was relatively brilliant. Super. But, he's an idiot for believing his method is easier for students to understand.
Originally posted by: Jpark
I'm a surveyor/engineer and we use sine cosine and tangent everyday. I'm interested to see if this will impact us.
Originally posted by: misle
Originally posted by: Jpark
I'm a surveyor/engineer and we use sine cosine and tangent everyday. I'm interested to see if this will impact us.
I'm an engineering student, and I am wondering the same thing.
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I'm in pre-calc, and we just learned the unit circle and the law of sines...now the law of cosines...I could do without it...