In article
>,
spamtrap1888 > wrote:

> On Sep 17, 9:16*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:08:25 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > *zxcvbob > wrote:
> >
> > >> (actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different
> > >> number bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)
> >
> > > * *I think it was fourth or fifth grade when they foisted that idiocy on
> > > us. *
> >
> > what is idiotic about teaching there other base numbers systems apart from
> > ten?
>
> It's not math you can use unless you want to be a programmer.

Or unless you want to learn how to think!

> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> applications and less time on pure manipulation.

If by pure manipulation you are talking about those infernal "ditto
sheets", I agree.

> (Mom and Dad want to
> paint their bedroom. Given that their room is 10 feet by 15 feet by 8
> feet high, how many gallons of paint do they need to buy, given that
> one gallon of paint covers 500 square feet, and two coats will be
> needed to cover the existing color.)

And the kid says, "Where's the ditto sheet?". When do you ever get a
ditto sheet in real life? You have to figure out what exactly the
problem is, before you can do the calculations.

> The vast majority of students, even ones good at manipulation, will
> find setting up this problem to be difficult.

In which case, their "math education" is a total waste of time.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA