I'm too old for this. I can get through all of my homework except word
problems. How would you interpret this? I can a couple of different ways.

Ignore if you don't like cheating. Need to put it into an algebraic
expression.

Four times the sum of 10 and x is equal to 16; I settled on (10 + x)4 =16
but it doesn't look right to me.


(putting on the flame-proof panties)

4*(10+x) =16

40+4x=16

4x=16-40

4x=-24

x=-6

-J

On 09/15/2010 08:48 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> I'm too old for this. I can get through all of my homework except word
> problems. How would you interpret this? I can a couple of different ways.
>
> Ignore if you don't like cheating. Need to put it into an algebraic
> expression.
>
> Four times the sum of 10 and x is equal to 16; I settled on (10 + x)4
> =16 but it doesn't look right to me.

You're exactly right, though I would write it 4(10+x)=16

>
>
> (putting on the flame-proof panties)

Nah. You're double-checking. Not the same as cheating, says I.

Serene

--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
New post: Re-creation Time: Aunt Sandy's blintzes

Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> "Cheryl" > wrote:

>> Four times the sum of 10 and x is equal to 16; I settled on (10 + x)4 =16
>> but it doesn't look right to me.

> The only thing I'd change is putting the 4 in front. We always wrote
>out operations that way.

It's right either way, but putting the four first makes it
more resemble the English sentence.


Steve

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> wrote:

>4*(10+x) =16
>40+4x=16
>4x=16-40
>4x=-24
>x=-6

or

4*(10+x) =16

10+ x = 4

x = 4 -10

x = -6

-- Larry

On 9/16/2010 10:10 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> > wrote:
>
>> 4*(10+x) =16
>> 40+4x=16
>> 4x=16-40
>> 4x=-24
>> x=-6
>
> or
>
> 4*(10+x) =16
>
> 10+ x = 4
>
> x = 4 -10
>
> x = -6
>
> -- Larry

That's obscene!

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

"Serene Vannoy" > wrote in message
...

>
> Nah. You're double-checking. Not the same as cheating, says I.

Thanks everyone for your kindness and help. I figure a lot of you probably
have kids in school doing this stuff and someone might know. My
problem is over-thinking the word problems, and this was a simple one.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> > wrote:
>
>>4*(10+x) =16
>>40+4x=16
>>4x=16-40
>>4x=-24
>>x=-6

This one I got!
>
> or
>
> 4*(10+x) =16
>
> 10+ x = 4
>
> x = 4 -10
>
> x = -6


Completely lost on this one.

Thanks!

On Sep 16, 3:41*pm, "Cheryl" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> > > wrote:
>
> >>4*(10+x) =16
> >>40+4x=16
> >>4x=16-40
> >>4x=-24
> >>x=-6
>
> This one I got!
>
>
>
> > or
>
> > 4*(10+x) =16

Divide both sides by 4

>
> > 10+ x = 4

Subtract 10 from each side.

>
> > x = 4 -10
>
> > x = -6
>
> Completely lost on this one.
>

Hope the above helps.

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 16, 3:41 pm, "Cheryl" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>4*(10+x) =16
>> >>40+4x=16
>> >>4x=16-40
>> >>4x=-24
>> >>x=-6
>>
>> This one I got!
>>
>>
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > 4*(10+x) =16
>
> Divide both sides by 4
>
>>
>> > 10+ x = 4
>
> Subtract 10 from each side.
>
>>
>> > x = 4 -10
>>
>> > x = -6
>>
>> Completely lost on this one.
>>
>
> Hope the above helps.

Yes. Is that "new math"? Years after I was in high school I remember
everyone talking about new math. I know you can check multiplication by
dividing, and visa versa, but that was complicated. Thanks for the
explanation.

I know leave you to continue your regularly scheduled programming.

On Sep 16, 7:02*pm, "Cheryl" > wrote:
> "spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 3:41 pm, "Cheryl" > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> >> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >>4*(10+x) =16
> >> >>40+4x=16
> >> >>4x=16-40
> >> >>4x=-24
> >> >>x=-6
>
> >> This one I got!
>
> >> > or
>
> >> > 4*(10+x) =16
>
> > Divide both sides by 4
>
> >> > 10+ x = 4
>
> > Subtract 10 from each side.
>
> >> > x = 4 -10
>
> >> > x = -6
>
> >> Completely lost on this one.
>
> > Hope the above helps.
>
> Yes. *Is that "new math"? * *Years after I was in high school I remember
> everyone talking about new math. * I know you can check multiplication by
> dividing, and visa versa, but that was complicated. *Thanks for the
> explanation.
>
> I know leave you to continue your regularly scheduled programming. *


I don't know if it is new math or not. I hated math in school, and
didn't participate. I got through all my math classes with the
minimum effort necessary to get a passing D.

Reality comes fast, hard and cold when you enter college some 18 years
later. All the stuff I should have learned in HS I had to learn last
year in a college algebra course. Grades 7-12 compressed into 15
weeks. Make no mistake, that class beat me to a bloody pulp. We would
be assigned one section out of ten per 'module' as homework. I would
do all ten. And then once a week I would go back and do one or two
sections from previous chapters all over again. My instructor, a very
amusing guy from Senegal, gave me a BC in the class because he could
see how much effort I was putting into it and he knew that I'm not
going to be an engineer. If you were to go by exams and test scores,
I'm pretty sure I would have done no better than a D. So that
sequence I just showed you to solve for x is something that I learned
how to do for the first time at age 35.

"I'm too old for this"

I had that thought a few times, but I was persistent in wanting to
prove that I'm not an idiot. I wanted to show that I could do this. I
kept my algebra book and I plan to keep practicing, and then take the
class over again. Masochism? Perhaps.

Good luck.

-J

"phaeton" > wrote in message
...


> I don't know if it is new math or not. I hated math in school, and
> didn't participate. I got through all my math classes with the
> minimum effort necessary to get a passing D.
>
I didn't even get that. I got pregnant at 16 and quit school to get
married. At least I got a GED, and it was before my class graduated. I
always cut algebra.

> Reality comes fast, hard and cold when you enter college some 18 years
> later.

That's close for me. About 20 years after high school.

All the stuff I should have learned in HS I had to learn last
> year in a college algebra course.

I failed so miserably in the math placement test that I had to start with
beginner algebra. I looked at the placement test problems and it made no
sense to me. I didn't study ahead of time. I wanted to test knowing what I
know now. Well, that was nothing.

Grades 7-12 compressed into 15
> weeks. Make no mistake, that class beat me to a bloody pulp. We would
> be assigned one section out of ten per 'module' as homework. I would
> do all ten. And then once a week I would go back and do one or two
> sections from previous chapters all over again.

For my last algebra class I only did the bare minimum to pass the
conferences and homework. I rarely studied. I bombed on the final exam and
ended up with a C. Back in high school I would have been fine with that,
but since I've gone back to college my GPA is very close to 4 and that class
brought me down. So this one, I am taking more seriously. Then I get to do
college algebra in the spring. oy.

My instructor, a very
> amusing guy from Senegal, gave me a BC in the class because he could
> see how much effort I was putting into it and he knew that I'm not
> going to be an engineer. If you were to go by exams and test scores,
> I'm pretty sure I would have done no better than a D. So that
> sequence I just showed you to solve for x is something that I learned
> how to do for the first time at age 35.
>
> "I'm too old for this"
>
> I had that thought a few times, but I was persistent in wanting to
> prove that I'm not an idiot. I wanted to show that I could do this. I
> kept my algebra book and I plan to keep practicing, and then take the
> class over again. Masochism? Perhaps.
>
> Good luck.

Thank you. I had to do this for several reasons. The most important one
was for me.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...

>
>> Reality comes fast, hard and cold when you enter college some 18 years
>> later.
>
> That's close for me. About 20 years after high school.
>

Scratch that. About 30 years after high school.

On 9/16/2010 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:

> Is that "new math"? Years after I was in high school I
> remember everyone talking about new math. I know you can check
> multiplication by dividing, and visa versa, but that was
> complicated. Thanks for the explanation.
>


Nah, "new math" is where it doesn't really matter what answer you
get or how you get there, as long as you feel good about yourself
for it. HTH ;-)

(actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different
number bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)

Bob

> (actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different
> number bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)
>
> Bob

What's hilarious about all this is that I taught myself base 2, 8, 16
math etc. about 13 years ago as a result of getting into computers
again. I've been doing tech type jobs for the last 10 years or so,
and I've had electronics as a hobby for close to 20 years now.
Interestingly, I've found those other types of math more useful to me
up until last year when I entered college.

Never underestimate the power of your local Library branch having a
book sale. That's all I can say.


-J

On 17/09/2010 2:49 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> Is that "new math"? Years after I was in high school I
>> remember everyone talking about new math. I know you can check
>> multiplication by dividing, and visa versa, but that was
>> complicated. Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>
>
> Nah, "new math" is where it doesn't really matter what answer you get or
> how you get there, as long as you feel good about yourself for it. HTH ;-)
>
> (actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different number
> bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)
>
> Bob
>
>
Back in pre-computer days, usage of the different number bases would
seem odd. These days however, with the advent of computers, Hexadecimal,
Octal & Binary do indeed serve a purpose in mathematics. I have a friend
who can program in Direct Hexadecimal because he has ALL the codes
memorised. For him, all the number bases are as familiar to him as
Decimal is to me.

I never want to get to that level! That's why I opted for the Public
Service! ;-)

Krypsis

On 16/09/2010 5:24 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Ranée at Arabian > wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Four times the sum of 10 and x is equal to 16; I settled on (10 + x)4 =16
>>> but it doesn't look right to me.
>
>> The only thing I'd change is putting the 4 in front. We always wrote
>> out operations that way.
>
> It's right either way, but putting the four first makes it
> more resemble the English sentence.
>
>
> Steve

I vaguely recall doing it that way when I was in High School. That was
one hell of a long time ago I might add. Learnt the new ways, or should
I say "was hit with them", during later tertiary studies.

Krypsis

Krypsis wrote:

> Back in pre-computer days, usage of the different number bases would
> seem odd. These days however, with the advent of computers,
> Hexadecimal, Octal & Binary do indeed serve a purpose in mathematics.
> I have a friend who can program in Direct Hexadecimal because he has
> ALL the codes memorised.

That's the first language I learned, machine code. Tedious, but very
handy to understand later if you were a mainframe programmer. I
have no idea if it's still useful in the pc age.

nancy

On Sep 16, 5:16*pm, Janet Wilder > wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 10:10 AM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> 4*(10+x) =16
> >> 40+4x=16
> >> 4x=16-40
> >> 4x=-24
> >> x=-6
>
> > or
>
> > 4*(10+x) =16
>
> > 10+ x = 4
>
> > x = 4 -10
>
> > x = -6
>
> > -- Larry
>
> That's obscene!

Obscene? What are you seeing that I'm not?
>
> --
> Janet Wilder

--Bryan

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:28:03 -0400, Cheryl wrote:

> For my last algebra class I only did the bare minimum to pass the
> conferences and homework. I rarely studied. I bombed on the final exam and
> ended up with a C. Back in high school I would have been fine with that,
> but since I've gone back to college my GPA is very close to 4 and that class
> brought me down. So this one, I am taking more seriously. Then I get to do
> college algebra in the spring. oy.

good luck, cheryl.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:49:33 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> On 9/16/2010 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> Is that "new math"? Years after I was in high school I
>> remember everyone talking about new math. I know you can check
>> multiplication by dividing, and visa versa, but that was
>> complicated. Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>
> Nah, "new math" is where it doesn't really matter what answer you
> get or how you get there, as long as you feel good about yourself
> for it. HTH ;-)
>
> (actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different
> number bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)
>
> Bob

yet it turned out binary (and, to a lesser extent, octal) turned out to be
useful indeed for many.

your pal,
blake

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?

your pal,
blake

On Sep 17, 7:50*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Krypsis wrote:
> > Back in pre-computer days, usage of the different number bases would
> > seem odd. These days however, with the advent of computers,
> > Hexadecimal, Octal & Binary do indeed serve a purpose in mathematics.
> > I have a friend who can program in Direct Hexadecimal because he has
> > ALL the codes memorised.
>
> That's the first language I learned, machine code. *Tedious, but very
> handy to understand later if you were a mainframe programmer. *I
> have no idea if it's still useful in the pc age.
>
> nancy

Some people still code on the bare metal. For consumer PCs, not so
much. But for things like microcontrollers and FFGPAs and small
processors for which no higher-level compiler is written you'll see
people writing in assembler. I haven't studied assembler much, but my
guess is that it has a huge learning curve, but once you are past that
it makes incredible sense as it is down at the level where hardware
and software blur. "I'm flipping these bits and turning transistor
arrays on and off" kinda stuff. In the Atmel controllers, for
instance, you still code in C, but there is a lot of poke/peek stuff
at hardware addresses which are assigned in hexidecimal, so it
sometimes feels like assembly language.

In the PC world, the trend is going up to higher and higher level
languages. C and C++ for system-level and major application stuff,
and interpreted languages (Java, Perl, and whatever flavor of the
month prototyping language) is getting more and more common for
smaller apps and 'glue'.

-J

On 9/17/2010 3:44 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 17/09/2010 2:49 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 7:02 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>
>>> Is that "new math"? Years after I was in high school I
>>> remember everyone talking about new math. I know you can check
>>> multiplication by dividing, and visa versa, but that was
>>> complicated. Thanks for the explanation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nah, "new math" is where it doesn't really matter what answer you get or
>> how you get there, as long as you feel good about yourself for it. HTH
>> ;-)
>>
>> (actually, New Math was teaching young kids to work in different number
>> bases like octal and binary for no apparent reason.)
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
> Back in pre-computer days, usage of the different number bases would
> seem odd. These days however, with the advent of computers, Hexadecimal,
> Octal & Binary do indeed serve a purpose in mathematics. I have a friend
> who can program in Direct Hexadecimal because he has ALL the codes
> memorised. For him, all the number bases are as familiar to him as
> Decimal is to me.

Being able to program in hex and being able to do arithmetic in hex are
not the same at all. And programming in hex today is a parlor trick,
not a marketable job qualification.

> I never want to get to that level! That's why I opted for the Public
> Service! ;-)
>
> Krypsis
>
>

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.

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

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

On 9/17/2010 1:13 PM, phaeton wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:50 am, "Nancy > wrote:
>> Krypsis wrote:
>>> Back in pre-computer days, usage of the different number bases would
>>> seem odd. These days however, with the advent of computers,
>>> Hexadecimal, Octal& Binary do indeed serve a purpose in mathematics.
>>> I have a friend who can program in Direct Hexadecimal because he has
>>> ALL the codes memorised.
>>
>> That's the first language I learned, machine code. Tedious, but very
>> handy to understand later if you were a mainframe programmer. I
>> have no idea if it's still useful in the pc age.
>>
>> nancy
>
> Some people still code on the bare metal. For consumer PCs, not so
> much. But for things like microcontrollers and FFGPAs and small
> processors for which no higher-level compiler is written you'll see
> people writing in assembler. I haven't studied assembler much, but my
> guess is that it has a huge learning curve, but once you are past that
> it makes incredible sense as it is down at the level where hardware
> and software blur.

It's mostly a pain in the butt. Note that "assembler" is specific to a
processor or family of processors--System/390 assembler is not the same
as x86 assembler which is not the same as ARM assembler and so on. If
you're programming in assembler you're becoming very specialized.

> "I'm flipping these bits and turning transistor
> arrays on and off" kinda stuff. In the Atmel controllers, for
> instance, you still code in C, but there is a lot of poke/peek stuff
> at hardware addresses which are assigned in hexidecimal, so it
> sometimes feels like assembly language.
>
> In the PC world, the trend is going up to higher and higher level
> languages. C and C++ for system-level and major application stuff,
> and interpreted languages (Java, Perl, and whatever flavor of the
> month prototyping language) is getting more and more common for
> smaller apps and 'glue'.
>
> -J

phaeton wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:50 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> That's the first language I learned, machine code. Tedious, but very
>> handy to understand later if you were a mainframe programmer. I
>> have no idea if it's still useful in the pc age.

> Some people still code on the bare metal. For consumer PCs, not so
> much. But for things like microcontrollers and FFGPAs and small
> processors for which no higher-level compiler is written you'll see
> people writing in assembler. I haven't studied assembler much, but my
> guess is that it has a huge learning curve, but once you are past that
> it makes incredible sense as it is down at the level where hardware
> and software blur.

Learning machine code first made assembler look like the easiest
thing ever. All those displacements just calculated for you! No
more assigning registers! Or whatever, I am a case of Forgotten
more than I needed to know.

> "I'm flipping these bits and turning transistor
> arrays on and off" kinda stuff. In the Atmel controllers, for
> instance, you still code in C, but there is a lot of poke/peek stuff
> at hardware addresses which are assigned in hexidecimal, so it
> sometimes feels like assembly language.

Gotcha. Since I won't be writing my own apps any more, I
leave it to young people who like matching up those bleeping
brackets. (laugh) C was very similar to whatever I'd already
seen, of course, just different. As they say.
>
> In the PC world, the trend is going up to higher and higher level
> languages. C and C++ for system-level and major application stuff,
> and interpreted languages (Java, Perl, and whatever flavor of the
> month prototyping language) is getting more and more common for
> smaller apps and 'glue'.

Thanks, I did wonder if people coded anything any more or just used
tools.

nancy

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:57:30 -0700, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Sep 17, 9:16*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> 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 a mathematician
or a physicist
or a rocket scientist
.....
> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)

Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door, does
it have any windows, and if yes, how large?

-j

On 9/17/2010 3:35 PM, jack wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:57:30 -0700, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 9:16 am, blake > wrote:
>>> 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 a mathematician

Few mathematicians work with numbers of any kind.

> or a physicist

When does a physicist need a number system other than base 10?

> or a rocket scientist

When does a rocket scientist need a number system other than base 10?

> ....
>> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
>> applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>
> Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door, does
> it have any windows, and if yes, how large?

You're overthinking the problem. Remember, your granularity is gallons.

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...

>
> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>
> The vast majority of students, even ones good at manipulation, will
> find setting up this problem to be difficult.

To make this on topic, there is a lot of math in cooking. Doubling or
halving recipes, how much of something you need to fit into a certain size
pot/pan, etc. I used doubling a recipe as an example of the distributed
property.

On Sep 17, 12:35*pm, jack > wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:57:30 -0700, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 9:16*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> >> 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 a mathematician
> or a physicist
> or a rocket scientist
> ....
>
> > I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> > applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>
> Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door, does
> it have any windows, and if yes, how large?
>

I like to see you thinking. Now make some reasonable assumptions on
your own, or arrive at a range of sizes. But to first order, assume
neither door nor windows.

On Sep 17, 4:10*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *jack > wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:57:30 -0700, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 9:16*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> > >> 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 a mathematician
> > or a physicist
> > or a rocket scientist
> > ....
> > > I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> > > applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>
> > Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door, does
> > it have any windows, and if yes, how large?
>
> > -j
>
> Ooh good catch! *:-)
> I missed that detail!
>
> Also, how much will be wasted in the pans and on the rollers?

Make some reasonable assumptions. How big is the roller? How thick is
the nap? How big is the roller tray? Will it hold more than a paint
layer when all is said and done?

On 9/17/2010 3:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> You're overthinking the problem. Remember, your granularity is gallons.
>

*That's* the most often overlooked detail when solving real problems
-- the level of precision.

Bob

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

On 18/09/2010 9:08 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
>> applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>>
>> The vast majority of students, even ones good at manipulation, will
>> find setting up this problem to be difficult.
>
> Let's see... That means that 2 walls are 8x10 and 2 walls are 8x15?
>
> That's 160 + 240 so 400 square feet.
>
> 2 cans with some left over for the two coats required...
>
> Providing you are not doing the ceiling with the same color. That'd be
> an additional 150 square feet for a total of 550 x 2 coats is 1,100.
>
> 3 cans with LOTS left over for later touch ups. Walls get damaged so
> it's not a bad idea to keep some on hand anyway. ;-)
>
> I prefer to break problems up. Makes it easier. For instance, I owed a
> friend some money this morning and needed to write her a check. Part of
> the work she'd done was $25.00 and the laundry bill was $12.00. So,
> instead of trying to add 25 and 12, I showed her to mentally add 25 + 10
> + 2. She is about 10 years or so younger than me, but she tries to
> practice this skill regularly to save money so has gotten good at it. :-)
>
> I need to drag her into a game of triple Yahtzee some time...
>
> I break down basic addition and subtraction into sets of 5 and 10, then
> add or subtract the remaining number that is less than 10.
>
> Works for me anyway!
>
> Same for multiplication. I break up the numbers into base numbers (and
> often kill the zeros temporarily), then add them back together when I am
> done.
>
> If all else fails, I drag out a pen and paper.<g>
>
> I'd personally like to see electric calculators BANNED from grade
> schools!
>
> I will resort to my cell phone calculator tho' at the grocery store when
> I need to divide odd numbers. Like to get the cents per oz. of oddly
> packaged products (14 oz. for instance instead of 16 oz. if I'm trying
> to find the difference in cost per lb.) I could do it if I wrote it
> down and did it manually, but it's more difficult for me to mentally
> divide odd numbers.
>
> Many people cannot do simple math in their heads, and that brings me to
> an on-topic rant.
>
> HEB is doing it again! Making "bulk" items more expensive than smaller
> items! Anyone should be able to at least multiply by two without using
> a calculator.
>
> 2 days ago, I was purchasing eggs. I generally get the 18 count cartons.
> They have some bulk cartons of 36 eggs. So, I multiplied the cost of the
> 18 count cartons x 2.
>
> The price for two 18 count cartons was cheaper than the bulk cartons of
> 36 eggs by 44 cents.
>
> <sigh>
>
> I then went to purchase some shredded cheese. It saves me time and it's
> so close to the same cost as block cheese per lb., the difference is not
> worth quibbling about. I store it in the freezer and use it only for
> cooking.
>
> However, purchasing two 1 lb. bags was 54 cents cheaper than purchasing
> the same shredded cheese in the 2 lb. bags!
>
> Gotta watch these stores like hawks I tell ya!

Sometimes it's preferable to purchase the two smaller bags regardless of
the way the discount goes as the unopened one will remain fresher for
longer.

Krypsis

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:55:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 9/17/2010 3:35 PM, jack wrote:
>> Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door,
>> does it have any windows, and if yes, how large?
>
> You're overthinking the problem. Remember, your granularity is gallons.

Not really. Granularity of the final answer is gallons, ceil(calculated
amount), since I buy paint by the gallon. If door+windows brings the
calculated amount from n+0.1 to n-0.1, that saves buying one gallon.

-j

On Sep 17, 1:57*pm, 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.

It's not about using math. It's about training your brain to think
in different ways. Math is weight training for your brain.

Thinking about bases other than base 10 is supposed to get
you distinguishing the *idea* of numbers from the *symbols*
used to express them.

However, I'll agree that New Math was abysmally taught.

> I wish elementary math classes spent more time on practical
> applications and less time on pure manipulation. (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.)
>
> The vast majority of students, even ones good at manipulation, will
> find setting up this problem to be difficult.

And the second coat won't take as much paint as the first coat did.

I stopped after differential equations. Not taking a course with
"modern" or "theoretical" in the title kept me from a B.S. in math,
even though I had enough credits.

The most fun I had in math was a class entitled Modeling and
Simulation. On the first day, we considered how tall could
King Kong get before he'd collapse under his own weight.

Around Thanksgiving, we pooled data about our turkeys to
come up with an equation describing the time to cook a
turkey.

In between, of course, we did serious mathy stuff.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sep 17, 2:45*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Thanks, I did wonder if people coded anything any more or just used
> tools.

The people who write the tools certainly code.

Folks like us (hard real time, in the nanosecond range) often need to
get quite close to the metal to get the performance we need.

I was extremely proud of myself when I wrote my first program that
required the use of a voltmeter to test its success (a driver for
a digital-to-analog converter).

Cindy Hamilton

On 09/20/2010 06:32 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2:45 pm, "Nancy > wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I did wonder if people coded anything any more or just used
>> tools.
>
> The people who write the tools certainly code.

*nod* And they even write coding languages, if the tools don't exist to
do what they want. James codes in probably a dozen languages, including
two or three he wrote himself.

>
> Folks like us (hard real time, in the nanosecond range) often need to
> get quite close to the metal to get the performance we need.
>
> I was extremely proud of myself when I wrote my first program that
> required the use of a voltmeter to test its success (a driver for
> a digital-to-analog converter).

Go, you!

ObFood: Today, we're eating leftovers. In the fridge, we have leftover:

Chicken alphabet soup (2 quarts)
Chorizo and eggs
Chocolate fudge
Bratwurst
Chicken salad with grapes
Angel hair pasta with peas

And probably something I'm not thinking of. Normally, I don't cook
enough food to have leftovers, but this past week, I've been cooking in
big batches. Especially the chicken, because I cancelled a dinner party
after the chicken was already thawed.

Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
New post: OPMF: Creamed Peas on Toast

On 9/19/2010 5:03 PM, jack wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:55:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2010 3:35 PM, jack wrote:
>>> Problem description incomplete. What are the dimensions of the door,
>>> does it have any windows, and if yes, how large?
>>
>> You're overthinking the problem. Remember, your granularity is gallons.
>
> Not really. Granularity of the final answer is gallons, ceil(calculated
> amount), since I buy paint by the gallon. If door+windows brings the
> calculated amount from n+0.1 to n-0.1, that saves buying one gallon.

Textbook answer, not guy with paint on his britches answer.