Image not available

1229x2020

1728863311479486.png

๐Ÿงต Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16442174

What do you think about this trend in high school mathematics education?
>have students check the facts they're learning by trial and error
>full text of the fact is never given in the book, students have to fill in the blank
>the facts are referred to as "conjectures" even in cases where a proof is given
>idea of axioms is either delayed to the last chapter or left out entirely
I think the first point is a good idea (provided deductive proofs are also given), but none of the others are.

Anonymous No. 16442371

It's more useful for students that don't go on to pursue tertiary maths to practice logical reasoning, verification and proof forming than just memorising theorems and methods. As such I think it's a good trend.

As for your disagreements, while all sound I think it's a fair trade off for biasing inquiry based learning over rote memorisation. High school students don't need to contend with the definition of conjecture vs theorem or formalise their understanding of axioms.

Anonymous No. 16442947

>>16442371
I'm concerned that teachers will skip the trial and error stuff because of time constraints, so students will get all of the bad and none of the good.

Anonymous No. 16444954

>>16442174
The jargon will explode their teenage minds and they'll give up. Students who understand the exercise would be better off doing a real proof. Waste of everyones time

Anonymous No. 16445551

Retarded trigonometric brain puzzles yoy'd never use in real life.

Anonymous No. 16445554

>>16442174
I think it's a good idea in principle. Too many people think mathematics has no relation to the real world and that's a problem. Pythagoras theorem is first and foremost an empirical truth.

Anonymous No. 16445574

>>16442174
Math is meant to be used, not pondered over like some goober

EBOK No. 16445576

>>16445574
This is stupid, 'use' doesn't mean what you think it does. It is but one thing to consider when there are thousands. Including poach, raise, time and many more. Math is to be exploited, 'exploit' is the term you're supposed to say.

Anonymous No. 16445674

It's completely wrong. Maths should be taught by first teaching counting and then going directly to sets.

Anonymous No. 16447279

>>16442174
Geometry is a huge waste of time. Middle school kids should learn basic functional analysis and calculus instead.
>but it's harder
Then dumb it down. The point is, the unwashed masses need this, because the average person can not even understand non-linear functions. Once you realize this, you see it everywhere. One example is the growing world population vs. pop crash. There are also more day to day things where they can't conceptualize growth curves that are not monotone and which even contain inflection points.

Anonymous No. 16449780

I think the general population would benefit more from propositional logic than geometry or calculus

Anonymous No. 16450060

>>16447279
Geometry is many times more useful in the average day-to-day life of the average person than calculus ever would be.
Trig isn't that useful, but geometry and spatial reasoning with it appears all the time in average life.

Anonymous No. 16450097

>>16442174
>idea of axioms is either delayed to the last chapter or left out entirely
This is the only point on which you have grounds for complaining. Without a deductive system, the geometry being taught has only conjectures and no proofs, and the textbook is correctly recognizing the absence of rigor and labelling the material appropriately.

Incidentally, if you understand axioms to mean "self-evident truths" rather than "any proposition that we assume without justification", then the last chapter is indeed the best place to put axioms, while the first chapter is the worst.

Anonymous No. 16451550

>>16449780
I've seen the occasional based teacher start off a geometry course with a serious unit on propositional logic, including truth tables and inference rules, but it's still not common. What do we need to do to get logic into the standards?

Anonymous No. 16451587

>>16451550
>What do we need to do to get logic into the standards?
Incorporate it into programming courses. For applications, use elementary geometry (formalized as the decideable theory of a real closed field) instead of the wumpus world.