why do they schedule exams at 9am? who can even think that early?
― flopson, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 04:10 (ten years ago) link
http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/AMS_COE_2011.pdf
Professional development (PD) for in-service math teachers isgenerally taken to be \feel-good sessions". Some believe that itsmain goal is to give teachers encouragement and sharpen theirpedagogical skills.Others believe that teachers should be exposed to fun mathematics(such as the Konigsberg bridge problem or taxicab geometry),even in the face of their inability to deal with bread-and-butter issuessuch as how to teach fractions, why negative times negativeis positive, what similarity means, or why the parallel postulateis important.
anyone want to take a stab at 'why negative times negative is positive'? seems like a good one.
― j., Tuesday, 10 December 2013 23:29 (ten years ago) link
because negative divided by positive is negative.
― the late great, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 23:32 (ten years ago) link
i think algebraically it follows from that
"what is division?" is a good problem that i think i've raised on this board before. does 20/4 = 5 mean that if we divide 20 into 4 parts each part is 5 units large, or if we divide 20 into parts that are 4 units large we get 5 parts?
― the late great, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 23:35 (ten years ago) link
or how about this: if multiplication is defined as repeated addition, then multiplication by a negative is repeated subtraction, and subtracting a negative is obviously positive
― the late great, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 23:48 (ten years ago) link
"If any single quantity is marked either with the sign + or the sign - without affecting some other quantity, the mark will have no meaning or significance, thus if it be said that the square of -5, or the product of -5 into -5, is equal to +25, such an assertion must either signify no more than 5 times 5 is equal to 25 without any regard for the signs, or it must be mere nonsense or unintelligible jargon."
Baron Maseres otm
― Euler, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 00:07 (ten years ago) link
Use complex numbers. Rotation twice by 180 degrees is the identity
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 00:52 (ten years ago) link
LOL imo if you're using complex numbers to justify arithmetic you've won the battle but lost the war
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:17 (ten years ago) link
Well, take out the complex numbers but keep the argument.
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:20 (ten years ago) link
― the late great, 11. december 2013 00:48 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
This isn't logical, right? Surely -5 - -5 5 times is +20?
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:34 (ten years ago) link
that's because what you just described is -5 - (-5) - (-5) - (-5) - (-5) - (-5), no?
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:46 (ten years ago) link
should i say subtracting a negative is the same as adding?
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:47 (ten years ago) link
tbh i don't completely understand the objection frederick
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:49 (ten years ago) link
Seems there are plenty of ways a mathematician could convince himself of why it has to be but not clear what is the most obvious common sense explanation for the layperson.
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 01:54 (ten years ago) link
Actually I might have an idea. But there is not enough room to write it in the margin of this thread.
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:12 (ten years ago) link
Oh, I get it. You're right. My fault.
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:14 (ten years ago) link
you can just do basic arithmetic on the integers as an additive group, just teach your kids group theory ;-)
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:19 (ten years ago) link
for division i guess you either need a euclidean ring or a fullblown division ring, in which case division is just multiplication by inverses
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:23 (ten years ago) link
If you believe -1 x a is -a, then -1 x -1 is -(-1), and negative negative 1 is plainly 1.
But once you believe -1 x -1 = 1, I think you believe that a negative times a negative is a positive in general.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:36 (ten years ago) link
elegant
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 03:20 (ten years ago) link
we had to prove all this bullshit in my first real analysis class, to give the impression of "rigour"--but we didn't even construct the real numbers (using dedekind cuts, etc), just stated the Completeness property as an axium--such a waste of time
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 03:27 (ten years ago) link
Think it might be useful to think of multiplication as making a copy or n copies of something to replace the thing and multiplication by -1 as making an inverted copy. So say you have a white disk than multiplying by -1 you replace it with a black disk and vice versa, or better yet you have an Othello token and just flip it over.
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 03:42 (ten years ago) link
is this thread a boys club? where the math ladeez at?
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 03:59 (ten years ago) link
iirc harbl studied math but she said she has forgotten all of it and left it all behind and is a lawyer now
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:00 (ten years ago) link
kid i was tutoring deferred his exam :-\
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:06 (ten years ago) link
why negative times negative is positive
I feel like I did something like this in discrete math, you start with basic definitions of integers and parity or w/e and then do a formal proof or w/e?
― ☞ (brimstead), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:16 (ten years ago) link
lol n/m i'm drunk and listening to bill withers
― do a formal proof or w/e (brimstead), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:18 (ten years ago) link
how do i shot basic simplification of roots
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7335/11318231686_aee01101ef_b.jpg
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:25 (ten years ago) link
You're asking seriously?
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:31 (ten years ago) link
Oh, I see you are making fun of the person who put the question marks.
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:47 (ten years ago) link
no i'm asking seriously :((((
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 05:51 (ten years ago) link
defeated by precalc ;_;
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 05:53 (ten years ago) link
Multiply by conjugate?
― do a formal proof or w/e (brimstead), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 05:59 (ten years ago) link
rotation of axes??
― do a formal proof or w/e (brimstead), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:00 (ten years ago) link
last step looks like some bullshit, no? rationalize the denominator, b then u got sqrt(1 + 2/3sqrt(2)) not sure how much more u can smiplify tho?
― flopson, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:00 (ten years ago) link
it works on a calculator
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:07 (ten years ago) link
google it!
sqrt((2+sqrt(2)) / (2 - sqrt(2)))-sqrt(2)
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:11 (ten years ago) link
ok got it
― the late great, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:41 (ten years ago) link
Interesting post on zero indexing:
http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2013/10/22/citation-needed/
Author interviewed Martin Richards, author of BCPL and the supposed originator of zero indexing. Conclusion: it was a stylistic decision (i.e. it wasn’t commentary on zero’s inclusion in ℕ or whatever).
― Allen (etaeoe), Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:00 (ten years ago) link
interesting to think about how stylistic concerns can be aligned naturally with mathematical principles (vs when they're not aligned). makes me think about what style really means and stuff.
― do a formal proof or w/e (brimstead), Thursday, 12 December 2013 03:07 (ten years ago) link
0 is so not a natural number
― flopson, Thursday, 12 December 2013 03:43 (ten years ago) link
mathematical principles are always about style
― lollercoaster of rove (s.clover), Thursday, 12 December 2013 04:31 (ten years ago) link
I once gave this answer but in a much wordier way on this thread:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/9933/why-negative-times-negative-positive
― o. nate, Thursday, 12 December 2013 15:50 (ten years ago) link
considering prepping a talk for an undergrad conference in january, anyone got any topics to suggest?
― flopson, Sunday, 15 December 2013 03:26 (ten years ago) link
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20121002-getting-into-shapes-from-hyperbolic-geometry-to-cube-complexes-and-back/
great article on the classification of 3-manifolds, written at an extremely accessible level. basically this guy thurston conjectured 23 theorems that, once all proven, would result in classification. my topo prof proved a result that was used to prove the last three conjectures in one sweep, and article goes in some detail into his research. super interesting stuff, to me at least
― flopson, Sunday, 15 December 2013 03:40 (ten years ago) link
thanks for the link -- that's very clear!
― lollercoaster of rove (s.clover), Sunday, 15 December 2013 05:21 (ten years ago) link
Yeah
― The Glam Of That All The Way From Memphis Man! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 15 December 2013 05:23 (ten years ago) link
it would be an interesting history of math to classify what programmes have led to the most research -- i suspect classification programmes themselves would probably lead the pack.
― lollercoaster of rove (s.clover), Sunday, 15 December 2013 05:24 (ten years ago) link
classification of surfaces seemed like it didn't take very long once they figured out what they were doing
― flopson, Sunday, 15 December 2013 05:32 (ten years ago) link
oh yeah, finite simple groups, too
― flopson, Sunday, 15 December 2013 05:33 (ten years ago) link