Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 5026

On May 19 2015 00:34 Slayer91 wrote:
generally to find the maximum you just find the function that describes the size of it and differentiate it set it to zero ggwp

On May 19 2015 00:38 TheYango wrote:

Wait, I don't understand how you learn Calc without learning this, lol.

Like, that's literally the first "use" of taking derivatives that you actually learn.

On May 19 2015 00:31 jcarlsoniv wrote:


Much like any of the math you learn in school, the "practical" application of the examples you do through repetition is fairly nonexistent. However, it is entirely logic and process driven. Geometry is no exception.

I'll be pointing to Abstract Algebra because that is when it really clicked for me. (It's also been close to 4 years holy shit, so I'm not going to be able to delve into great examples)

I think a big part of why Geometry seems kind of pointless in high school is because you're given a whole set of rules to follow, and then you follow them. I know for me, we had to memorize all of these rules and then use them on exams, and it felt really daunting and tedious to have to stuff everything in your brain and remember them for the process.

But in Abstract Algebra, we were given no such large set of rules/axioms/corollaries/etc. We started with a very basic assumption (or a few assumptions, I honestly can't remember too well). This was necessary to start with because you have to understand that the math you're looking at is predicated on certain conditions. We then had to use these to build out very basic proofs of abstract concepts (one of the first things I remember was having to prove how a*b was commutative, where * is an undefined operation).

From then, we were only ever allowed to reference an axiom/law/what have you if we had proven it in the past. This meant that we built an understanding of logic and process based on things we've already proven to be true in the past, rather than referencing a huge library of rules we were given at the start and told to memorize.

Having this understanding when I actually took college Geometry my senior year (I did my classes in a really weird order) helped me understand why the process really matters.

I know this was kind of a...high level look at it. But hopefully it at least conveys my thoughts coherently.

On May 19 2015 00:39 Fildun wrote:

I don't understand how Scip still got 90% on that test without learning this, lol.

On May 19 2015 00:33 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:


High school English is the devil. Probably the closest thing to a crapshoot in terms of grading out of all high school courses.

On May 19 2015 00:39 Fildun wrote:

I don't understand how Scip still got 90% on that test without learning this, lol.

On May 19 2015 00:41 TheYango wrote:
Because the fundamentals are sometimes so detached from what seems practical to a middle/high school student that it'd be very hard to teach that and have it remain interesting to a lot of students, lol.

On May 19 2015 00:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:
A lot of it boils down, I think, to the fact that for the majority of our tenure in school, the focus is on results and getting the correct answer. So we didn't care about learning how to get the answer, just that we got the right answer. But understanding the "back end" of things really does increase your understanding of the whole.

On May 19 2015 00:41 Scip wrote:

do you see any questions regarding calculus at all in the exam I linked?
There are quadratic equations, some extremely simple geometry you could solve without knowing literally anything, some very simple combinatorics and shit like that. And the test still has 25% failure rate. Holy shit czech republic has to be literally the most retarded country in EU.

On May 19 2015 00:47 TheYango wrote:

Admittedly, after working for a few years, you come to realize that as it turns out, most people don't actually give a fuck about anything other than the result, and not how you got there.

On May 19 2015 00:47 TheYango wrote:

Admittedly, after working for a few years, you come to realize that as it turns out, most people don't actually give a fuck about anything other than the result, and not how you got there.

On May 19 2015 00:41 GhandiEAGLE wrote:

Tell me about it. The only concrete grading we have is a series of vocabulary quizzes, in which I already know all the words, and in which my previous knowledge is nevertheless irrelevant because I have to know the definitions entirely verbatim from an obscure dictionary I'd never heard of before. And there are 300 of these words on any given test.

For instance, I know what Capitalism is. What I'm less likely to know that, on this test, to get it correct I have to write

Capitalism (n): an economic system in which businesses are owned by private citizens (not by the government) and in which the resulting products and services are sold with relatively little government control

It has to be exactly the same as that, down to the last comma, semicolon, and space.

It's honestly a fuck all nightmare.

On May 19 2015 00:51 Numy wrote:


Well most of the time at least in my fields you have systems in place that can get you to the answer easily. The issue is understanding what's fundamentally going on so you can adjust this system to match whatever is going on in reality. Other times the process to get the answer is the answer itself.

I don't know. Maybe our whole education system just needs to change. When I told my folks that you guys in the States do standardized testing since Junior school they wouldn't believe me. Had to go bring proof to convince them. Crazy stuff

On May 19 2015 00:31 jcarlsoniv wrote:

But in Abstract Algebra, we were given no such large set of rules/axioms/corollaries/etc. We started with a very basic assumption (or a few assumptions, I honestly can't remember too well). This was necessary to start with because you have to understand that the math you're looking at is predicated on certain conditions. We then had to use these to build out very basic proofs of abstract concepts (one of the first things I remember was having to prove how a*b was commutative, where * is an undefined operation).

From then, we were only ever allowed to reference an axiom/law/what have you if we had proven it in the past. This meant that we built an understanding of logic and process based on things we've already proven to be true in the past, rather than referencing a huge library of rules we were given at the start and told to memorize.

On May 19 2015 01:00 killerdog wrote:
IB math sucked T.T

http://southwest.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/2012_mathematics_hl_paper_1_tz2.pdf
http://web.aesessex.co.uk/ib/papers/may12/Examination papers/Group 5/English/Mathematics HL paper 2 TZ1.pdf

and then a paper 3 where we had the statistics option, but i can't find that anywhere :<

You're allowed nothing for the first one, and only a calculator for the second. (They even made you take the labels off your water bottles, so you couldn't sneak an equation in on the inside or something lol.)

On May 19 2015 01:00 AlterKot wrote:
How do all of you know the math terms in english, I never really had the opportunity to learn them and I have to read your posts with dictionary open.