Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Martin wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011 23:56:43 GMT, wrote:

Baz wrote:
I remember 'completing the square on a generic quadratic from first
principles' suddenly clicking whilst I was in the dentist chair having
a tooth removed ...
No doubt it is completed now?
I wonder if you would like to share your findings with us.
I'd rather not have another tooth pulled out so I can re-remember it!

How do you do long multiplication and division, with or without having a wisdom
tooth pulled? I am just trying to understand. :-)

You do long multiplication - eg -
7 X 64 =

64
64
64
64
64
64
64 +
448

or if you prefer:

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 +
448

HTH

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

kay wrote:[i]
Bill Grey;911046 Wrote:
"kay" wrote in message
...


I'd happily settle for less ability to multiply numbers together in
ones
head in exchange for greater understanding of what the numbers
actually
say, and therefore a greater ability to separate scientific argument
from opinion and quackery.


But one has to start somewhere!


But I think learning times tables by rote up to 12 x 12 is the wrong
place to start!

And as someone who did so, I think it's the right place to start.

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

kay wrote:

What do you mean by "it worked"?

Do you mean "everybody could multiply relatively small numbers together
in their heads" or do you mean"everybody had a good understanding of
percentages, differentials, risk and the other concepts that are
necessary in order to make decisions in everyday life"?

What has that to do with learning your 'times' tables?

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Martin wrote:

The difference between our generation and the young ones, is that we can do
mental arithmetic. Tables are part of the basic tools needed to do this.
Nick says people can use a calculator, but I have yet to see anybody doing this
in a supermarket, for example. Our two kids did arithmetic using a calculator
at school. I don't think they even own one nowadays.

I have a calculator - somewhere.

Last time I went to use it (to find a square root) I found that the
batteries had died, so I had to resort to the pencil and paper method.

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:02:09 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote:

wrote:

There's more than one way to kill a cat.

Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat

Ah. That looks like "O" Level Eng Lang 1955... "Explain the meaning of
/three/ of the following expressions in your own words."

All very sound stuff, until you realise that in some subjects the
language in the questions was more difficult than the language needed
to write the answers. There's a very interesting little book going the
rounds: /The O Level Book: Genuine Exam questions From Yesteryear/.
Go''a be wurf free quid a' Amazom for anywum readim freds like this
one, innit?

--
Mike.

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Martin wrote:

The difference between our generation and the young ones, is that we can
do
mental arithmetic. Tables are part of the basic tools needed to do this.
Nick says people can use a calculator, but I have yet to see anybody
doing this
in a supermarket, for example. Our two kids did arithmetic using a
calculator
at school. I don't think they even own one nowadays.

I have a calculator - somewhere.

Last time I went to use it (to find a square root) I found that the
batteries had died, so I had to resort to the pencil and paper method.

--
Rusty

and you had the knowledge to do so :-))

When my children were at school, I wouldn't buy them a calculator. The
school eventually contacted me and pointed out that my children knew the
principles, and could they now have calculators as this was slowing down
their learning.

They all went on to do very well :-))

Mike


--

....................................
Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive
....................................

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
wrote:

There's more than one way to kill a cat.

Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat

--
Rusty



:-))

And they taste like Rabbit when cooked :-))

Mike



--

....................................
Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive
....................................

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Sacha wrote:
On 2011-01-30 15:45:56 +0000, Rusty Hinge
said:

Sacha wrote:

You may call me Beatrice! ;-)

IRTA 'You may call me Beetroot!'

Wouldn't dream of it - I'm sure your complexion belies your name. ;-)

Doe snow, so to run one word into another.

My rusty facefungus has faded to a lightly peppery Father Christmas hue,
ho-ho-ho!

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Mike Lyle wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:02:09 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote:

wrote:

There's more than one way to kill a cat.
Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat

Ah. That looks like "O" Level Eng Lang 1955... "Explain the meaning of
/three/ of the following expressions in your own words."

All very sound stuff, until you realise that in some subjects the
language in the questions was more difficult than the language needed
to write the answers. There's a very interesting little book going the
rounds: /The O Level Book: Genuine Exam questions From Yesteryear/.
Go''a be wurf free quid a' Amazom for anywum readim freds like this
one, innit?

Or n e 1 hoo rites like vis No wot i meen yea.

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

Sacha wrote:[i]
On 2011-01-30 15:54:34 +0000, Rusty Hinge
said:

kay wrote:
Bill Grey;911046 Wrote:
"kay" wrote in message
...


I'd happily settle for less ability to multiply numbers together in
ones
head in exchange for greater understanding of what the numbers
actually
say, and therefore a greater ability to separate scientific argument
from opinion and quackery.


But one has to start somewhere!


But I think learning times tables by rote up to 12 x 12 is the wrong
place to start!

And as someone who did so, I think it's the right place to start.

Hear, hear. But Kay's younger than me so we probably look at things
rather differently.

She must be older than I then, TAAAW.

*I* unforget some of the songs we sang at school - the ones telling that
naughty Mr. Hitler what to do.

And it's next best to certain that I saw operational, one of the present
Battle of Britain Flight's Spitfires - it spent all its (wartime) flying
life at RAF Hornchurch, and I lived in that vicinity a year before it
flew off the line.

--
Rusty

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...[i]
Sacha wrote:
On 2011-01-30 15:54:34 +0000, Rusty Hinge
said:

kay wrote:
Bill Grey;911046 Wrote:
"kay" wrote in message
...


I'd happily settle for less ability to multiply numbers together in
ones
head in exchange for greater understanding of what the numbers
actually
say, and therefore a greater ability to separate scientific argument
from opinion and quackery.


But one has to start somewhere!


But I think learning times tables by rote up to 12 x 12 is the wrong
place to start!

And as someone who did so, I think it's the right place to start.

Hear, hear. But Kay's younger than me so we probably look at things
rather differently.

She must be older than I then, TAAAW.

*I* unforget some of the songs we sang at school - the ones telling that
naughty Mr. Hitler what to do.

And it's next best to certain that I saw operational, one of the present
Battle of Britain Flight's Spitfires - it spent all its (wartime) flying
life at RAF Hornchurch, and I lived in that vicinity a year before it flew
off the line.

--
Rusty

Rusty, did you know that there are 18 operational Spitfires flying in the
World?

We had a good few at Sandown Airport a couple of years back, I think about 7
or 8. Very spectacular when they all took off at once an a couple of
occasions.during the day. We had one do a display a few days ago. We usually
have a display from the BBMF at our day at RAF Cosford.

Mike


--

....................................
Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive
....................................

A good many more would have passed had they had the opportunity.

It's a difficult question. Do you have an exam which covers a wide range of ability, with all the problems of adequate discrimination throughout the ability scale? Or separate exams - with the problem that even a good pass in the "lower ability" exam is disregarded by employers, even though it may be an indicator of greater ability tan a low pass in the "higher ability" exam.

I'm not sure we're all arguing about the same question. I have no doubt that if you want to instantly be able to multiply two numbers from 1 to 12, rote learning of tables will do the trick.

But I think the time could be better spent. For example, just recently I've seen two newspapers make the same mistake - in the one case, a couple had just had their third child, and all three children had been born on the same date, the chances of which, according to the newspaper, were "an astonishing 48 million to 1".

It would be astonishing if it were true, but the right answer is about 133 thousand to 1.

A trivial mistake - but what when the person making this mistake is a juror in a trial and presented with an equally spurious "probability" of the person in the dock being guilty of the death of their second child cot death, or where evidence is based largely on a probability of DNA matching? It's a bit more important then that people should be confident in handling probabilities. But so few are!

Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
 

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:13:19 +0000, kay wrote:

But I think the time could be better spent.

Teaching statistics to 6-8 year olds?

Or probability, at least. There isn't a problem doing that, and
most will learn it readily.

For example, just recently
I've seen two newspapers make the same mistake - in the one case, a
couple had just had their third child, and all three children had been
born on the same date, the chances of which, according to the newspaper,
were "an astonishing 48 million to 1".

It would be astonishing if it were true, but the right answer is about
133 thousand to 1.

It wasn't the newspaper that was wrong. The Daily Mail quoted a professor of
Pure Mathematics

And what evidence do you have that the Daily Wail quoted him
correctly? My money is on a misquotation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.