wrote in message
...
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!


:-))

I don't remember having a tooth pulled :-) I had the lot out in one go under
full aesthetic in hospital years and years and years ago :-))

Mike ;-0



--

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

Martin wrote:
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. :-)

With a pencil and paper, mostly.

Martin wrote:
How do you do long multiplication and division, with or without having a wisdom
tooth pulled? I am just trying to understand. :-)
With a pencil and paper, mostly.
Without using 1-9 times tables?

I said I didn't have instant recall on them, not that I couldn't do them and
didn't use them. This 'discussion' is becoming silly.

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

Teachingquran.com is an institute which is providing online Quran recitation all over the world through internet. Teachingquran.com has been serving Humanity and serving ALLAH (God) since 20 years. Our aim is to spread Quran’s Education all over the world with proper way of teaching.

"'Mike'" wrote in message ...



Now Dear, just sit down for a while, glass of wine? :-)

.................................................. ............................................

No, Horlicks later.

Confusion comes with the Bus Pass ;-))

Mike

Not round here - they don't (:-(

Pete

"kay" wrote in message
...[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!




--
kay

You are entitled to your opinion, I happen to disagree.

Best wishes

Bill

"Bill Grey" wrote in message
...[i]

"kay" wrote in message
...

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!




--
kay

You are entitled to your opinion, I happen to disagree.

Best wishes

Bill


Agree with you Bill.

Funny that my eldest daughter who learnt the tables by rote passed the 11+
and went on to Uni, but the others had their education buggered about with
and didn't.

If it aint broke ..................

Mike


--

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

wrote in
:

'Mike' wrote:
I love it when the press or the like come out with ""And 35% are
against .................""

and what does that leave? 65% in favour, but that is bad for the
press!!!!

I like* things like '75% fat free' ... meaning 25% fat? Eyww.


To digress, in California you can get egg-free omlettes and
fat-free sour cream. I have a container of the latter, but
couldn't figure out how to preserve and transport the former.

kay wrote in
:

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.

Very true.

But it would help if more than 20% of primary school
teachers knew the answer to "what is one plus two time three".

In my highly scientific survey of teachers at schools that
my daughter might have gone to 15 years ago:
- about 50% were convinced the answer is 9
- about 30% asked where the brackets were,
and were stumped when I said "none, just
the normal laws of arithmetic"
- about 20% got the right answer

It would also be nice not to have secondary school
teachers tell me that I couldn't possibly have
elementary calculus for O-level (and a year early
at that, just like everyone else in my state school)

"'Mike'" wrote in
:

I went to a Private School and they were very hot on the 3 x 'R's from
a very early age. Later, and as I had no desire to go into the Hotel
business like my parents, I went for an interview for an
Apprenticeship as a Marine Electrical Engineer During the interview I
was asked 'What are your Maths like?' 'Good I suppose', 'What are 7 x
8's?' and before he had finished I flashed '56'. I always remember
that because I surprised myself as to just how fast I was able to
recall it!!!!

That's arithmetic, not maths. (OK, a small subset of maths)

kay wrote in
:
Arguably, knowing ones tables is a lot less important than being able to
understand percentages, differentials and probabilities. Often I see
articles in the press in which percentages have been translated into
fractions which are plain incorrect, hear people mix up "RPI is lower"
with "prices are reducing", or see people worry unduly about a "50%
increased risk" when the risk itself is so small that the change in
behaviour to avoid the risk itself has more ill effects!

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.

One of my pet peeves is the statements that you can reduce your
consumption of X by 900%, where X is fuel or jelly babies or
whatever

Martin wrote in
:

In real life being able to instantly recall a product is better than
knowing how to derive it from scratch.


And much better than either is knowing how and
when to use/apply it, and to use the right tool
to get the correct answer.

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:57:05 +0000, Sacha wrote:
On 2011-01-26 16:40:08 +0000, kay said:

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

Worked and continues to work, for me.

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.
Not necessarily. I didn't rely on them and still don't. When my
elder daughter had trouble with her tables, I taught her the methods
I used and said that I didn't give a damn how she got the answer,
provided that she got the right one in under a second. She did,
and got a first-class engineering degree.

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

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.

If you can't learn tables and can't learn the mathematical tricks,
then any sane person would buy one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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.

If you can't learn tables and can't learn the mathematical tricks,
then any sane person would buy one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

It's no great encumberance to learn the times table at an early age - it can
only help in future years.
There maybe more than one way to skin a cat, but it doesn't hurt to have
more than one string to your bow.

Children at the age that times tables were taught could readily absorb the
information, why deny them such a wonderful experience of learning a
technique that could serve them well in their future
lives.

When you know what things mean mathematically, calculators are fine ( they
save time, and time is money), but, same as GPS they're ok while the
batteries still work.

Bill