 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've often wondered why *all* the genius programmers are always Finnish
>> or Sweedish or Polish or... any European nationallity except English.
>
> I don't think that's true. For instance, surprisingly many game companies
> are, in fact, British.
Certainly back in the Amiga days, all the really visionary software
seemed to be written by people with names you can't pronounce.
OctaMED lets you play 8 sounds at once even though the hardware only
supports 4. Who wrote that? One Finnish guy, single-handedly.
Somebody replaces the standard system requesters with something much
more ergonomic. Who wrote that? Hungarian guy.
AMOS is a BASIC dialect with comprehensive multimedia support. Who came
up with that? French guy.
(Mind you, it's rival Blitz Basic was designed by a New Zeland company.)
Pegger intercepts OS calls to turn any program that supports IFF ILBM
files into one that supports JPEG files. (Back when JPEG was still
brand-new.) Who did that? A German company.
> Anyways, one could come up with tons of cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasons
> why some countries seem to produce more programmers and software companies
> than others. Maybe it's the education system, culture, economic model,
> national identity, secularism, work morale (think of Japan, for instance),
> or numerous other reasons.
Unfortunately, in the UK it seems to currently be "trendy" to be stupid.
It's decidedly uncool to know stuff, especially about mathematics and
science. I wonder if there are countries where people actually take
pride in mathematical skill?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Unfortunately, in the UK it seems to currently be "trendy" to be stupid.
> It's decidedly uncool to know stuff, especially about mathematics and
> science. I wonder if there are countries where people actually take
> pride in mathematical skill?
I think that the US is currently growing a generation of people who can't
understand the basic concepts behind programming, and this might bite their
economy in a few decades.
You see, at some parts of the US there's this odd trend that students
should not be taught basic math skills. Instead, they are taught some
"intuitive" hand-waving which might or might not help them solve some
mathematical problems via intuitive "deduction", but without really
understanding the basic mechanics.
I assume you have been taught the classical way of multiplying two
numbers on paper, so-called the "long multiplication" method (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm#Long_multiplication).
It might not be the most efficient way of multiplying things, but it's
easy to learn and gets the job done.
However, for some reason many school books and teachers in the US hate
long multiplication so much that they don't even *mention* it, much less
teach it. Instead, they prefer teaching some "intuitive" rules of thumb
which can be used in a few cases, and the more complicated cases are
dismissed with a "just use a calculator". These rules of thumb are simple
and easy for a few cases, but for other cases they end up being so
complicated that nobody even bothers.
The long multiplication algorithm has one good feature: It allows you to
calculate *any* multiplication using the exact same principles. The
difficulty doesn't raise depending on the input numbers (only the amount
of writing needed).
However, these people are taught to be lazy. They are basically said
"if you can't calculate with some easy rules of thumb, just give up and
use a calculator, nobody *really* needs to know how to multiply any two
numbers".
The same is true for other mathematical operations, such as division
and square root.
They are missing the point. By teaching lazy rules of thumb, they are
failing to teach a higher concept: Algorithmical thinking. You can't
program a computer with just "rules of thumb".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Unfortunately, in the UK it seems to currently be "trendy" to be stupid.
>> It's decidedly uncool to know stuff, especially about mathematics and
>> science. I wonder if there are countries where people actually take
>> pride in mathematical skill?
>
> I think that the US is currently growing a generation of people who can't
> understand the basic concepts behind programming, and this might bite their
> economy in a few decades.
>
> You see, at some parts of the US there's this odd trend that students
> should not be taught basic math skills. Instead, they are taught some
> "intuitive" hand-waving which might or might not help them solve some
> mathematical problems via intuitive "deduction", but without really
> understanding the basic mechanics.
> However, these people are taught to be lazy. They are basically said
> "if you can't calculate with some easy rules of thumb, just give up and
> use a calculator, nobody *really* needs to know how to multiply any two
> numbers".
Well, I suppose you could argue that, in the real world, if you want to
do a nontrivial calculation and you actually need an exact answer,
you'll use some sort of computation device.
Then again, how many people grow up to be carpenters? But they still
teach woodwork??
> The same is true for other mathematical operations, such as division
> and square root.
Out of curiosity... how the hell *do* you actually calculate the square
root of something? I've always wondered.
[Of course, usually the number you're looking at will be a square
number, and it's just a matter of guessing what it's the square of. But
if you for some reason needed to approximate, say, the square root of
500, where the hell do you start?]
> They are missing the point. By teaching lazy rules of thumb, they are
> failing to teach a higher concept: Algorithmical thinking. You can't
> program a computer with just "rules of thumb".
Well, most people won't ever need to be computer programmers. It _is_ a
minority occupation. Indeed, most professions don't really involve
higher mathematics in any way.
But for those few that do... hmm, this could be a problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, I suppose you could argue that, in the real world, if you want to
> do a nontrivial calculation and you actually need an exact answer,
> you'll use some sort of computation device.
But that's not the point. "Just use a calculator" is not didactic, it
doesn't teach anything, and will only make people lazy. This will bite
back in the future, when people won't become programmers because they
lack the proper education and way of thinking.
> > The same is true for other mathematical operations, such as division
> > and square root.
> Out of curiosity... how the hell *do* you actually calculate the square
> root of something? I've always wondered.
Your lack of google skills don't surprise me. Slightly more surprising is
that someone of your age hasn't been taught that at school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit_by_digit_calculation
> > They are missing the point. By teaching lazy rules of thumb, they are
> > failing to teach a higher concept: Algorithmical thinking. You can't
> > program a computer with just "rules of thumb".
> Well, most people won't ever need to be computer programmers. It _is_ a
> minority occupation. Indeed, most professions don't really involve
> higher mathematics in any way.
Then you wonder why some countries are more proficient than others.
It's probably a common trait in the more proficient countries that the
schooling system is *not* driven by a "only very few people will ever
need these skills, thus we'll just skip teaching them" ideology.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, I suppose you could argue that, in the real world, if you want to
>> do a nontrivial calculation and you actually need an exact answer,
>> you'll use some sort of computation device.
>
> But that's not the point. "Just use a calculator" is not didactic, it
> doesn't teach anything, and will only make people lazy. This will bite
> back in the future, when people won't become programmers because they
> lack the proper education and way of thinking.
Which is why schools are supposed to teach people this stuff. Indeed,
schools teach a whole bunch of stuff like woodwork, chemistry, and a
bunch of other things that only a tiny handful of people will ever use.
I think you could successfully argue that even if nobody in the class
ever needs to use algebra for anything, learning to do algebra teaches
you logical thinking, which is probably quite relevant to daily life.
>> Out of curiosity... how the hell *do* you actually calculate the square
>> root of something? I've always wondered.
>
> Your lack of google skills don't surprise me. Slightly more surprising is
> that someone of your age hasn't been taught that at school.
Remember that I went to a school for mentally retarded people. They
didn't even teach us what a square root *is*, never mind how to compute
one. (For that matter, they didn't teach us what a square is in the
first place - other than that it's like a rectangle, but with equal
sides.) The only "mathematics" we did was filling out page after page
after page of long division problems. Because, after all, mathematics is
all *about* long division, right?
>> Well, most people won't ever need to be computer programmers. It _is_ a
>> minority occupation. Indeed, most professions don't really involve
>> higher mathematics in any way.
>
> Then you wonder why some countries are more proficient than others.
Heh, point taken...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:01:24 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Seems like Finnish people do not suffer from so many stereotypes. The
> only one Google is giving me is "why are Finnish... kids so smart".
>
> Odd stereotype, I must say.
http://fe79.myftp.org/misc/google_se.png
Too bad our kids are so stupid...
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/24/09 05:17, Invisible wrote:
> Well, I suppose you could argue that, in the real world, if you want to
> do a nontrivial calculation and you actually need an exact answer,
> you'll use some sort of computation device.
And who'll build that computation device?
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://imgur.com/jVNQH.gif
>
> Yeah, that's about right. :-)
That's pretty funny. Here's one of my favorites:
http://google.com/trends?q=sex%2C+news&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
I guess there are just some things you don't google at work.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2009 12:24, Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well, I suppose you could argue that, in the real world, if you want to
>> do a nontrivial calculation and you actually need an exact answer,
>> you'll use some sort of computation device.
>
> But that's not the point. "Just use a calculator" is not didactic, it
> doesn't teach anything, and will only make people lazy. This will bite
> back in the future, when people won't become programmers because they
> lack the proper education and way of thinking.
agreed, see below.
>>> The same is true for other mathematical operations, such as division
>>> and square root.
>
>> Out of curiosity... how the hell *do* you actually calculate the square
>> root of something? I've always wondered.
>
> Your lack of google skills don't surprise me. Slightly more surprising is
> that someone of your age hasn't been taught that at school.
I have recently discussed this with a couple of people at the places I
work. It seems teaching doing a square root by hand was removed from the
basic training about 40-50 years ago. It wasn't in my training anywhere,
though I do know it after having sort of derived it myself. (That is of
course why it is a particular favourite of mine).
I am now teaching digital technology to first years electronic
engineering at an applied university (whatever that is in English). One
of my colleagues that is a few years older and is teaching VHDL and that
sort of stuff actually did not know it. Someone from my department in
the hospital did know and he is about the same age. I wouldn't be
surprised if the only reason he learned it was that his teacher liked it
and not that it was in the official end terms. (BTW I am 47 and they are
begin-mid 50s).
More disturbingly: I noticed that some of my students did not know long
division. I haven't asked for long multiplication (yet). It seems to
have dropped from the program for the same reasons as you mention for
the US. The teachers don't understand it and don't see why an innocent
kid needs to know such a overly complicated algorithm if they can use a
pocket calculator. To get things in perspective: the majority of people
training for teacher fail the end test for our 12 year olds in maths.
One of the first courses at this university is in basic maths. Which is
simply trying to get them at the level of the end terms of the school
they have just finished (actually even less than that). We do start with
addition, subtraction, long multiplications and divisions, and fractions...
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit_by_digit_calculation
>>> They are missing the point. By teaching lazy rules of thumb, they are
>>> failing to teach a higher concept: Algorithmical thinking. You can't
>>> program a computer with just "rules of thumb".
>
>> Well, most people won't ever need to be computer programmers. It _is_ a
>> minority occupation. Indeed, most professions don't really involve
>> higher mathematics in any way.
>
> Then you wonder why some countries are more proficient than others.
> It's probably a common trait in the more proficient countries that the
> schooling system is *not* driven by a "only very few people will ever
> need these skills, thus we'll just skip teaching them" ideology.
The common fear with those in teaching maths, physics and chemistry in
the Netherlands is that we will be with the countries at the bottom in
a few years/decades. We are still doing OK but when the current
generation retires we are left with an incompetent mathophobe group of
teachers.
From my personal experience I know that also the writing skills are far
below what was thought in my days.
OTOH, every generation will say so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/24/09 14:14, andrel wrote:
>> Your lack of google skills don't surprise me. Slightly more surprising is
>> that someone of your age hasn't been taught that at school.
>
> I have recently discussed this with a couple of people at the places I
> work. It seems teaching doing a square root by hand was removed from the
> basic training about 40-50 years ago. It wasn't in my training anywhere,
I doubt it was ever in basic training universally. Probably only in
some countries. I know folks much older who know about it - seeing it at
some point in their lives, but never were formally taught it.
In my text book (7th or 8th grade), it was there in one of those
special "fun" sections, and it's possible that the teacher even made us
do a few problems using it, but it wasn't required to know, and I never
memorized it.
> More disturbingly: I noticed that some of my students did not know long
> division. I haven't asked for long multiplication (yet). It seems to
> have dropped from the program for the same reasons as you mention for
> the US. The teachers don't understand it and don't see why an innocent
That's *really* bad. Long division is not something that can be
replaced with calculators. You use it for algebraic expressions as well.
Unless, of course, it's degraded to the point where you don't need
algebra and you just let Maple do everything.
I know a lot of people criticize some of the "new math". I'm not that
certain in either direction. I find long multiplication and long
division to be good for computing stuff fast, but gives virtually *no*
insight into anything. The techniques in "new math" actually give you a
fundamental understanding of what's going on, and has more "right" to be
called mathematics. But it's likely not practical to do it that way each
time.
If I had kids, I'd try to make sure they learn both. I consider either
approach alone to be seriously flawed.
Reminds me of a bunch of math graduate students I've known. Fairly slow
at doing integrals, etc. But a physics student or a good engineering
student is much faster at doing them. It's because the math students are
not concerned with calculations (for the most part) - but the others are.
In any case, my advisor in grad school had a no-calculators policy for
exams. And this was for engineering courses, where you have to calculate
stuff with real numbers, and not just symbolically. I always felt that
if I were a professor, I'd do likewise for exams. I wonder how long
before such professors are shunned by their own colleagues.
> One of the first courses at this university is in basic maths. Which is
> simply trying to get them at the level of the end terms of the school
> they have just finished (actually even less than that). We do start with
> addition, subtraction, long multiplications and divisions, and fractions...
I often wonder. A lot of people (including myself sometimes) feel that,
say, mathematics education is degrading over time. In my undergrad
institution, a few decades ago, the lowest math class was introductory
calculus. As the years went by, they needed to put a remedial precalc
course that was strictly not for credit. Then as time went by, they
converted that to a proper course with credits, and put a remedial
algebra course for no credits. Now that course is offered for credit.
Likewise, some of the things they often teach in the first year of
graduate school here in mathematics is often taught in the 4th year of
undergrad in universities in other countries (I just saw one where it's
taught in the 3rd year of undergrad).
Is the math education at high school etc degrading, requiring all these
remedial courses?
Possibly.
Another explanation is that as a percentage (and of course, in absolute
numbers) of the population, more and more students are getting educated
and graduating high school, and the education system is having trouble
keeping up. Put another way, the percentage of people age 18 in this
country who have a "solid" background in mathematics may have actually
stayed the same (not gone worse) - it's just that the percentage
graduating and moving on to university is higher (and not just because
standards have gone down).
I used to be firmly in the first camp, but I really don't have the
data, and it wouldn't surprise me if the second reason is the bigger one.
> The common fear with those in teaching maths, physics and chemistry in
> the Netherlands is that we will be with the countries at the bottom in a
> few years/decades. We are still doing OK but when the current generation
> retires we are left with an incompetent mathophobe group of teachers.
> From my personal experience I know that also the writing skills are far
> below what was thought in my days.
>
> OTOH, every generation will say so.
I wonder how much of this really matters.
Take a number of east European countries. And Russia. When it comes to
mathematics, they used to (and probably still do) beat, say, the US
handily. Not just the brilliant ones, but also the average high
school/university graduate.
In many technical areas (except perhaps engineering), the US has been
consistently behind those and other countries for most of the 20th century.
Yet it doesn't hurt the country much.
I think what matters is maintaining a fairly good average (not just of
students, but the whole population). I don't really know, but I suspect
those countries tended to be elitist. Only the really good got to go to
universities, whereas the rest went to simple trade schools. And that
results in an overall lower average. An elite group of a few brilliant
people cannot impact the country as much as a huge group of above
average folks.
I think the UK used to be like that and they probably changed it some
decades ago. I've met a bunch of older people from there who couldn't
get into university to become an engineer, but in terms of their
abilities and grades, had they lived in the US, they would have.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
