andrel wrote:

> On 29-5-2011 13:12, Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> > andrel wrote:
> > 
> > > On 28-5-2011 14:36, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > > > > > > If you don't know them by heart a large part of our
> > > > > > > culture is inaccessible to you.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Such as?
> > > > > 
> > > > > basically most of the mathematical knowledge.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see why you need to memorise multiplication tables to
> > > > understand mathematics.
> > > 
> > > You can not understand long division or long multiplication
> > > without those tables.
> > 
> > One note: I think people should know them by heart and also be able
> > to do simple calculations in their head, simply because it is not
> > very pragmatic not to know them. You can't and shouldn't, IMO,
> > always revert to a calculator for that. It keeps you fit, up there.
> > 
> > But knowing these tables by heart does not help in understanding
> > anything. The knowledge only helps in applying that understanding a
> > little more pragmatically.
> > 
> > I can understand long division and multiplication, prime numbers and
> > number theory principles very well without knowing the
> > multiplication tables by heart.
> 
> You can in theory, but I am pretty sure you won't in practice. Or at
> least the vast majority of people won't.

I'm not so sure. OK, I know lots of people who don't understand
fractions (I'm a dentist and most of my - especially younger -
assistants don't), and these usually don't know the tables very well
either, but I think that is because of a common cause: they hate maths.

I don't think knowing the tables is a prerequisite. It is just
correlated with an interest in maths, and that is probably a
prerequisite for the understanding (or vice versa).

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the 
 things they make it easier to do don't need to be done." 
 -- Andy Rooney.

Post a reply to this message