HOly shIT this is REal?!

reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6c6gff/sneak_peak_at_the_new_devos_common_core_standards/

mathalicious.com/lessons/advertising-aged

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/24114507
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

top kek
is it real?
also

...

...

lol I fucking like this kid.

...

That's actually a real creationist argument famously used by a real fundamentalist apologeticist.

I think he might still be alive and making that argument to this day.

This entire thread holy shit.

Is this not satire? Cristo.

At least we got a population interested in politics willing to go out and effect real change into the world

American detected.

Non-American detected.

Which is bigger?
2/6
Or
1/6

2/6, so how did Marty get more pizza?

Impossible, 2/6 is ALWAYS bigger than 1/6
t. freedom guy

I think the whole idea is clearly to teach kids the difference between absolute and relative measures. I have four fifths of a glass of water, but how much water do I actually have in this "glass" that's 4/5 full? Since absolute vs per capita statistics is something dumb adults have trouble with.
It's not some "creative," "out of the box" "lateral thinking" solution, it's what the lesson should be teaching. Either the teacher is a bit dim and marked it without looking at the teacher's guide, or the kid's vindictive parent wrote that on his homework as imaginary ammo to malign CC on some conservative facebook page. Probably the former, elementary school teachers in the US haven't really been asked to think before, or teach anything to do with reasoning. It's a hold-over from when the focus of primary education was purely on literacy, arithmetic, and cultural indoctrination/assimilation, all done by rote. Those who can't do, teach - and those who can't teach, teach small children.
See pic related. That's the caliber of teacher and parent we're dealing with in the system, who can't reason things like this out.

Stop being retarded, the other pizza was bigger.

Shit I just read the rest of your post and was merely reacting out of boredom reading the rest of the retarded Amerilards.

Jack forgot to subtract the 10 from the 316, there are arches for the hundreds and the singles (how do you call them) but not for the tens. The parent probably wanted the smaller arches to be tens but he fucked it up and wrote that 127-10=107 what a fucking retard no wonder he only has a BSc.

I mean I would never do it this way but if you can't reverse engineer what is going on you have to be a special kind of stupid.

The teacher assumed that the two pizzas are the same size. The pizza is only there to make the problem more "real-life" for the kid, for the teacher it's only an abstract unit.

It's
That's specifically the teacher's error here, since the problem is figuring out A and B imply ~C

You're replying to me twice m8, I was and - my first post was made after only reading a couple of your sentences and treating you like the other people in the thread and calling you retarded, which my second post apologised for when I realised.
I legit can't believe there are several more people than the teacher who don't get this right here on leftypol.

Why do people design their gears like that to signify something working? This gear network couldn't work

They probably wanted to make it fully connected to imply that no part can be left out and every party should work with the others.

How fucking dense are you? It's not just referencing a product, it's a corporation sponsoring some part of the education system to get product placement (including a video advert!) into the curriculum.
That should concern you.

A nuclear holocaust is too good for this.

...

That's the joke
It's meant to imply that the people administering a new early education system supposedly based on the broad use of basic reasoning, are themselves unable to use basic reasoning

Education under capitalism has always reflected class interests, has always been firmly liberal-democratic, has always had as its primary objective the production of workers with basic skills and personal/civic temperaments that are useful to the local bourgeoisie. I mean, public education is provided by the state. Which is a device of class rule.
To claim that product placement is just a bridge too far is to miss the bigger picture, and the forest for the trees.
Public education has always been inseparable from (a suitably generalized notion of) advertising, this just represents a more overt and less pluralistic sort of cronyism. Sure, this suggests that the bourgeoisie is contracting and more and more proportional power is becoming concentrated into fewer hands despite government efforts based on their common interest against this, but that's a general trend we already see in society. It's just the dialectic in motion, although, yes, a smaller bourgeoisie for the same population does mean things can more easily turn more firmly against proletarian interests.

the saudi monarch is a cancer but i love how for once pro-israel biggots can portray the arabs as an all powerful bourgeoisie entity

The 'singles' are called digits :)

I'd call them "ones", in line with "tens" and "hundreds".

This post is completely correct. Even history classes in middle and high school are tailored for this. Either the history taught is mostly skimming superficially at the past, or the subjects most touched upon are those than could evoke a nationalistic sentiment.

Example of this is my country's education: a large part of it, even though the subject is seen in every year, is dedicated to Simón Bolívar dicksucking. Very little is about the history of the country beyond presidents, and the rare events that are taught in class are of course, taught very incompletely.

As is obvious, history concerning the working class is missing, like the Caracazo, which is barely mentioned.

Yep, the problem is so painfully simple that pic related is far better mockery of the "outraged" anti-CC crowd than anything. But they still share it as though it endorses their position, and shows how "everything's bullshit, maan." Truly they've become a parody of themselves.

Most people already do mental subtraction using some form of 427-316=127-16=117-6=111 since it's intuitively obvious and you only need to "store" two values at one time. The number line is one way to sketch out why that's "allowed," by formalizing, at a very basic level, how counting works. The point of this kind of teaching is to "get in back of" these methods and talk about why they're valid, to affirm the "sneaky tricks kids aren't supposed to know" like for multiplication by 9, the divisibility test for 3, and so on, and explain how they work in terms of basic concepts to build mathematical reasoning and capacity for abstraction. Honestly, elementary algebra is such a massive brainlet filter, at least in the US, you kind of get the sense that if people were introduced at an early age to the concept of figuring out and understanding why you can follow some rule, rather than trained against their natural inclination to memorize and blindly follow canned procedures, outcomes would improve. And "real" math in the first place consists entirely of reasoning out some "trick" and proving why it "works," from Euclid's division algorithm through the Hahn-Banach Theorem and beyond. We have machines to actually do the computations.
There are aspiring scientists who try to get through o-chem with rote memorization. There are people who can't appreciate the humanities because they don't know how to rationalize methodology and reduce it to practice, and because they think they're supposed to reduce the entire subject to a formulaic practice and collection of facts. I think that early educational experiences are a big part of what's wrong.

Also
The inmates are running the asylum

I gotcha. I missed that the first time through, but rewrote my post when I saw

Brainlet

The number line bullshit does not make that simpler to understand. I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you imply that the only two choices are rote memorization and Common Core. I don't think it helps develop reasoning abilities when kids are getting questions marked wrong despite using a faster method to reach the correct answer. At least it might instill a healthy contempt for authority though.

So, why not simply use a calculator then or ask your smartphone Siri app?

Do you actually need to ask that question?
We want kids to have mental math skills because they are essential for everything they will study later.

Good morning, kids, today we're gonna learn why that wonky thing with
38
x52
—–
where you, like, multiply the right ones and then regroup to the right if necessary and then multiply bottom right by top left, then by the other thing, then the other, then add it all up below, provided you put your products from before in the correct number places, works!
Well 38*52=(30+8)*(50+2)=(30*50)+(30*2)+(8*50)+(8*2)=1500+60+400+16=1976, because multiplication distributes over addition, you see.
Draw a rectangle of side lengths 38 and 52, break it into four rectangles of 30x50, 30x2, 8x50 and 8x2. "You guys remember area, right? Well the big rectangle has the same area as all of the small ones put together. So you can add up these easy ones to find the hard one, and that's basically what you're doing with the method on the board."
Turns out the authorities take a dim view of trespassing in elementary schools

What point are you trying to make? You seem very, very angry.

Yes, but you claimed it doesn't help when kids get question marked wrong despite using a faster method to reach the correct answer. Typing the question into google is faster than doing the school subtraction method.

Just because you're not surprised doesn't mean you can't be disappointed.

Clap clap. You saw through my stupidity. Clearly it is good to make kids jump through stupid hoops which don't aid their understanding in any way, because the only possible alternative is to give up and not teach them anything.
I bow before your superior pedantry.

How does applying the school subtraction algorithm add to one's understanding?

It makes one think for one.

Jumping through hoops makes one think more though.

No, it doesn't.

In fact, it makes you think less.

Yes it does. The brain is like a muscle. The purpose of math education is to train it. Whether the endresult is correct or not is rather unimportant. It's more important to jump through these hoops.

There are good hoops and there are bad hoops. For example, you could make the kids write out 128+32 as 32 steps of adding 1, but that would be stupid and unhelpful.

I don't think the method taught by common core using the number line is helpful because it doesn't take advantage of the natural base-10 nature of written numbers. It's very easy to see that 228-128=100 when it's written down, but drawing a number line doesn't help show that at all. You need to know it before hand in order to even draw the number line correctly.

I still can't figure out what they actually want as an answer to . The whole point of a visual representation should be to make things clearer and more obvious, but number line methods achieve the opposite.

Something like this would be much better:
427 - 316
= 127 - 16 (-100)
= 117 - 6 (-10)
= 111 - 0 (-6)
= 111
Simple and elegant.

Pretty sure that first image is fake.

Do you ever kind of get sad that you'll never naively buy into the narratives shown in the pictures (Particularly thinking that one with the soldier) while believing you're actually learning about the world?

It's partially simple nostalgia for pretending to work in HS by reading through textbooks instead of writing anything down, but still.

This is a pretty retarded question tbqh.

Also if you want some ideological viagra, look into News in Briefs an ex-feature of The Sun tabloid.
(If you're not familiar with the format vimeo.com/24114507 explains it pretty well.)

Yeah sometimes. It was quite romantic to believe that the land I lived on represented truth and justice and that ONE DAY if I tried hard enough, I could contribute greatly in that mission.

Knowing how bleak the world is in reality does have drawbacks but at this point I really wouldn't want it any other way.

My dichotomy is between "rote memorization" and "methods other than that." CC certainly isn't ideal, it's still bourgeois education, so I'm not asserting it's better than all alternatives. What I'm saying is the specific elements of it I'm talking about are better than the previous model, in a specific sense.
This already happens under the guise of "show your work," pic related. Back in high school I remember getting 0 points on some question that asked for the limit as x->0 of sin(x) for saying "Sine is continuous on R. By the definition of continuity, lim x->0 sin(x) = sin(0) = 0." I'd've cringed too hard to say "sin(x) gets closer and closer to 0 as x gets closer and closer to 0," but I was apparently required to, so I hadn't "shown my work." Inane.
Clearly the practice of deliberately hiding arbitrary expectations until it's time to mark something isn't endemic to CC but rather unaccountable authority in general. If the question asks for the answer, it shouldn't penalize you for your choice of a different, valid method - that much is compatible with CC. If the question asks you to demonstrate your understanding of some method by using it to solve something, though, you're being assessed on how well you understand and can apply the method. I don't see the problem here.

Objectively wrong

One of you is acting as though "be able to do arithmetic" is the literal end goal and objective of all this and everything else must be either an efficient means to that end, or useless, and the other guy's saying making it needlessly harder on purpose is a good thing because you think more.

They already did this. +X is introduced as "+1 repeated X times." Once you see it and understand that's what "+X" means, you don't need to use that fact as a method. But it's important to know that's what addition of an integer is, or things can fall apart later. Similarly they already introduce multiplication as repeated addition, but clearly it's not efficient to use the definition of multiplication as a method for multiplication when you multiply multi-digit numbers.
The big arches are going left by 100. The small arches are going left by 1. There's a missing arch going left by 10. It's a representation of a method breaking -316 into smaller components. Jack has chosen -100-100-100-10-1-1-1-1-1-1 but you could just as easily use the same method and break it into -300-10-6 which only takes three steps, kind of like how you can do multiple algebraic steps in going between two lines of writing, as long as you know you won't get confused, but "one step at a time" gives you a feel for how combining them into one step works. Which is what you've written, too, except with the successive steps going right to left under arches, rather than top to bottom.
Honestly recognizing the equivalence of methods is a math skill in its own right, first grade covers how taking a+b gives the same answer as b+a
No, you're not supposed to read the answer off a to-scale number line.

Wow, they don't even try to hide the fact that they're using really basic Pavlovian conditioning to promote their political agenda.
It's times like this that I'm glad I'm not attracted to 3DPD.

...

Well, in order to prove that sin is continous in 0 you have to prove that lim_x-> sin x=0, not vice versa.
So giving you 0 points for that answer is correct.

That's possible. I mean, we're talking about the US education system here, so I could easily believe that they were teaching them to count using bible verses or something.

I'd argue that CC is rote memorization of a sequence of steps. The kids aren't being asked to figure out a way to solve the problem. They are being asked to regurgitate the exact steps they have been taught, and they lose marks if they deviate from those steps. It would make sense if the method they were teaching was the only way to solve a certain set of problems, but it isn't. The method they teach is only faster on a certain subset of problems, and even then it isn't faster if you follow all the steps they want you to take.

That isn't a complete answer. Lim x->0 of f(x) = 0 if f(x) is a continuous odd function. You'd need to state that to expect full credit.

nah. if you know that f is continuous and that f(0)=0 then you are justified to claim that the limit when x tends to 0 is 0

also your implication is wrong. it is a sufficient conditions but not a necessary one.

Good point.

I did use "if" not "iff".

How do you know that sin x is continous though?

Wow, you mean I assumed sine is continuous without proof? Kind of like how that dubious "closer and closer to" nonsense assumes the limit is zero without proof? Without even defining "limit"?
fuck off, go ask rudin

If you're using the unit circle "definition" of sine, it's an immediate consequence of the completeness of R^2

It should be possible to prove that geometrically. A circle is continuous, therefore sin(x) is continuous. I don't know if we're able to assume that circles are continuous though.

Maybe they only removed marks because you failed to prove the completeness of R^2.

still wrong m8
you said A if B
that is B implies A, but in fact A implies B. iff means that they imply each other.
you use some kind of trigonometric Identity i guess. depends on how you define it. you can define it by its differential equation and initial values, or by the power series. or as the sum of complex exponentials. each way you end up with easy ways to show it is continuous I guess.

How is that "closer and closer" argument nonsense? It's the definition of continous.

I wrote
Are you saying that:
implies
but
does not imply
?

you are right I fucked up

the actual definition is either about open sets or δ-ε inequalities. I think that what he meant is that his teacher expected some kind of heuristic explanation of why the limit is 0

The delta-epsilon definition is a formalization of the "closer and closer" argument.
I mean, that's how the mathematicians originally conceived of it as well before they had the epsilon-delta formalism to make it precise.

Ayy fam
Let {(a_i, b_i)} be a cauchy sequence in R^2 under the supremum metric. Then for every h>0 there is an N such that n,m>N implies max[d(a_n, a_m), d(b_n, b_m)]

Have you read the text of the problem? You don't have to do the subtraction, you have to understand what Jack was trying to do and find out where he fucked up. If you can't do it just because the method he uses is foreign to you, you failed the exercise.

nuke this country

...

...

Is mathematics leftist?

yes

Mathematics helps one cultivate certain philosophical/analytical skills and a facility with abstraction/abstract symbolic manipulaion, both of which help with theory

Science is leftist, but math can be used in any way, including some anti-reality neoliberal economic ways.

I say nuke puerto rican tripfags, tbqh.