Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Dum dum...I wrote a piece a while back on teaching tables on social...maybe it is still there. It takes about 10 mins to teach any child or stupid adult their tables.

...and where did I state otherwise? The tilt of my post was the nostalgia regarding the contents in the tables! Not to test anyone or look for answers! Cain already said he doesn't remember! Doesn't mean he's a dunce.

Holy Shit! You're a fcking nutcase, going off the brink on a foolish thread about tables at the back of an exercise book.

You asked the questions...three above...not me. I am just answering. Cain is a musician so I know he knows the math.

Stormborn posted:
Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Dum dum...I wrote a piece a while back on teaching tables on social...maybe it is still there. It takes about 10 mins to teach any child or stupid adult their tables.

...and where did I state otherwise? The tilt of my post was the nostalgia regarding the contents in the tables! Not to test anyone or look for answers! Cain already said he doesn't remember! Doesn't mean he's a dunce.

Holy Shit! You're a fcking nutcase, going off the brink on a foolish thread about tables at the back of an exercise book.

You asked the questions...three above...not me. I am just answering. 

You're an idiot! I wasn't looking for answers! No one else thought I was looking for answers! Just reflecting nostalgically on some of the questions the tables answered, that's all! Something you'll never understand, the maladjusted freak that you are. Oh, and spare me the response with all the "friends" who think you're wonderful, cuz we know it's all in your head.

I once had some regard for what you write. Until now. You're a weirdo!

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

yuh friken lash bad bad, eh?

let me be clear you fraud, this is not about "Blake"

it's about your posing . . . your lightweight stupidity

thinking people not paying attention to your pretense at deep 'learning'

the stupidity you attempted to sidestep by claiming you merely "mangled" the quote

however the "quote" properly referencing the situation of "Burnham" contextualized by your exchange with Iguana DOES NOT EXIST . . . at least not by William Blake

and your "google fu" has now made you aware of that, no?

too late

it's strangely sad to watch you tap dance like this

afraid of you? Not even the middling scholar who came through here and I have argued with most. 

no, not me banna

yuh friken lash banna, L A S H . . . and all the embarrassment that goes with it

that's why you running away . . . that's why you promising to give us the quote in "a couple of weeks"

because you SET YOURSELF UP

look how your posts gettin stupider by the minute bai . . . yuh ego not handling well

at all

Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:
Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Dum dum...I wrote a piece a while back on teaching tables on social...maybe it is still there. It takes about 10 mins to teach any child or stupid adult their tables.

...and where did I state otherwise? The tilt of my post was the nostalgia regarding the contents in the tables! Not to test anyone or look for answers! Cain already said he doesn't remember! Doesn't mean he's a dunce.

Holy Shit! You're a fcking nutcase, going off the brink on a foolish thread about tables at the back of an exercise book.

You asked the questions...three above...not me. I am just answering. 

You're an idiot! I wasn't looking for answers! No one else thought I was looking for answers! Just reflecting nostalgically on some of the questions the tables answered, that's all! Something you'll never understand, the maladjusted freak that you are. Oh, and spare me the response with all the "friends" who think you're wonderful, cuz we know it's all in your head.

I once had some regard for what you write. Until now. You're a weirdo!

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

yuh friken lash bad bad, eh?

let me be clear you fraud, this is not about "Blake"

it's about your posing . . . your lightweight stupidity

thinking people not paying attention to your pretense at deep 'learning'

the stupidity you attempted to sidestep by claiming you merely "mangled" the quote

however the "quote" properly referencing the situation of "Burnham" contextualized by your exchange with Iguana DOES NOT EXIST . . . at least not by William Blake

and your "google fu" has now made you aware of that, no?

too late

it's strangely sad to watch you tap dance like this

afraid of you? Not even the middling scholar who came through here and I have argued with most. 

no, not me banna

yuh friken lash banna, L A S H . . . and all the embarrassment that goes with it

look how your posts gettin stupider by the minute bai . . . yuh ego not handling well

at all

What a fool...cheering because he thinks Blake did not inspire the quote when as I said it is common place...chew on that the next few weeks as you imagine you are winning!

Stormborn posted:

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

Fool, of course they were rhethorical! I see your problem. You have no freaking clue what we're talking about at the back of the exercise book. I bet you never even saw one.

It wasn't just multiplication tables. There were tables of weights and measures with the answers clearly stated such as
5280 feet equals 1 mile
1760 yards in a mile
16 ounces in a pound
a furlong being an eighth of a mile etc.

The above were tables of weights and measures you MEMORIZED. Not math problems to be worked out, hence "easy peasy to do" is irrelevant. That's why Cain doesn't have to "know the math" to come up with the answers, they were there on the book,simply to be MEMORIZED and regurgitated to the teacher when asked, you FOOL! You dont' know what the fck you're talking about, AGAIN!

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

yuh friken lash bad bad, eh?

let me be clear you fraud, this is not about "Blake"

it's about your posing . . . your lightweight stupidity

thinking people not paying attention to your pretense at deep 'learning'

the stupidity you attempted to sidestep by claiming you merely "mangled" the quote

however the "quote" properly referencing the situation of "Burnham" contextualized by your exchange with Iguana DOES NOT EXIST . . . at least not by William Blake

and your "google fu" has now made you aware of that, no?

too late

it's strangely sad to watch you tap dance like this

afraid of you? Not even the middling scholar who came through here and I have argued with most. 

no, not me banna

yuh friken lash banna, L A S H . . . and all the embarrassment that goes with it

that's why you running away . . . that's why you promising to give us the quote in "a couple of weeks"

because you SET YOURSELF UP

look how your posts gettin stupider by the minute bai . . . yuh ego not handling well

at all

What a fool...cheering because he thinks Blake did not inspire the quote when as I said it is common place

so now William Blake only "inspire the [phantom] quote" that you "transpose"

hmmmmm?

are you for real banna? . . . you fully confusing yuhself now

tap tap tapitty tap

well, just for shits and giggles, let me play dis wan out

suh, is who [inspired by Blake] "common place" quote you want me to "google" bai?

smfh

Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

Fool, of course they were rhethorical! I see your problem. You have no freaking clue what we're talking about at the back of the exercise book. I bet you never even saw one.

It wasn't just multiplication tables. There were tables of weights and measures such as
5280 feet equals 1 mile
1760 yards in a mile
a furlong being an eighth of a mile etc.

The above were tables you MEMORIZED. Not math problems to be worked out, hence "easy peasy to do" is irrelevant. That's why Cain doesn't have to "know the math" to come up with the answers, they were there on the book,simply to be MEMORIZED and regurgitated to the teacher when asked, you FOOL! You dont' know what the fck you're talking about, AGAIN!

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

I have seen the books and may even have a few in my house since my mom kept all our work books. I even saw the brown paper bag ones Forbes sent out as replacement! You are the one who does not know what you are talking about since you are making presumptions as to what I have seen or not. 

Guyana used the foot-pound system until 72 when I was in school then they changed to metric. Much of our early physics books used the former system and we knew both since we saw the transition of the the physics and chemistry books from one to the other. You are the one who rests your laurels on tables on exercise books. I happen to experience both systems

 

ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

yuh friken lash bad bad, eh?

let me be clear you fraud, this is not about "Blake"

it's about your posing . . . your lightweight stupidity

thinking people not paying attention to your pretense at deep 'learning'

the stupidity you attempted to sidestep by claiming you merely "mangled" the quote

however the "quote" properly referencing the situation of "Burnham" contextualized by your exchange with Iguana DOES NOT EXIST . . . at least not by William Blake

and your "google fu" has now made you aware of that, no?

too late

it's strangely sad to watch you tap dance like this

afraid of you? Not even the middling scholar who came through here and I have argued with most. 

no, not me banna

yuh friken lash banna, L A S H . . . and all the embarrassment that goes with it

that's why you running away . . . that's why you promising to give us the quote in "a couple of weeks"

because you SET YOURSELF UP

look how your posts gettin stupider by the minute bai . . . yuh ego not handling well

at all

What a fool...cheering because he thinks Blake did not inspire the quote when as I said it is common place

so now William Blake only "inspire the [phantom] quote" that you "transpose"

hmmmmm?

are you for real banna? . . . you fully confusing yuhself now

tap tap tapitty tap

well, just for shits and giggles, let me play dis wan out

suh, is who [inspired by Blake] "common place" quote you want me to "google" bai?

smfh

a few of his phrases are lifted whole cloth fool!

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

yuh friken lash bad bad, eh?

let me be clear you fraud, this is not about "Blake"

it's about your posing . . . your lightweight stupidity

thinking people not paying attention to your pretense at deep 'learning'

the stupidity you attempted to sidestep by claiming you merely "mangled" the quote

however the "quote" properly referencing the situation of "Burnham" contextualized by your exchange with Iguana DOES NOT EXIST . . . at least not by William Blake

and your "google fu" has now made you aware of that, no?

too late

it's strangely sad to watch you tap dance like this

afraid of you? Not even the middling scholar who came through here and I have argued with most. 

no, not me banna

yuh friken lash banna, L A S H . . . and all the embarrassment that goes with it

that's why you running away . . . that's why you promising to give us the quote in "a couple of weeks"

because you SET YOURSELF UP

look how your posts gettin stupider by the minute bai . . . yuh ego not handling well

at all

What a fool...cheering because he thinks Blake did not inspire the quote when as I said it is common place

so now William Blake only "inspire the [phantom] quote" that you "transpose"

hmmmmm?

are you for real banna? . . . you fully confusing yuhself now

tap tap tapitty tap

well, just for shits and giggles, let me play dis wan out

suh, is who [inspired by Blake] "common place" quote you want me to "google" bai?

smfh

a few of his phrases are lifted whole cloth fool!

not so fast señor twinkletoes . . . this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent."

hmmmm?

ronan posted: not so fast señor twinkletoes . . . this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent."

hmmmm?

So??? Were you cognizant of Blake you would know the reference immediately...dummy!

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted: not so fast señor twinkletoes . . . this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent."

hmmmm?

So??? Were you cognizant of Blake you would know the reference immediately...dummy!

quite obvious i am much much more "cognizant" of William Blake's writings than you ever could be

so let's not get twisted . . . that's why i have you by the balls

so which is it . . . inspired or authored by William Blake . . . hmmmm?

ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted: not so fast señor twinkletoes . . . this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent."

hmmmm?

So??? Were you cognizant of Blake you would know the reference immediately...dummy!

quite obvious i am much much more "cognizant" of William Blake's writings than you ever could be

so let's not get twisted . . . that's why i have you by the balls

so which is it . . . inspired or authored by William Blake . . . hmmmm?

Then my dear man your professor was poorly lacking or his student a dunce!

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted: not so fast señor twinkletoes . . . this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent."

hmmmm?

So??? Were you cognizant of Blake you would know the reference immediately...dummy!

quite obvious i am much much more "cognizant" of William Blake's writings than you ever could be

so let's not get twisted . . . that's why i have you by the balls

so which is it . . . inspired or authored by William Blake . . . hmmmm?

Then my dear man your professor was poorly lacking or his student a dunce!

well, putting aside the fact that i never studied poetry or anything related in college

the truth or falsity regarding my "dunce[ness]" lies in your answer, no?

your 'avoidance' run of SHAME is just about at the half-marathon point now

but i am strapped in for a late nite . . . multitasking

Stormborn posted:
Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

Fool, of course they were rhethorical! I see your problem. You have no freaking clue what we're talking about at the back of the exercise book. I bet you never even saw one.

It wasn't just multiplication tables. There were tables of weights and measures such as
5280 feet equals 1 mile
1760 yards in a mile
a furlong being an eighth of a mile etc.

The above were tables you MEMORIZED. Not math problems to be worked out, hence "easy peasy to do" is irrelevant. That's why Cain doesn't have to "know the math" to come up with the answers, they were there on the book,simply to be MEMORIZED and regurgitated to the teacher when asked, you FOOL! You dont' know what the fck you're talking about, AGAIN!

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

I have seen the books and may even have a few in my house since my mom kept all our work books. I even saw the brown paper bag ones Forbes sent out as replacement! You are the one who does not know what you are talking about since you are making presumptions as to what I have seen or not. 

Guyana used the foot-pound system until 72 when I was in school then they changed to metric. Much of our early physics books used the former system and we knew both since we saw the transition of the the physics and chemistry books from one to the other. You are the one who rests your laurels on tables on exercise books. I happen to experience both systems

 

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Stormborn posted:

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

Banna, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about! I seriously doubt you've ever seen the back of a Guyanese exercise book, and if so, if you remember it.

Wasn't just multiplication tables which were memorized. There were weights and measures etc. They were FACTS that the student memorized and used in working out math problems. They were known, not "worked out". I gave examples - yards in a mile, feet in a mile and so on.

In your  post to me you were expecting those facts to be math problems. You claimed kids could "work those out", accused me of  being "dunce" because I couldn't. You are talking sheer shit! You don't "work out" 12 inches in a foot at common entrance age in Guyana back then, you just fcking know it or not. 

As I said, you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. Matter of fact, you rarely do. You're just seeking attention and accolades, grand proclamations of how "smart" you are. Well now everyone knows what a fraud you are!

Baseman posted:

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Stormborn is a clown! He was not aware of the contents at the back of the book other than the multiplication tables. He expected to sit here and "work out" how many feet are in a mile or how many inches in a foot. LOL.

Iguana posted:
Baseman posted:

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Stormborn is a clown! He was not aware of the contents at the back of the book other than the multiplication tables. He expected to sit here and "work out" how many feet are in a mile or how many inches in a foot. LOL.

Lots of good information , at the back of the exercise book ,  pounds in hundred weights, hundred weights in ton ,fluid measurements ,pints ,gallons , ounces in a pint, fathom measurements ,most stuck in my brain until today.

Iguana posted:
Baseman posted:

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Stormborn is a clown! He was not aware of the contents at the back of the book other than the multiplication tables. He expected to sit here and "work out" how many feet are in a mile or how many inches in a foot. LOL.

Those were good and useful skills.  Even on my CPA and CMA tests I used those skills to break down and resolve problems. I was faster than the calculator on some things!  I only used the calculator for the more complex problems!

Thanks to Burnham, me godfather!!😁

Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

Banna, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about! I seriously doubt you've ever seen the back of a Guyanese exercise book, and if so, if you remember it.

Wasn't just multiplication tables which were memorized. There were weights and measures etc. They were FACTS that the student memorized and used in working out math problems. They were known, not "worked out". I gave examples - yards in a mile, feet in a mile and so on.

In your  post to me you were expecting those facts to be math problems. You claimed kids could "work those out", accused me of  being "dunce" because I couldn't. You are talking sheer shit! You don't "work out" 12 inches in a foot at common entrance age in Guyana back then, you just fcking know it or not. 

As I said, you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. Matter of fact, you rarely do. You're just seeking attention and accolades, grand proclamations of how "smart" you are. Well now everyone knows what a fraud you are!

Dude, those exercise were still around when I started school. I even used the red royal readers and the new blue Caribbean readers. What you doubt matters little to me. It is what I know.

Also I never mentioned what was at be back of the books. You need that bit of irrelevancy. I am not arguing my knowledge of the book but made a statement of fact that the tables are easy if the kids are given some useful numerical tools. The exercise books is your drift to nonsense. Even if I never saw the book is of little consequence to my statements. 

And indeed you work out what is a foot. It is a unit of measure so to know it you must know its sub units and what import it have for larger measures. You work that out dummy.

If what I say seems as proclamations that is because you are intellectually  stunted.

   

Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:
Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

Fool, of course they were rhethorical! I see your problem. You have no freaking clue what we're talking about at the back of the exercise book. I bet you never even saw one.

It wasn't just multiplication tables. There were tables of weights and measures such as
5280 feet equals 1 mile
1760 yards in a mile
a furlong being an eighth of a mile etc.

The above were tables you MEMORIZED. Not math problems to be worked out, hence "easy peasy to do" is irrelevant. That's why Cain doesn't have to "know the math" to come up with the answers, they were there on the book,simply to be MEMORIZED and regurgitated to the teacher when asked, you FOOL! You dont' know what the fck you're talking about, AGAIN!

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

I have seen the books and may even have a few in my house since my mom kept all our work books. I even saw the brown paper bag ones Forbes sent out as replacement! You are the one who does not know what you are talking about since you are making presumptions as to what I have seen or not. 

Guyana used the foot-pound system until 72 when I was in school then they changed to metric. Much of our early physics books used the former system and we knew both since we saw the transition of the the physics and chemistry books from one to the other. You are the one who rests your laurels on tables on exercise books. I happen to experience both systems

 

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Mere memorizing without knowing what is being memorized  makes for dunces. The child has to understand identity of numbers, additive and distributive properties and then the tables make sense and has more value than for small number calculations. Then maybe you teach the tricks....ie it is easier to multiply large numbers mentally from left to right or add them etc rather than the other way as is usually the strategy.

Stormborn posted:
Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:
Iguana posted:
Stormborn posted:

Were they rhetorical? Even nostalgically the answer is the same...easy peasy to do. the rest is you simply needing to shore up a bruised ego. Your regard for me is incidental . Matters not. 

Fool, of course they were rhethorical! I see your problem. You have no freaking clue what we're talking about at the back of the exercise book. I bet you never even saw one.

It wasn't just multiplication tables. There were tables of weights and measures such as
5280 feet equals 1 mile
1760 yards in a mile
a furlong being an eighth of a mile etc.

The above were tables you MEMORIZED. Not math problems to be worked out, hence "easy peasy to do" is irrelevant. That's why Cain doesn't have to "know the math" to come up with the answers, they were there on the book,simply to be MEMORIZED and regurgitated to the teacher when asked, you FOOL! You dont' know what the fck you're talking about, AGAIN!

Tables are math fundamentals...to be "worked" out to have meaning. The reason kids find them difficult is they are taught to memorize them not understand the math behind it. You can teach them the tricks of learning them but the tricks are grounded in the rules of mathematics. 

I have seen the books and may even have a few in my house since my mom kept all our work books. I even saw the brown paper bag ones Forbes sent out as replacement! You are the one who does not know what you are talking about since you are making presumptions as to what I have seen or not. 

Guyana used the foot-pound system until 72 when I was in school then they changed to metric. Much of our early physics books used the former system and we knew both since we saw the transition of the the physics and chemistry books from one to the other. You are the one who rests your laurels on tables on exercise books. I happen to experience both systems

 

Tables memorizing helps to expedite simple tasks quickly on an exam and leave time to work on more complex problems!

Mere memorizing without knowing what is being memorized  makes for dunces. The child has to understand identity of numbers, additive and distributive properties and then the tables make sense and has more value than for small number calculations. Then maybe you teach the tricks....ie it is easier to multiply large numbers mentally from left to right or add them etc rather than the other way as is usually the strategy.

To a point yes!  But memorizing some lil basics don’t mek you a dunce.  It frees your thinking faculties for better things.

There is a line to be drawn!

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

Banna, I agree with some of your points raised. And you brought up India, yes this an example of a cram culture and why India has so many highly educated people but it not an innovative and inventive people!  If you score below 97 you are 2nd tier and mediocre!  This works well in some professions, not all!

Anyway, what we were talking is memorizing the very basic, say 12 times tables and the conversion measures!  Beyond that, you should be into problem solving!

Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

the above whole is contradictory gibberish

Ramanujan was actually "hampered" by not having any formal training in 19th-20th century level higher mathematics

waderass does THAT have to do with learning x-times tables?

smfh

ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

the above whole is contradictory gibberish

Ramanujan was actually "hampered" by not having any formal training in 19th-20th century level higher mathematics

waderass does THAT have to do with learning x-times tables?

smfh

Listen to the hardy lectures dummy...plus the guy narrating his documentary....a scholar working on the notebooks mentioned the same. Ramanujan's formal training until Hardy and Littlewood was a textbook of formulas and theorems as I stated above. He also had the benefit of local mathematicians who advised he contact Hardy at Cambridge when they were no longer able to help him

 

And this is about memorization simply for memorization. What hell good is the quadratic formula or the sum rule if you do not know what it means. It is like the McDonald register with icons or excel functions with no understanding of the underlying functions

Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

Banna, I agree with some of your points raised. And you brought up India, yes this an example of a cram culture and why India has so many highly educated people but it not an innovative and inventive people!  If you score below 97 you are 2nd tier and mediocre!  This works well in some professions, not all!

Anyway, what we were talking is memorizing the very basic, say 12 times tables and the conversion measures!  Beyond that, you should be into problem solving!

As I said, memorizing those tables breaks the spirit of the kid. Teach them that  2 x 4 is the same as 4 X 2 and they begin to grasp a strategy of using one table to produce the next. One can use the fingers to do 9 times table in under a min but what good is that when the child already knows the table if they learnt up to 8 times. 

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

the above whole is contradictory gibberish

Ramanujan was actually "hampered" by not having any formal training in 19th-20th century level higher mathematics

waderass does THAT have to do with learning x-times tables?

smfh

Listen to the hardy lectures dummy...plus the guy narrating his documentary....a scholar working on the notebooks mentioned the same. Ramanujan's formal training until Hardy and Littlewood was a textbook of formulas and theorems as I stated above. He also had the benefit of local mathematicians who advised he contact Hardy at Cambridge when they were no longer able to help him

 And this is about memorization simply for memorization. What hell good is the quadratic formula or the sum rule if you do not know what it means. It is like the McDonald register with icons or excel functions with no understanding of the underlying functions

what does all this have to do with memorizing tables idiot?

ALL of Ramanujan's distinguished contemporaries at Cambridge had to learn the x-times tables starting out

shut yuh meandering, useless ass

Stormborn posted:
Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

Banna, I agree with some of your points raised. And you brought up India, yes this an example of a cram culture and why India has so many highly educated people but it not an innovative and inventive people!  If you score below 97 you are 2nd tier and mediocre!  This works well in some professions, not all!

Anyway, what we were talking is memorizing the very basic, say 12 times tables and the conversion measures!  Beyond that, you should be into problem solving!

As I said, memorizing those tables breaks the spirit of the kid. Teach them that  2 x 4 is the same as 4 X 2 and they begin to grasp a strategy of using one table to produce the next. One can use the fingers to do 9 times table in under a min but what good is that when the child already knows the table if they learnt up to 8 times. 

Bai, you must have had a miserable math childhood.  

As kids we made fun singing the tables.  Then we compete for speed!  It was not a spirit breaker by any means!

Conceptually, it did not take long to figure all you need to know was up to ten.  Everything else were multiples of 10 or fractions of 10.  To this day I use that to perform quick head calcs without a calculator!

Suh Burnham exercise book still in me head!!

Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:
Baseman posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

Banna, I agree with some of your points raised. And you brought up India, yes this an example of a cram culture and why India has so many highly educated people but it not an innovative and inventive people!  If you score below 97 you are 2nd tier and mediocre!  This works well in some professions, not all!

Anyway, what we were talking is memorizing the very basic, say 12 times tables and the conversion measures!  Beyond that, you should be into problem solving!

As I said, memorizing those tables breaks the spirit of the kid. Teach them that  2 x 4 is the same as 4 X 2 and they begin to grasp a strategy of using one table to produce the next. One can use the fingers to do 9 times table in under a min but what good is that when the child already knows the table if they learnt up to 8 times. 

Bai, you must have had a miserable math childhood.  

As kids we made fun singing the tables.  Then we compete for speed!  It was not a spirit breaker by any means!

Conceptually, it did not take long to figure all you need to know was up to ten.  Everything else were multiples of 10 or fractions of 10.  To this day I use that to perform quick head calcs without a calculator!

Suh Burnham exercise book still in me head!!

No....I am good at everything. I watched my son and daughters struggle and took them out of school and home schooled them. Singing tables is what kills budding mathematicians. Math should indeed be fun but if the fun includes the fundamentals. I am not asking that some one proves everything. I am asking that the child knows additive and distributive properties and identity of numbers along with tables. 

ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

the above whole is contradictory gibberish

Ramanujan was actually "hampered" by not having any formal training in 19th-20th century level higher mathematics

waderass does THAT have to do with learning x-times tables?

smfh

Listen to the hardy lectures dummy...plus the guy narrating his documentary....a scholar working on the notebooks mentioned the same. Ramanujan's formal training until Hardy and Littlewood was a textbook of formulas and theorems as I stated above. He also had the benefit of local mathematicians who advised he contact Hardy at Cambridge when they were no longer able to help him

 And this is about memorization simply for memorization. What hell good is the quadratic formula or the sum rule if you do not know what it means. It is like the McDonald register with icons or excel functions with no understanding of the underlying functions

what does all this have to do with memorizing tables idiot?

ALL of Ramanujan's distinguished contemporaries at Cambridge had to learn the x-times tables starting out

shut yuh meandering, useless ass

I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy...memorization of rules and theorem etc without knowing what they mean. Tables is just a start of the habit of memorizing rules in the British system

And what if the if everyone at Cambridge learnt tables the same way? The poverty of great mathematicians has always been laid at the doorstep at poor presentation mathematics at an early age. 

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:
Stormborn posted:

One of the things that hampered Ramanujan the great Indian mathematician was that he learned the fundamentals of mathematics from a book of used to teach British high school boys. The book was like the one by Hardy and Littlewood, we used in primary and high school on pure math that make you solve problems very easily and encouraged the cramming of theorems. The problem for Ramanujan was he  never  expanded he theorems and his work ended up cryptic.. His notebooks are still being deciphered because at the higher levels his habit of writing out equations without any build up to how they were derived it became as code. He always got the answer right but others trying to understand and generalize his work has to hard at breaking down his ideas. Given he was an extraordinary genius means a century has gone by and the world is still to come to grips with his greatness and discoveries. 

the above whole is contradictory gibberish

Ramanujan was actually "hampered" by not having any formal training in 19th-20th century level higher mathematics

waderass does THAT have to do with learning x-times tables?

smfh

Listen to the hardy lectures dummy...plus the guy narrating his documentary....a scholar working on the notebooks mentioned the same. Ramanujan's formal training until Hardy and Littlewood was a textbook of formulas and theorems as I stated above. He also had the benefit of local mathematicians who advised he contact Hardy at Cambridge when they were no longer able to help him

 And this is about memorization simply for memorization. What hell good is the quadratic formula or the sum rule if you do not know what it means. It is like the McDonald register with icons or excel functions with no understanding of the underlying functions

what does all this have to do with memorizing tables idiot?

ALL of Ramanujan's distinguished contemporaries at Cambridge had to learn the x-times tables starting out

shut yuh meandering, useless ass

I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy...memorization of rules and theorem etc without knowing what they mean. Tables is just a start of the habit of memorizing rules in the British system

And what if the if everyone at Cambridge learnt tables the same way? The poverty of great mathematicians has always been laid at the doorstep at poor presentation mathematics at an early age. 

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

well lookee here

Captain Obvious throwing a big babee tantrum

doan buss a blood vessel bai . . . i might feel responsible if you hurt yuhself

arite?

Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

HehHeh 

Dave posted:
Stormborn posted:
ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

HehHeh 

'dave' chippin in . . . helpin 'stormborn' out

alyuh 2 deplorables deserve each other

lol

Add Reply

Likes (1)
Baseman
Post

×
×
×
×
×