[HN Gopher] Intermediate Algebra
___________________________________________________________________
Intermediate Algebra
Author : parsecs
Score : 22 points
Date : 2021-09-06 22:02 UTC (57 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (saylordotorg.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (saylordotorg.github.io)
| [deleted]
| Gehinnn wrote:
| > Irrational numbers are defined as any numbers that cannot be
| written as a ratio of two integers.
|
| > Finally, the set of real numbers, denoted R, is defined as the
| set of all rational numbers combined with the set of all
| irrational numbers.
|
| I'm sorry, this is not how math works. What is a number?
|
| Also the definition of Q is missing the quotient construction (or
| any motivation of how to deal with ka/kb = a/b).
| syops wrote:
| I think it's clear you've never taught low level mathematics
| courses. There is a lot of hand waving and brain washing that
| happens. The vast majority of people don't know what a number
| is in a precise, mathematical sense. At the level of the
| intended audience it would be wholly inappropriate talk about
| the definition of a number.
|
| My background on this topic is that I've taught intermediate
| algebra for over 20 years.
| Gehinnn wrote:
| You are right, I didn't teach low level math courses, but
| this brain washing is also precisely why I didn't understand
| math in high school. You cannot argue with this kind of
| definitions. Everything feels as if it was randomly defined
| by the teacher. This "intuition" simplifies teaching, but
| makes understanding harder. It is like a game where you
| invent rules as you play. No student can win this game.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| A problem is that lots of lower-education math instructors
| don't understand these concepts deeply themselves. I think
| it could be okay if these things were clearly framed as
| "true for the problems we're looking at, but not
| universal", but they were typically presented as universal
| by teachers who themselves don't know any better, and that
| really caught me up too.
| syops wrote:
| Here's the definition of 2 using the standard construction
| with the Peano axioms. It's the set containing 0 and 1. The
| number 1 is the set containing 0 and 0 exists by one of the
| axioms. It's not something a person in intermediate algebra
| can understand. For one, the natural question then is,
| "what is a set?". Whatever one does there has to be some
| brain washing in order to get started. This is unavoidable
| unless one thinks _Principia Mathematica_ should be the
| starting point.
| threatofrain wrote:
| A number as a general concept is an informal term within
| mathematics.
|
| Defining a rational number as a form consisting of pairs of
| integers without a 0 denominator is pretty typical. Defining
| the reals as Q completed by the irrational numbers is also
| pretty typical.
|
| I see this as a volume meant for an educator who is teaching
| what is known as Algebra 1/2 in the US, and as such, it is very
| high quality and thorough. It is very typical in pedagogy to
| first teach the objects and their behavior for intuition, and
| only them do you discuss formalisms.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-06 23:00 UTC)