/sci/ - Science & Math

conservatives: teach biblical creationism in the classroom its true biology!!
also conservatives: stop learning real math!!

>>10850844

>>10850844
t.brainlet
Left-hand product was never defined.

>>10850852
based schizo poster

You must still be in high school, because I was friends with plenty of women who became teachers. They were dumb as bricks and this doesn't surprise me.

>>10850844
learn from your errors anon we aren't doing your homework

>>10850844
5x3
five by three
five threes

3x5
3 by five
three fives

It just makes sense.

>>10850844
That 5x3 means five incidences of three.

>>10850852
you have to go back

>>10850844
>she
you mean the conservative anti-math mom who made this fake test?

>>10850917
>this fake test?
It's a real test and the answers are actually wrong.

>>10850855

a matrix is not an array u fucking mongoloid

>>10850852
No I agree most conservatives are poison and/or uneducated when it comes to the sciences. They are more businessman/politician types. They hold traditionalist values which restricts there inquisitive nature.

>>10851023
yikes

>>10850989

>>10850844
She is crying out for help; no one taught her commutativity.

>>10850876
Really? Like... I've always thought of it as 5 multiplied by 3, as in 5 is the starting value being operated on.

>>10851195
have sex

>>10850844
Clearly, the child hasn't yet learned the commutative properties of multiplication. By convention, we multiply by right to left, so 5x3 is the sum of 5 3s, not necessarily sum of 3 5s. Also by convention, a 4x6 array is 4 rows and 6 columns, not 6 columns and 4 rows. As a professional mathematician, I consider this test to be a completely reasonable introduction to higher level maths.
>>10851195
that's wrong
>>10850989
that's wrong

>>10850844
fuck off, this is obviously fake made by some salty boomer that does not understand that [common core] is just a standardization of the way everybody does maths in their head.

>>10851208
no

>>10850844
a nice way to make kids hate even more math

>>10850989
see >>10850855

>>10851051
Yeah it's not all of them there are some that stray away from Traditionalism but most tend to wire there beliefs and practical logic around the idea.

The ends justify the means.
As long as your answer is right then why should it matter?

>>10851355
>As long as your answer is right
But the answer wasn't right.

>>10850844
Based schoolteacher making students derive commutativity

>>10850874
>It just makes sense.

No it doesn't.

Five times three equals fifteen.

"Five" is the noun. "times three" is a prepositional phrase, it is something that happens to the noun. (Then equals is the verb, and fifteen is the direct object.)

According to real math, 5x3=3x5. If you want to invent some reason for one to be wrong, then it is the way the teacher did it that is wrong.

>>10851215
>I consider this test to be a completely reasonable introduction to higher level maths.

No it is completely UNREASONABLE to be hitting people with array functions when they are barely learning multiplication. In this context the commutative property is more important.

>>10851195
That's right.

>>10851229
>the way everybody does maths in their head.

Except nobody does it in their head this way. They are micromanaging people's brains at the expense of common sense. And Common Core DOES say that it is better to get the wrong answer then to get the right answer the wrong way.

>>10851378
I guess you don't know math or English.

>people are so contrarian that they're doing mental pirouettes to justify this probably fake brainlet teacher
how many layers of bait are we on right now?

>>10851392
common core is actually great as it teaches a much more intuitive understanding of mathematical operations, which is much more important than just memorizing algorithms especially when students will always have a calculator with them.

>>10851392
>In this context the commutative property is more important.
No it isn't.

>>10851392
>Except nobody does it in their head this way.
I do,
This isn't forcing left handed people to use their right hand. It's teaching them the rules so that they won't be confused later.

let me check my field axioms real quick.
OH never mind they were all erased by retards to make space for doodling sorry pal you're fucked.

>>10851392
>he thinks it's unreasonable
Post your master's in math with a minor in early education then, you fuck.

>>10851229
(((common core)))

>>10850844
There was a point in history right after WW2 where american education was incredibly informative to the public.
What a joke.

>>10850844
The -1s are actually cross marks, right? Since the total at the top of the page reads +2/6.

>>10851378
>According to real math, 5x3=3x5
Woah, slow down there, boyo. Why are you assuming 5 commutes with 3 under x? We don't do that in real math.

>>10851394
>I guess you don't know math or English.

If you had a rational reply, you would make one. Brainless insults are concessions of defeat.

>>10851215
>By convention, we multiply by right to left, so 5x3 is the sum of 5 3s,

Okay, so "5x" is something we do to the "3". Right?

Now let's apply that logic to subtraction.

5-3=?

If "5-" is something we do to the three, then the answer is negative 2! Wrong!

Math is done LEFT to RIGHT. (unless Pemdas) So your starting point is the item on the left, and the [sign+number] is what is done next.

>>10850844

Also, given that equations are read left to right, why would you stack the 4 vertically, and then go left to right for the x6?

>>10851023
Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more traditionalist than you. It will continue to be this way.

Allow me...

>>10854025
>Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more traditionalist than you.

>>10854025
>Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more traditionalist than you.

Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more liberal than their peers.

>>10854037
>Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more liberal than their peers.
don't think so, kiddo

>>10854038
>don't think so, kiddo

Stands to reason you wouldn't.

>>10850844
It means, "Give me ambiguity, or give me something else."

>>10854037
>>10854041
the greatest and most famous mathematicians were hardcore christians or jews. Except for the ancient greeks, who were liberal pedophile boyfuckers. As for politically, every mathematician has worked for the state, except possibly during revolutionary france, or when jewish mathematicians escaped nazi germany to work for a different state. So there are no liberals in mathematics. Even our women are trads and none of our fags are flamboyant.

>>10854587
They said peers. Traditionalism is meaningless because what is and is not traditional changes from place to place.
>Except for the ancient greeks, who were liberal pedophile boyfuckers.
Stop trying to apply your 21st century definition of liberalism to Ancient Greece for fuck sake.
> Even our women are trads
If they were trads they wouldn't be mathematicians in the first place.
> As for politically, every mathematician has worked for the state
What? This is completely irrelevant. Unless you have some ridiclous American definition of "liberals hate our country and the state but also secretly control the state which they want to expand fuck knows".

>>10851355
The test shows that the student lacked true understanding of the concept.

>>10850844
Repeated addition strategy
5+5+5 or 3+3+3+3+3
are technically correct,
but you are expected to write the result of all additions used i.e.
5 10 15 or
3 6 9 12 15

Draw an array to solve 4x6
0 1 2 3 4
1 1 2 3 4
2 2 4 6 8
3 3 6 9 12
4 4 8 12 16
5 5 10 15 20
6 6 12 18 24

again, you are supposed to show the complete array of numbers, not just a grid as done in the answer.

hope this helps. i wish that these concepts are better explained, to whomever took that test.

>>10854882
I feel like I didn't explain that completely enough,
the following array may be simpler to understand. Starting at zero is just a habit of mine..

1 2 3 4
2 3 4 8
3 6 9 12
4 8 12 16
5 10 15 20
6 12 18 24

In any case, the first row of numbers is 1..4 and the first column of numbers is 1..6 these end at 4 and 6, the numbers asked to show the multiplication table for. All other numbers are first row number multiplied by first column number for said cell. For example the number 24 on column 4 and row 6 is the result of multiplying 4 and 6. You multiply the row number and column number.

These exercises are not just asking to solve 5x3 and 4x6. The point is to show that you understand the concept and construct of multiplication (assignment 1) and systematic visualization of multiplication (assignment 2).

>>10851278
Wrong. The array is just a representation of a matrix. For [math] m,n\in\mathbb{N} [/math], an [math] m\times n [/math] real matrix [math] A [/math] is a function from [math] [m]\times [n] [/math] into [math] \mathbb{R} [/math] given by [math] A\colon (i,j)\mapsto a_{i,j} [/math].

>>10852969
>5-3=?
Subtraction is technically the addition of a negative number. It is taught as a discrete operation because logically to us it is, and taking away is a simpler concept than the concept of a recorded value of amount lacking, i.e. the negative number.
5-3
is actually
5 + (-3)
we add the lack of 3 to 5.

At least this is how I was taught.

>>10854032
A lot of these common core memes are fake.

>>10854030
I'm pretty sure this one turned out to not be real. Or maybe I'm just hoping

>>10854960
they don't make sense either way, as they're all memes about stupid teachers not a curriculum, it's not common core's fault only subhumans want to teach at public schools

>>10852969
5x3 is five times three, that's 3 5 times ie
3 3 3 3 3

>>10850844
>five times three
>five times the number three
>the number three reapeated five times

>>10850844
Why did you assume the teacher is female?

>>10855391
Bc shes a stupid cunt

>>10855238
multiplication is commutative, 5x3 = 3x5. apparently children know this but teachers don't.

>>10855775
Yes, the product is the same. Still one is 5 3s and the other is 3 5s.

>>10855391
Feminine handwriting plus numerical imbecility.

>>10850852
This guy has trump as his sleep paralysis hallucination

>>10855391
>pink ink
>feminine handwriting
and also
>retarded

>>10855805
no. there is no precedence in a product. if it was a sentence spelling out "five times three" we could discuss this, but written down as "5x3" or "3x5" it's the exact same thing.

>>10855930
gotta disagree on feminine handwriting. women aren't usually this sloppy and angular.

>>10851023
> not christian
> not retarded or bigoted either
Basically all of science is the product of Christian inquiry. Divine order create objective precondition for science, things exist and laws dont change arbitrarily, and because we have mind of mirroring god its knowable.

>>10855939
5x3 is 3 3 3 3 3
3x5 is 5 5 5
The product is the same. Why not work through a proof that multiplication commutes under the reals.

>>10854952
100% correct - subtraction is just used before a student has been introduced to negative numbers... after that the notation is a detriment honestly

>>10851278
see>>10850855

>>10856039
>5x3 is 3 3 3 3 3
>3x5 is 5 5 5
No! Stop it! That's not how math works at all. There is NO ORDER implied whatsoever. also you forgot to make it a sum. you meant to write 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3. "3 3 3 3 3" would be another product with a very different result.

>>10855939
"5x3" is "five times three"
"3x5" is "three times five"

>>10856067
p.s. or the number 33333 written in a weird style, I guess.

>>10856067
>no order implied whatsoever
Go back to 89 with your C, boomer

>>10856069
yes, both of which are the exact same thing.

>>10850844
She was right
However, mandatory education is bad

>>10850989
A mongol is array a knot fucking your Matrix

>>10856136
Umm wrong sweaty, that's only under the axiom of communativity, which the assignment failed to assert at the beginning

>>10856083
>both of which are the exact same thing.
If you buy three five packs it doesn't cost the same as five three packs.

>>10856083
They are not the same. The product is the same. Also, prove it.

>>10850844
This should have been 1/2 a point off each

>>10850844
It’s shit like this that made Germany outlaw homeschooling

>>10854709
Traditionalism may change from place to place, but probably every pre 1900 society held these traditional values
>religion
>worked for the state
>maybe starting a family
Obviously in Europe, most mathematicians were Christian, and worked in state-run universities, help positions in the military, and worked on engineering projects in the city. Some even married into nobility. In other societies such as the aztecs, the mathematicians were also priests, and everyone served in the military. You will not find a single society that had mathematicians where these were not the traditional views. You claim in>>10854037>>10851023
>Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more liberal than their peers
>conservatives are uneducated when it comes to the sciences
so I will list a number of mathematicians who were not conservatives, not liberals, whose mathematical contributions would be considered "almost all of mathematics"
>all ancient greek mathematicians, since as you say, we can't call them liberals just because they were boy fuckers. but they were certainly religious and worked for the state
>fermat
>euler
>gauss
>cantor
>newton
>laplace
>bernoulli
>cauchy
>godel
>ussr mathematicians
>wolfram
Now name all the bitchass liberals you want. The whole of their mathematical contributions doesn't even come close to the names I just listed. If conservative universities in America started banning free speech like liberals, and even went as far as to burn all the liberal mathematicians' contributions, math majors wouldn't be any different. On the other hand, the contributions of liberal mathematicians is barely felt, even in modern math. Face it, all you idiots are good for is crying and coming up with bullshit philosophy.

>>10854709
Traditionalism may change from place to place, but probably every pre 1900 society held these traditional values
>religion
>worked for the state
>maybe starting a family
Obviously in Europe, most mathematicians were Christian, and worked in state-run universities, help positions in the military, maybe started business and families, and worked on engineering projects for the city. Some even married into nobility. In other societies such as the aztecs, the mathematicians were also priests, and everyone served in the military. You will not find a single society that had mathematicians where these were not the traditional views. You claim in>>10854037>>10851023
>Almost all of mathematics was discovered by people more liberal than their peers
>conservatives are uneducated when it comes to the sciences
so I will list a number of mathematicians who were traditionals/conservatives, not liberals, whose mathematical contributions would be considered "almost all of mathematics"
>all ancient greek mathematicians, since as you say, we can't call them liberals just because they were boy fuckers. but they were certainly religious and worked for the state
>fermat
>euler
>gauss
>cantor
>newton
>laplace
>bernoulli
>cauchy
>godel
>ussr mathematicians
>wolfram
Now name all the bitchass liberals you want. The whole of their mathematical contributions doesn't even come close to the names I just listed. If conservative universities in America started banning free speech like liberals, and even went as far as to burn all the liberal mathematicians' contributions, math majors wouldn't be any different. On the other hand, the contributions of liberal mathematicians is barely felt, even in modern math. Face it, all you idiots are good for is crying and coming up with bullshit philosophy.

>>10856400
>so I will list a number of mathematicians who were traditionals/conservatives
By what measure?

>>10850844
Do people actually need to think about adding up the numbers to solve a multiplication? When my head saw an easy multiplication it would just solve it automatically.

>>10856403
>by what measure
Don't give me that stupid shit we both know what a conservative is. You can't "measure" beliefs/politics like you can a distance. "by what measure" is just some pseudo-intellectual crap when it comes to this. You're probably about to start moving goalposts or claiming the people on my list were liberals/weren't conservative enough to count. As if newton and euler, who were known for mocking atheists, were liberals.
Here's an example: Cauchy was exiled from revolutionary france because he hated liberals and even when he returned he refused to swear allegiance to the new government. Everyone on my list worked for the state and held religious beliefs. Most of the Enlightenment era guys opposed the then radical beliefs of natural rights proposed by liberal philosophers of the time. Is that traditional enough for you? I've done my part of this debate. Now it's your turn to refute me and name some fucking mathematicians to prove your point, and we can go from there, or you can admit you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

>>10856435
>I've done my part of this debate.
You have one guy cauchy.

>>10856471
>you have one guy
prove it. I don't think anybody would disagree that I also have Newton. You've made your claims, now back them up. You can't find one liberal mathematician with more important contributions than Cauchy.

>>10856480
What exactly makes newton a conservative?

>>10856490
>still asking questions
what exactly makes you think any pre 1900s mathematician was a liberal? And for the record, I can name a few extremely important mathematicians who were undoubtedly liberal, and I even put one on my list by accident, but the fact that you can't name one just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about or are skirting the issue to bait/troll/promote your agenda on the Japanese neo nazi forum.

>>10856501
>what exactly makes you think any pre 1900s mathematician was a liberal?
College educated people are more liberal.

>>10856506
>College educated people are more liberal.
ARE more liberal, but back then WEREN'T more liberal, and we're talking about almost all of mathematics here, so it seems that you've made the fallacy of thinking things that are the way they are now always were that way. I accept victory here, and any further replies I give (you) will be mere victory laps, no longer taking your clown world ass seriously.

>>10856490
>>10856501
This is insipid

>>10856515
blame the guy who can't name even 1 (one) liberal mathematician. Can you?

>>10856400
Galois, Hardy, Russell, Borel, Noether, and that's just what I could easily verify in the span of 5 minutes. One could also make the argument for Hilbert considering he actively worked against the common belief at the time that women should not teach at a university level, very much an anti-traditionalism thing to do.

There are liberal mathematicians and conservative mathematicians, and a whole lot of mathematicians who don't care. Both of you are dipshits who are trying to politicize mathematics.

>If conservative universities in America started banning free speech like liberals, and even went as far as to burn all the liberal mathematicians' contributions, math majors wouldn't be any different.
Literally the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site. You should be proud of yourself.

>>10856519
that's all well and dandy, but your post actively prevents me from continuing to online bully this guy, so please remove it. It's, for the most part, a shitposting thread anyway, and the main point of the OP was addressed, so let's just keep derailing it. OK?

>>10856517
I imagine most are liberal in the classical meaning. Still, I don't care about their politics.

>>10856526
Well since you ask so nicely. I got too heated and took the bait, my bad.

Bully along.

>>10856530
Liberals want/believe in some kind of change. Most mathematicians worked for the state and were loyal to the king. They therefore didn't want change, since it would lead to an interruption of their cashflow. The mathematicians mentioned in >>10856519
had some kind of motive for being liberal. As examples, Noether was a Jewess, and therefore, being a mathematician made her liberal by default. Galois was a young hothead who hadn't yet earned fame and fortune for his great ideas, and died too early to settle down and be a wise old conservative. Russell was a "liberal," but did a quick 360 moonwalk on that shit when he realized he was failing at trying to become a chad, and all his liberal shit was probably his biggest regret of his life. If we ignore the polarized arguments I made at that pro liberal guy, we could probably come to the conclusion that there were a few really great conservatives, a few really great liberals, a few really great moderates, and then a bunch of decent moderates in math. Because becoming educated in college usually makes you more of a moderate, not liberal.

>>10851023
this is good bait or you are really stupid

>>10856403
This guy is asking the real questions
>>10856400
As for you. No they were not liberals and Christianity has its place in Traditionalism and conservatism. However religion isn't that strong of an indicator to ones political standing. Mathematicians and Scientists are naturally more left because of there openness and creative intellect. Being born into a religion doesn't dictate there inquisitive nature. Everyone you named probably in fact most likely put there passions above god or religious factions. They simply didn't worry about it. If they did then they wouldn't have poured out such staggering profound contributions. Traditionalism is the very thing that kills curiosity. So how could have these men/women (if any) held that belief system. If you go back to there time they probably wouldn't tell you to your face what they really belief because going against religion and political beliefs was a serious thing and would cause great detriment to there social status in there professions. So perhaps a few might have been strictly more conservative/traditionalist types. That being said I would argue that most of them atleast on the inside knew that Discovery and inquisitive nature was part of there identity and that they knew that binding themselves to a group or belief was only to create a facade so they wouldn't suffer rejection and or not get there works published let alone being employeed. We can't possibly know what they thought because we weren't them. To claim they were traditionalist and by transitivity not curious is quite the contradiction given there efforts. Don't let modern leftist fool you nor right wings for that matter. If anything they were more centrists because both left and right hold very good points but depending on the individual it's which points are worth following. So assuming they were more conservative types they definitely would have left out Traditionalism just by demonstration of there scientific and mathematical achievements.

>>10856558
Go on anon indulge me.

>>10856578
inquisitiveness is nice, but modern math is building the tradition of mathematical formalism and constructivism. So there must be some tradition to math now, so no mathematician can be a true liberal anymore. We must all follow in the footsteps of the greats. So math has its roots in tradition. The best mathematicians are able to think exactly like the mathematicians of the past to solve the problems of the past. How much greater would it have been had Andrew Wiles proved FLT using only methods of the past?

>>10856542
It's silly to converts non political perple to political people. I'm interested in their math not their politics.I'm mostly liberal myself except in abortion.

>>10856593
the mathematicians I mentioned were definitely liberals. Russel was literally a liberal cuck 100 years before that was a thing and by the time he switched to being a conservative it was too little too late. Poor guy, but he kinda deserved it.

>>10856589
Centrist anon not a liberal nor conservative. The Traditionalism has its place but in the social context absolutely not. I would call it traditional methods but research isn't based on traditionalism. We use the old methods to create new ones. However strictly using the old methods never lets us discover anything new. It's a better mindset to not rely on Traditionalism anyway because that's just boring and reserved. It could even derive narrow-mindedness.

>>10856622
Should kids be using induction to prove commutativity?

>>10856627
Yes obviously but I think you're missing my point. I'm talking in more of a social context. Scientific progression. Not methods, I only mentioned how old methods are used to derive new ones. That's what Mathematics is. When you read a paper it's literally some old techniques to provide something new and insightful. If you were to substitute Traditionalism that very process wouldn't happen. That being said with the social part. If you are a traditionalist then you are pretty much a person living in a box when it comes to sciences. Again, using traditional methods is not the sum of Traditionalism.

>>10856636
Fuck it I just re-read this and I have no idea what I am even saying anymore nvm just disregard this

>>10856599
Bruh, they were classical liberals not the type we have today playing identity politics. Long live tulsi, long live yang, long live bernie,Lon live trump.

>>10856646
what about identifying as chad when you're clearly not?

>>10850876
>what is the commutative property

>>10856637
just kidding guys, it reads fine.

What a weird way to teach math.