/sci/ - Science & Math

look up math tests from the early 1900's for middle schoolers most highschool kids nowadays would probably fail

>>7013274
Read "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Ian Stewart

>>7013274
All that just to get into a post office and mail a letter? Glad I was born after email.

The average person is dumber now in fields like mathematics yes, but the average person also knows a lot more information in general now

These are questions of numeracy. People in modern times have a much better knowledge of complex topics at the expense of solving simple ones.

>>7013303

But how many people went to school at all back then?

>>7013303
>get the shit beaten out of you in school
>not understanding math
chose one

>>7013313
>what is useless knowledge?
What paint Paris Hilton uses for her fingernails doesn't justify next level stupidity in topics like math or logic

>>7013313
>but the average person also knows a lot more information in general now

Educated people today don't know Latin
Educated people today don't know Greek
Educated people today don't know Euclid
Educated people today don't read literature
Educated people today don't read philosophy
Educated people today don't know any trades
Educated people today don't know mathematics
Educated people today don't question news feeds
Educated people today don't care for the liberal arts
Educated people toady don't listen to classical music
Educated people today don't care for international politics
Educated people today don't care about government overreach
Educated people today only can speak one vernacular language
Educated people toady don't study history to any meaningful depth
Educated people toady think reading popsci teaches them about science
Educated people today think scientists discover the true nature of the world
Educated people today think all things will be possible with science given enough time
Educated people today think technology will continue growing exponentially if not even faster
Educated people today think immortality will be possible and they will have 72 sexbot AIs at their disposal
Educated people today seriously believe people were religious in the past because they couldn't tell fairy tales from reality


Sure, people today have the ~possibility~ to know more than past generations with greater ease but they have chosen to be blinder than any other generation.

>>7013334
Yes. That's what having machines to do simple computations will do! Back then, it would be very difficult to develop a knowledge of complex topics without great numeracy.

>>7013495
You should've put latin in the middle. Now you're triggering my missed-OCD-trigger-trigger

>>7013495
Nice text pyramid brah

>>7013495
>Educated people today think immortality will be possible and they will have 72 sexbot AIs at their disposal


their right!
I'd kill myself right not if it weren't likely

I will dedicate my life to developing sexbot AI faggot

>>7013495
RIP the polymath. Specialization specialization specialization.

>>7013523

>tfw no ty bf

jdimsa

>>7013410
>But how many people went to school at all back then?
What difference does it make?

Barely anyone going to middle school in the past VS everyone going to high school now but barely anyone learns anything beyond elementary school level topics (because "when are we ever going to need XX in real life" whining) today is the effectively same level of mass education. In fact, it is far worse today as high school degrees are now meaningless as no one can tell if you learnt anything in school or not. Now everyone must go to college and colleges must "streamline" their education to what's important for working jobs (aka elementary school level topics) without the pointless theoretical courses (aka an actual education) which is just destroying education for everyone.

>>7013309
kek

>>7013334
>People in modern times have a much better knowledge of complex topics at the expense of solving simple ones

You mean much better knowledge of flappy birds?

>>7013523
There's too much fucking math out there to bother. Why have a shitty understanding of many subjects when you can have a deep understanding of a very diverse and involved subject?

>>7013516
doesn't even know how pyramids look

>>7013579
Because most of the great discoveries and progressions in the technology of thought were cross-disciplinary.

But I guess it's not fair to say that everyone today only understands one thing. Many if not most scientists have a few different cross-disciplinary areas of expertise.

>>7013517
HAHAHAHA

>>7013495

what a beautiful text curve

you should read some stuff by Schiller. he thought the Greeks had it right with their cultural balance and we're fucking ourselves by specializing

captcha: ayethans man

>>7013589
the greatest discoveries are also made by collaborations of people with many different fields of expertise.

Sometimes, when people talk to each other, we make more advances.

It took more than one man to build the first microprocessor.

>>7013274

But if minorities can't understand the math it's racist and they need to lower standards so that they learn better

>>7013596
How can you get really got at something without specializing?

>>7013616
By not wasting time on 4chan, bird dogging chicks, attending the ballet, etc.

>>7013608
TFW the cloud intelligence is already here.

>>7013648
People that specialize in something are not wasting their time and yet they don't have the time to spare to deeply several things.

>People today do not know how to find the root of 331930385956! How outrageous!
Shit, /sci/ is becoming worse than /lit/.

>>7013663
Then they don't have the juice. Specialize all you want — if you don't have it, you don't have it.

>>7013495
And yet, educated people of 100 years ago led the world into global full-on wars... twice.

>>7013664
I'd say I know how to find the square root of 331930385956!, but that number's so big it'll probably crash my calculator.

>>7013683

Right. Because the actions of a small sample represents the rest of the educated populace at that time.

>>7013555
A lot, actually. Considering that education was available mainly for the well-to-do, and school resources didn't have to be stretched as far as an ill-fitting shirt over that woman's ridiculously large tits the other day.

>>7013683
Maybe they were proponents of punctuated equilibrium.

>>7013686
>I'd say I know how to find the square root of 331930385956!, but that number's so big it'll probably crash my calculator.

Obviously. The number is about 10^12 digits long.

>>7013715
1 byte can store 2 digits and change. I'd only need, what, 500 GB of RAM or so. I can wait.

>>7013274
WHADDAMI GUNNAHAFTA NO DIS FOR

>>7013790
error term is ξ^5/120, prepare to die

>>7013790
error term is e^ξ*x^5/120, prepare to die

>>7013683
>And yet, educated people of 100 years ago led the world into global full-on wars... twice.

They were cleaning out the lower classes

>Educated people today don't know Latin

Dead language that is completely fabricated in all areas of verbal communication.

>Educated people today don't know Greek

Even deader and is even more fictionalized, unless you are talking about modern Greek, but that has no roots in Ancient Greek... You may as well be comparing Portuguese and Spanish, and then not have any way to speak Portuguese.

If you are going to have to know a language, at least know one that is useful. A lot of people in the US speak Spanish, and a lot of people in Europe speak English. Both are functionally more useful than Greek or Latin.

>Educated people today don't read literature

They read more on average though, it is only in books that reading is down.

>Educated people today don't read philosophy

I wouldn't read it either after you've read at least a few of the Classics in High School. It's garbage all the way down.

>Educated people today don't know any trades

That's why they are educated...

>Educated people today don't know mathematics

All formal education in the world, barring art and so on literally requires you to take math. And since there are more educated people on Earth than there has ever been in totality in the past...

>Educated people today don't question news feeds

But they do. Only octogenarians show complete acceptance of information given to them by an authority.

>Educated people today don't care for the liberal arts

But they do. Just no one likes hearing about artists bitching.

>Educated people today don't listen to classical music

But they do. Classical Music routinely clocks in as the most listened to music for studying because the factoid given to them by the PopSci outlets you loathe so much has ingrained into them the idea that Classic Music = Better Studying.

>Educated people today don't care for international politics

Holy shit, are you fucking retard? The 24 hours news cycle makes this the most informed generation ever, period.

>>7013495

>Educated people today don't care about government overreach

Have you been to /pol/?

>Educated people today only can speak one vernacular language

Except they don't.

>Educated people toady don't study history to any meaningful depth

History is the most studied topic by people around the globe.

>Educated people toady think reading popsci teaches them about science

I guess if you believe that, sure.

>Educated people today think scientists discover the true nature of the world

This has been a goal of science for centuries now. The model is wrong but, Newtonian Physics bro, maybe you shouldn't have slept during the entry Physics course.

>Educated people today think all things will be possible with science given enough time

This is not an invalid statement.

>Educated people today think technology will continue growing exponentially if not even faster

But it is and will, so long as external forces or internal forces don't destroy the system.

>Educated people today think immortality will be possible and they will have 72 sexbot AIs at their disposal

Genetic immortality has already been realized in nature. Sexbot AI's already exist, if you not trying to apply strong AI.

>Educated people today seriously believe people were religious in the past because they couldn't tell fairy tales from reality

But they did. Do you even indulgences?

>>7014800
>If you are going to have to know a language, at least know one that is useful. A lot of people in the US speak Spanish, and a lot of people in Europe speak English. Both are functionally more useful than Greek or Latin.

That's the lie they sold us on but all that happened is we went from being trilingual to monolingual

>They read more on average though, it is only in books that reading is down.

Reading trash doesn't counts

>literally requires you to take math

Just arithmetic and they drag it out for 12 years.

>The 24 hours news cycle makes this the most informed generation ever

"Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe! What went wrong with the new generation?!" is hardly news.

>>7013274
Please note this was the math test for women clerks at a federal agency back in the 1897.
Stop and consider the historical context of that.

>>7013735
Answer is 576134

It only took 512 MB with really bad coding. The trick is having the computer cross check a list of know square roots rather then actually generate the answer.

>>7014800
>If you are going to have to know a language, at least know one that is useful. A lot of people in the US speak Spanish, and a lot of people in Europe speak English. Both are functionally more useful than Greek or Latin.

That's the lie they sold us on but all that has happened is we went from being trilingual to monolingual.

>They read more on average though, it is only in books that reading is down.

Reading trash doesn't count:
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-american-adults-have-low-and-declining-reading-proficiency-20131008-story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/top-reading_n_1373680.html
>A compilation of the top 40 books teens in grades 9-12 are reading in school shows that the average reading level of that list is 5.3 -- barely above the fifth grade.
http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/us-adults-are-dumber-than-the-average-human/

>literally requires you to take math

Just arithmetic and they drag it out for 12 years to make it look more impressive.

>The 24 hours news cycle makes this the most informed generation ever

"Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe! What went wrong with the new generation?!" is hardly news but propaganda.

>>7014823
>Have you been to /pol/?

Have you been to the NSA?

>This has been a goal of science for centuries now

That's an Aristotelian view on science and it's dead wrong.

>This is not an invalid statement

It's an outrageously wrong statement.

>But it is and will

No, it's already nearing its fundamental limits.

>But they did.

They didn't and it's an incredibly childish view of religion.

>Do you even indulgences

Indulgences were never a get into heaven free card, and you would've known that if you knew anything about history.

>>7014843
That is the answer to square root of 331930385956, not 331930385956!

>>7014843
>>Answer is 576134

He was asking for the root of "331930385956!"=331930385956*331930385955*....*2*1

>>It only took 512 MB with really bad coding

How the fuck do you waste so much ram calculating a integer root of 331930385956?

>The trick is having the computer cross check a list of know square roots rather then actually generate the answer

The trick is to do binary search on the digits.

>nobody discussing how to solve the problems

>>7014952
Plug them into maple

6.

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{2}{10^{^{n}}} = \frac{2/10}{1 - 1/10} = \frac{2}{9}

The second part of the question could be answered by spamming common denominator addition and a lot of paper but there might be a geometric error bound formula to elegantly do it


Help me out autists

>>7014952
I think I solved number 8, or maybe I'm just retarded.
I got 421 yards.

>>7014970

fuck me

<span class="math">\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{2}{10^{^{n}}} = \frac{2/10}{1 - 1/10} = \frac{2}{9}[/spoiler]

If you're a clerk and don't have a calculator this is the kind of shit you need to do.
It's nothing to do with intelligence, it's all to do with lack of technology.

>>7013495

I just have to comment on that beautiful text curve

8.

p = partial distance (what one man does)
t = total distance

5p = t - 156
7p = t - 50

subtract

-2p = -106
p = 53

5(53) = t - 156
t = 421

>>7014970
Isn't it just 2/9 * 10^-10?

>>7013495
Nice text curve, but
>toady

>>7014952
1) 1st grade stuff. Anyone here can do it surely.
2) non-standard metrics, would not touch. either way it's simple ratios.
3) plug it into a calculator
4) what's a crown? what's an? what's a d? see 2. I really don't know what this is saying at all
5) see 1
6) this is some common core level of obfuscation. if it as a geometric series isn't good enough for them, fuck em
7) how am I supposed to know how 1897 stocks work?
8) there are lots of assumptions needed for this one, I guess we're just supposed to assume a constant linear work rate per worker. y - 5x =156, y - 7x = 50. two equations, two unknowns. y = 421
9) see 7
10) (225 - 3/4*x)/2 = x/4, etc

>>7014980

That was way easier than I thought. Good observation.

0.2222222222222222... - 0.2222222222
= 0.0000000000222222...
= 0.22222222... * 10^(-10)
= 2/9 * 10^(-10)

Can someone explain what they're asking about in 10? "now as numerous as the rest" what? Were the farmers popping out babies at a faster rate to catch up or something?

>>7014884

>I'm absolutely sure of this
>I'm absolutely sure of that

wow bro you're so smart you should send these results to people and you'll win the prize for knowing everything

Is #1 just spamming common denominators? The minus sign placement makes me think there's an easier way to simplify it but probably not.

>>7014997
It means that after the exodus, there are now as many agriculture workers as there are people who are not agriculture workers.

So you start with x agriculture workers and y other people. You end up with x/4 agriculture workers and y-5 other people. x/4 = y-5, x + y = 230.

>>7014999

trips but >can't know nuffin

>>7015004

forgot to hit enter. I really should go to bed now

>>7015005
you probably should bruh, and so should I

>>7013550
I would let him tear my boypussy up

>>7013274
you do realize that this test just like many others made for minorities and women during that time period were purposely made impossible to pass, right?
google voting literacy tests to see the outrageously stupid tests some minorities had to try and do (under 10 minutes) to vote.

pic related, an example of what im talking about. tests with 40+ outrageously stupid questions that had to be completed in 10 minutes.

>>7013616
By being a jack of all trades master of none and then lying about your mastery of a variety of subjects. Due to the lack of internet in the past it was very easy to scam your way through life in this fashion as long as you remembered to run when a real expert came calling.

>>7013711
THANK YOU! I've been trying to remember the term punctuated equilibrium for almost a month now.

>>7013579
>There's too much fucking math out there to bother
You don't need to do math to be a polymath.
>>7013495
Apparently people today have time machines and I'm pretty sure that tops anything you think the average "educated person" did 100 years ago.

how are you supposed to find the square root of that really big number without just factoring and guessing?

>>7015067
Lol @ question 30.

>>7015134
You're not. Look at who the application is directed towards.

The one for men was much easier.

>>7015147
And by easier, I of course mean possible for someone who either
a) doesn't have a calculator or
b) isn't some sort of savant.

>>7015134
There's a standard algorithm for it, similar to long division

http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/square-root-algorithm.php

>>7015067
See also: the questions that were given to Jewish applicants to Moscow State University

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1556.pdf

>>7015149
A lot of these seem fairly trivial now. Is this given only to graduate level students, or freshmen as well?

>>7015155
Freshmen, I think

>Now, after thirty years, these problems seem easier. Mostly, this is because
the ideas of how to solve these problems have spread and are now a part of the
standard set of ideas. Thirty years ago these problems were harder to solve and,
in addition, the students were given these problems one after another until they
failed one of them, at which point they were given a failing mark.

>>7015161
>the students were given these problems one after another until they failed one of them
>failed one of them
Oh god. you have to get 100% to pass? as a freshman?
I skipped straight to the problems and didn't see that.

>>7015134
Newton's method homeslice. Might take a while though.

>>7015149
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1556.pdf
How the hell do you do number 3?

>>7014800

Your arguments are more convincing but Im still gonne give it to the other guy because he formatted his text like a pyramid

>>7015134
You can use any rootfinding algorithm to solve x^2-#=0. You could also graphically solve by plotting y=x and the y=#/x and find where they intersect.

>>7015177
You aren't.

Given a triangle |AB| = 1, |AC| = 100, |BC| = 99, it is clearly impossible to have a point M on C such that |MC| <= 1 and |AM| <= 1 (you can see this by drawing a circle of radius 1 around A; it will not reach the line |MC| where M is 1 unit away) and thus it's impossible for |KM| <=1 since for |MC| <= 1, A will be the closest point on AB to M.

>>7015177
Solutions are at the end of the pdf

>>7013579
Everytime I learn something new about something I don't expect to know I am fascinated by it, This causes pleasure, and it seems I feel I learn more overall if I focus on diversity than on depth, I am WAY more exposed to more things when I learn something out of my field than when I learn something deep about my field. Having a shallow understanding of the topic isn't very fun either, so I attempt to learn as deep as I can about every topic I encounter.

>>7013616
specializing won't guarantee you will be good at it.
you can be good at something by being good at something.

>>7013576
by people, he meant educated, smart intellectuals who are pushing society forward and building personal wealth - which does not include you

>>7015194
The triangle you described does not satisfy the triangle inequality.

>>7013274
>there are more darkies in the world than ever before
Thanks America

>>7014800
most people are not educated tho

I know I am not.

This fucking exam is insane

>>7013313
>the average person also knows a lot more useless information in general now
FTFY

>>7013334
>People in modern times have a much better knowledge of complex topics
People in modern times are fucking stymied by complex topics, which you might know if you occasionally emerged from your mom's basement.

I wish for all computers to be destroyed in a whim only to see people die

>>7013709
>stretched as far as an ill-fitting shirt over that woman's ridiculously large tits
just try to focus on the topic, for once

you do realize most of these "test from the past" images are hoaxes?

Honestly I think the test is okay but question number three is borderline trolling, especially for a "clerk" position.

>>7013495
That's a hell of a lot of generalizations you make. In any case, you aren't describing intellectuals. You're describing psuedointellectuals/casual science followers.
None of those people are educated.
Many EDUCATED people fit most if not all of the criteria you specify.
I was laughing while I read because I do not yet consider myself educated enough to call myself an educated person, however, I fit all of your criteria to be educated besides latin.
And I'll get to that eventually.
That's what educated people are like. They are also autists, or asocial, so they don't show themselves much. But don't worry anon, they still exist.

Only white people had good jobs and went to schools back then. The answer is simple, non whites have brought the average down.
>inb4 go back to /pol/
>inb4 I'm even racist
>inb4 you don't accept my unequivocal truth

Are you all fucking retarded? The entrance exam literally tests nothing more than elementary arithmetic and solving linear equations. Conceptionally every 6th grade kid should be able to do this. The only difficulty is that the examples themselves are antiquated. But that's how they did it in school 100 years ago. If the same exercises were stated in the form of modern word problems, you'd laugh your ass off at how easy they are.

>>7015097
So like Einstein?

>>7013495

>Educated people today don't know Greek
>Educated people today don't know Euclid
>Educated people today don't read literature
>Educated people today don't read philosophy
>Educated people today don't know any trades
>Educated people today don't know mathematics
>Educated people today don't question news feeds
>Educated people today don't care for the liberal arts
>Educated people toady don't listen to classical music
>Educated people today don't care for international politics
>Educated people today don't know Latin
>Educated people today don't care about government overreach
>Educated people today only can speak one vernacular language
>Educated people toady don't study history to any meaningful depth
>Educated people toady think reading popsci teaches them about science
>Educated people today think scientists discover the true nature of the world
>Educated people today think all things will be possible with science given enough time
>Educated people today think technology will continue growing exponentially if not even faster
>Educated people today think immortality will be possible and they will have 72 sexbot AIs at their disposal
>Educated people today seriously believe people were religious in the past because they couldn't tell fairy tales from reality

Ahh, much better now.

>>7013495
>equating fedoras with "educated people"

shiggy le diggy

>>7015252
>>7015265

Are you implying that some troll made these questions in photoshop purposefully hard to get a chuckle out of everyone struggling with them? If so, they didn't try hard enough. Or maybe they favored subtlety a bit too much.

>>7015345
>>Educated people today don't know Latin

You should have excluded this line from your post, and the text would have formed a really nice curve.

>>7015785

I think you mean Greek

>>7013614
>minorities
No, just niggers and spics

>>7013274
Back then people used to be forced to memorize a ton of computational algorithms for computing all of that bullshit. Nowadays now one cares if you know an algorithm that will let you calculate a the square root of a 10 digit number withing 10 minutes by just doing a ton of subtraction and multiplication across an entire page. They would much prefer you do it using a calculator because then it will not only be much more efficient for everyone but you're less likely to fuck it up.

>>7015905
let's not forget women

>>7014843
>Please note this was the math test for women clerks at a federal agency back in the 1897.
Yup, these women were basically at the level we'd consider college-educated today (although they probably only went to high school or a junior college).

Although it's only high school math, the problems are hard, and far fewer people finished high school in those days. The women who passed this test would be on a social and intellectual level with the kind of person who gets a respectable college degree today.

College is the new high school.

>>7013495
sick exponential bro.

>>7015910
>algorithm that will let you calculate a the square root of a 10 digit number withing 10 minutes
>10 minute

HAHAHA, no. It's far faster than that dumb ass.

>>7013274
this is a test for women and little girls

if you can't complete it, don't worry, because a clerk job sucks

>mfw men were smart and realized this 100 years ago

>>7016143
>>College is the new high school.

Say no to easy mass access to college legislation. Only you can stop the destruction of education.

>>7016143
Also, since they didn't have calculators, people learned a lot more arithmetic in those days. Basically nobody learns to take square roots by hand anymore.

It's also looks more superficially difficult because you might feel as though there is a clever solution which you have to figure out. For the most part, these are simply long and tedious problems of arithmetic and very basic algebra, of the kind that people actually had to solve for practical reasons very commonly.

>>7016160

Compared to the job of a potato farmer the clerk job might be OK

>>7016167

Not true about manually deriving square roots. Good middle and high school math curricula still include all the old methods.

At mine, we were forbidden to use calculators until high school.

>>7016176
And how long ago did you go to school?

>Good middle and high school math curricula still include all the old methods.
>Good
Doubtful. It's wasting the students' time.

Teaching them to program a computer to find square roots using arithmetic operations: good.
Teaching them to find square roots by hand: what why.

>>7016182
Programming is the work of retarded monkeys. I rather they spend 12 years learning arithmetic than 12 years learning worthless emac keybinds

>>7016157
you're a fuckin autist. why don't you read a book for a change

>>7016182

Ah, but then you have to teach them to program. It's no longer a math class at that point.

Have fun explaining that to the parents.

>>7016182
>Teaching them to find square roots by hand: what why.

It's better because they are thinking about what they are doing ~while~ they are doing it. With code, they'll just blindly copy-paste the algorithm without thinking about it and hit run. They don't see how it works nor question it correctness.

>>>/g/tfo

>>7016182
And how do you think you program a computer to find square roots you dumb nigger? By implementing an algorithm that can be thought to do by hand.

Teaching the algorithm and why it works is far more important than teaching how to "program", which in public education usually means just copying some lines of code from a textbook.

>>7016187
It's barely any more work than long division.

>>7013274
>1897
>LaTeX

>>7016198
>Teaching the algorithm and why it works
>teaching how to "program", which in public education usually means just copying some lines of code from a textbook.
Okay, so in your little world, all education in doing arithmetic by hand teaches fundamental understanding of why the algorithms work, instead of rote memorization and slavish following of the technique, while all education in programming is actually just typing practice.

The rest of us don't live in that world.

>Women And Girl Clerks

What did the test for Men And Boy Clerks look like?

>>7016204
>in your little world
Kek, I think you'll find that quite a few people agree with me.

I think it's incredible that we pretend to teach students "advanced subjects" such as probabilities or computer programming when they barely grasp the basics of maths.

I am absolutely convinced that teaching the fundamentals - with proofs - of algorithms is far better than learning how to "program". Real programming requires maths skills way above the skills of an average high schooler.

>>7016204
>The rest of us don't live in that world.

You clearly never met the majority of retards filling up CS classes (¡at good schools!) or seen a school math class since the 90s

Tell me how a kids is going to figure out what's going on here:

<span class="math">\rm{ long~sqrt(long~num)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~long~res~=~0; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~long~bit~=~1~<<~62; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~while~(bit~>~num) }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~bit~>>=~2; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~while~(bit~!=~0)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~if~(num~>=~res~+~bit)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~num~-=~res~+~bit; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~res~=~(res~>>~1)~+~bit; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~\} [/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~else }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~res~>>=~1; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~bit~>>=~2; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~\} }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~return~res; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ \} }[/spoiler]

if coding is all he knows about math?

>>7016204
>The rest of us don't live in that world.

You clearly never met the majority of retards filling up CS classes (¡at good schools!) or seen a school math class since the 90s

Tell me how a kids is going to figure out what's going on here:

<span class="math">\rm{ long~sqrt(long~num)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~long~res~=~0; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~long~bit~=~1~<<~62; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~while~(bit~>~num) }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~bit~>>=~2; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~while~(bit~!=~0)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~if~(num~>=~res~+~bit)~\{ }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~num~-=~res~+~bit; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~res~=~(res~>>~1)~+~bit; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~\} } [/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~else }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~res~>>=~1; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~~~~~bit~>>=~2; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~\} }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ ~~~~return~res; }[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\rm{ \} }[/spoiler]

if coding is all he knows about math?

>>7016224
>"advanced subjects" such as ... computer programming
Are you kidding me with this shit? Computer programming is easier than long division. It should be one of the first things you learn, and you should be using it all through your math education.

Now, being a computer programmer can be hard, in the same way that being a writer can be hard, but basic computer programming skills and basic literacy are easy.

>>7016240
>Tell me how a kids is going to figure out what's going on here:
Teaching a kid to write a program to find square roots is not at all the same thing as giving the kid a program to find square roots and asking them to figure it out. Pull your head out of your ass.

>>7016255

In a generation, we'll be able to say basic computer programming skills are easy.

Now, most would strongly disagree with you. I have yet to encounter non-engineers who understands while-do loops. Many can't even use a spreadsheet.

Until then, leave math as math at the elementary level. Don't muddle it with computer programming. That's a separate class in its own right.

>>7016255
>Computer programming is easier than long division
Of course it's not. Unless your idea of programming is writing "hello world" on the screen.

>It should be one of the first things you learn, and you should be using it all through your math education.
No, no and no. Students should not require a computer to learn how algorithms work.

>>7016255

If you make them figure it out on their own, all you're going to get is:

>for (y=0; y*y < x ; y++);
>if (y*y == x) return y;
>return --y;

>OMG! That is SO much better than learning how to do it by hand. Find me that kid and give him a 100K+ salary at once!

Face it, they need to know how to do fucking arithmetic and algebra in the first place in order to design any code worth running. Good code isn't going to pop out of a vacuum from 1337 programming skillz...

>>7016273
>>Computer programming is easier than long division
>Of course it's not. Unless your idea of programming is writing "hello world" on the screen.
Jesus Christ, how stupid would you have to be to think that a "hello world" program is comparable in difficulty of . In a suitable language for introductory computer programming, a "hello world" program is something like:
>print "hello world"

Programs as sequences of commands. Arguments to commands. Variables, which may be set and read. Conditional execution. Iteration.

That's basic computer programming. Six-year-old kids pick all of these up in hours, if they're taught with a halfway sensible method.

>>7016274
Stop being an idiot. Teaching kids to do square roots by hand is not teaching them understanding of how one would take a square root by hand, but making them memorize an algorithm and drilling them on it until they can do it quickly. Most will learn to do it, but not have a clue why it works.

Teaching kids to program a computer to take square roots is not giving them a typing exercise of copying down square roots, nor is it letting them enter a special-case solution that very slowly gets the right answer in some cases, and either never gets the answer or gives the wrong answer in others.

These are stupid fucking straw-man arguments. And so is anything based on assuming that these would be equally large parts of the curriculum.

>>7016325
Clearly not an educator.

>>7016200
Knuth is pretty old dude

>>7016325
You're a delight. Come back soon.

>>7016325
Even at the college level, the computer programming course exams were WRITTEN. Not on computers.

Still got to understand the algorithms by hand.

>>7016325
You're probably a terrible coder. Leave and never return here

>These are stupid fucking straw-man arguments. And so is anything based on assuming that these would be equally large parts of the curriculum.

All you're teaching is being a code monkey, not mathematics.

>>7016353
>the computer programming course exams were WRITTEN. Not on computers.
Oh my god, why could you possibly think this matters?

>Still got to understand the algorithms by hand.
>Still
Not "still". To write the program to execute the algorithm, you have to understand the algorithm. To execute the algorithm, you only have to memorize the algorithm.

You do understand, when I say that it's better to teach kids to program a computer to take the square root, I mean as one exercise, right? Not as a subject. Not as a topic. Not as a chapter in the textbook. That's solving one problem.

>>7015333
i agree

Ask yourself this question: Why am I so upset that salesmen and waiters aren't skilled in academics?

You guys forget that 100 years ago, the average joe probably dropped out of school after elementary school and a living could be made doing manual labor. Compare to today where most fast food workers can read, write, and do basic math. The bottom teir of people are more educated than they were 100 years ago.

>>7016325
>nor is it letting them enter a special-case solution that very slowly gets the right answer in some cases, and either never gets the answer or gives the wrong answer in others.
>special-case
>in some cases, and either never gets the answer or gives the wrong answer in others.

Damn you're fucking retarded.

7/10 if troll

>>7016325
Just give up. These retards actually believe that a 10 year old doing 20 square root exercises is thinking in-depth about the algorithm he's using and why it works.

>>7016325
>nor is it letting them enter a special-case solution that very slowly gets the right answer in some cases, and either never gets the answer or gives the wrong answer in others.

1. It's the FUCKING textbook definition of square root and correct since x^n is monotone increasing for all n and x>0.
2. If you tell them to find a y such that y*y=x, what else are they going to fucking try? " while( y=rand(), 1 ) if(y*y==x) return y; "

To find any cleaver algorithm, they are going to need to understand not coding, but arithmetic and algebra to manipulate the definition into something that can return the result quickly.

>>7016409

Why are you here? >>>/g/ with all the math illiterates is that way

>>7016371
>You do understand, when I say that it's better to teach kids to program a computer to take the square root, I mean as one exercise, right

It teaches them nothing about square roots nor there properties. I don't give a shit about the root of any given number but the root of x.

>>7016393
>The bottom teir of people are more educated than they were 100 years ago

Only in title. They have a high school degree but only the knowledge of a elementary student. I much rather we have the old system back where you tell who is educated and who isn't.

>>7016403
>>7016421
Are you an idiot? The particular program you wrote only finds the correct square root for squares of natural numbers. It doesn't even round correctly. That's a special case solution, not a general one.

And assuming you're running it on a modern computer, for most values that fit in a 64-bit integer, your code would take years to run (OP's example wouldn't even fit in a 32-bit integer). That's not "working".

A proper method for calculating square roots will give a fraction or decimal which is accurate to a specified precision. A really good program for it will have no limit on the size of the number it takes the root of (short of running out of memory, or taking too long to run for anyone to be expected to wait for the answer), and give a correct answer to any precision specified at runtime.

Besides, you're playing idiotic strawman games with the definition of the problem. You've only progressed from:
>let's assume we give them the program and just have them copy it down
...to:
>let's assume we give them full marks for a useless brute force solution which regurgitates the problem definition

>>7016431
>I much rather we have the old system back where you tell who is educated and who isn't.
Did you ever read "The Marching Morons"?
http://mysite.du.edu/~treddell/3780/Kornbluth_The-Marching-Morons.pdf

One of my favorite bits is how in the distant future full of idiots, titles like "doctor" are much more common.

>>7013274
The actual problem is that people in todays are lazy as hell, unlike in the past (specially younger generations)

>>7016518
It's called an integer root and flooring you autistic twat. It's appropriate because kids don't know what decimals are when they learn square roots.

>A really good program for it will have no limit on the size of the number it takes the root of (short of running out of memory, or taking too long to run for anyone to be expected to wait for the answer), and give a correct answer to any precision specified at runtime.

How? How exactly will they know how to fucking code such a thing without knowing math behind what they are calculating? What exactly are you expecting them to come up with?

>October 1897
>Obviously typed up using a computer
>No results from reverse img search
>No sources available
top kek

>>7016677
>How exactly will they know how to fucking code such a thing without knowing math behind what they are calculating?
I refer you to my previous comments on how your responses to me have been one idiotic strawman argument after another.

Jesus wept.

>>7016687
>strawman
>strawman
>strawman
>strawman>strawman
>strawman>strawman
>strawman>strawman>strawman!

So explain again how exactly knowing coding enables them to reproduce the libc implementation of sqrt as an exercise and how being able to do so let them understand the mathematical properties of it? InB4
>Muh code!
>Muh godlike understand of math since I know how to calculate the answer!

>>7016692
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? It means you're misrepresenting my position, because it's easier to argue with something imaginary than with what I'm actually saying.

>So explain again how exactly [obviously idiotic misstatement of opponent's position]? InB4
>>[incoherent answer attributed to opponent]
>>[inadvertent admission of error attributed to opponent]

What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

>>7013495
Just wanna point out that there are probably more people listening to classical music than ever before. It never has been a genre for the vast majority.

>>7016698
>It means you're misrepresenting my position

THEN FUCKING CLARIFY IT ALREADY! I'm saying your position seem fucking stupid. Either admit it is or explain how it isn't. No one is impressed by your fucking ability to say "strawman" and only autistics think other people can read their thought to know exactly what they mean.

>>7016523
kind of like BA degrees are now

>>7016714
>No one is impressed by your fucking ability to say "strawman" and only autistics think other people can read their thought to know exactly what they mean.
>Does not know what logical fallacies are despite the year.

>>7016720
>implying this is debate club
>implying anyone gives a shit about debate skills

Isn't it time for you to smoke another pack of cigarettes?

>>7016714
I've explained it over and fucking over. You're obviously not trying to understand, just to "win".

I point out that you're strawmanning me, and you just double down on your demand that I defend the idiotic position you've set up. In fact, you set up a more blatantly idiotic one, with new features that nobody has mentioned before.

Don't try and defend that as some kind of legitimate way to move a discussion forward. That's a refusal to discuss the matter. It's the closest to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" as you can do in a textual medium.

Go the fuck back and read what I wrote already, and stop being a complete fucking retard.

I said right from the beginning "teach them to program a computer to take the square root". Not "give them a computer program to take the square root, and have them copy it down". Not "teach them some basics of coding, then tell them to program a computer to take the square root and leave the room, then never give them any feedback on what they produce". Not "teach them only coding, then make them reproduce the libc implementation of sqrt".

I've never met such a stupid fucking person before. How do you even operate a computer?

>>7016723
Wow, nice, you literally showed me xD

>>7016729
>I said right from the beginning "teach them to program a computer to take the square root"

And I said elucidate! That is not clear to anyone and seems fucking stupid.