[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 364 KB, 461x620, mfw.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6507669 No.6507669[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>engineers
>'good at math'

>> No.6507683

>>6507669

>2014
>not using visual technicals to understand answers.

>> No.6507701

>>6507669
holy shit, I raged so fucking hard when I saw this

"extensive study in differential equations and other higher math applications"

oh yea, that one difQ class was very extensive

>> No.6507704

>>6507669
>"I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronics Engineering"
>"included extensive study in differential equations and other higher math applications"
>can't figure out visual approach to addition/subtraction

I knew engineers weren't as smart as physicists, but this... this seems too ridiculous to be true.

>> No.6507706

What the fuck did Jack do wrong? I don't even see an answer there.

Did he not jump in steps of 10 or something?

>> No.6507710

>>6507683
>not using a calculator

>> No.6507716

>>6507669

Is that the new way they are trying to teach kids how to add and subtract these days? It sure as hell looks needlessly complicated.

>> No.6507718

>>6507706
Yes, "Jack" was supposed to subtract 316, but he forgot the 10.

>>6507710
>elementary-school kids should learn to use calculators instead of learning the visual approach
yes, that's how we want to teach kids fundamental concepts of math

>> No.6507721

>>6507716
>Is that the new way they are trying to teach kids how to add and subtract these days? It sure as hell looks needlessly complicated.
You don't get it. It's not supposed to be a fast and efficient method, it's supposed to give kids an <span class="math">intuitive[/spoiler] understanding of the concepts behind math.

>> No.6507723

>>6507721

Its addition and subtraction. Jack had an apple, you give him another. Boom, addition. You take that apple away and now he has one less. Subtraction.

There isnt much else to understand.

>> No.6507748

>>6507706
Yes, he didn't jump 10 steps. The technique is basically to draw a number line. Choose a point on it. Mark it as the thing you want to subtract from. Then start making hops to the left by the amount you want to subtract (in 100s, 10s, and 1s). Jack hopped left by 100 three times, and then by 1 six times. He effectively subtracted by 306. The engineer then handwrote numbers in wrong because he's a fucking dipshit. He hopped left by 100 three times, then hopped left by 20 once (????) then he hoped left by 10 five more times finally ending up at 427 - 370 = 57.

>yfw there are people like this trying to influence mathematics education.
>yfw /pol/esmokers continue making threads on /sci/ about this thinking engineers are geniuses and this guy "knows what he's talking about".
>yfw these same /pol/esmokers in their own board claim it's a conspiracy to make everyone dumber and are making efforts to influence the argument on a greater scale.

>> No.6507752

>>6507723
>Jack had pi apples and he gave e apples away.
>oh no I have to do my number crunching technique that starts with the right most decimal
>What do you mean pi and e are irrational numbers, now how am I supposed to sutbract them.
>What does it even mean to subtract e apples or have pi apples?
>Why is math so hard?

>> No.6507789

>>6507723
>oh I want to find the chinese remainder theorem for modules, I'll just pull out my calculator

srsly tho I think giving kids a good idea about connections between geometry and number theory and arithmetic is a good thing I wish I had had it younger

Also this letter is being spammed everywhere to rail against Common Core on every conservative lip service site

>> No.6507790

>>6507669
>Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronics Engineering
>Electronics Engineering
>Electronics
There's your problem

>> No.6507834

>>6507752

But you can subtract exact numbers using that method anyway. If you had to convert those to actual decimal numbers you would just round them to significant digits.

But whatever, I'm not an educator. Just dont understand why this new method is any better.

>> No.6507840

>>6507834
nah this method seems pretty retarded. Just to help kids get a grasp of math or something

>> No.6507844

my sides when engineering majors who think the concept of a ring is useless nonsense say they know a lot about math
my sides when engineering majors call any math they don't understand "imaginary"
my sides when engineering majors think someone just came up with all the stuff in their differential equations class out of nowhere
my sides when i ask one to explain why the complex exponential function shows up in the fourier series
my sides when they think linear algebra is about matrices

>> No.6507876

>>6507844
>my sides when engineering majors call any math they don't understand "imaginary"
They actually call it jmaginary and proceed to times their answer by 1.2 for safety reasons.

>> No.6507888

>>6507844
> my sides when engineering majors call any math they don't understand "imaginary"
You know EE's have to do complex analysis.
They don't call it imaginary.

I'm an engineer learning real analysis btw.

>> No.6507891

>>6507888
that's great, the more engineers who understand how math works the better
my experience is mostly with being a ta and i guess the really arrogant freshmen stand out

>> No.6507900 [DELETED] 

>>6507704
sometimes even physicists are ridiculous too.

When talking about degenerate states of particular quantum operators. Not once to they mention the dimensionality of the eigenstate of those operators. Yet, some of the physics students I've worked with did not understand why some quantum states had the same energy from the linear algebra point of view.

>> No.6507902

>>6507844
All you people on this site do is make me feel like I should take abstract algebra when I don't even have time to take all the engineering electives that sound interesting.

>> No.6507906

>>6507902
it was tongue in cheek, it probably wouldn't be that useful

>> No.6507922

>>6507844
>my sides when engineering majors call any math they don't understand "imaginary"
>my sides when engineering majors think someone just came up with all the stuff in their differential equations class out of nowhere
>my sides when i ask one to explain why the complex exponential function shows up in the fourier series

I consider most math done nowadays "imaginary" in the sense that the basis for it is disregarded; Whereas subjects like abstract algebra grew fairly naturally out of number theory, other subjects such as calculus sort of sprung forth from the vague notion of a function. In other words, I consider calculus and many related concepts ill-founded because there isn't as rigorous of a study of "functions" as there is of number theory.

Mind you, I'm studying theoretical computer science (which I consider to be an even more general form of math) and I see the applications of abstract algebra and number theory on a daily basis-- these subjects absolutely correspond to reality. When I look at concepts like the "real" numbers, or imaginary numbers, I see hideous MONSTROSITIES that have no regard for what computers are capable of.

>> No.6507923

>>6507891

You might want to reconsider your opinions on engineers if the only experiences you have with them are freshmen.

Hell even other engineering students hate engineering freshmen.

>> No.6507962

>>6507922
real and complex functions are used for fucking everything and the theory is just as rigorous as any other branch of math

you don't see them often in computer science BECAUSE computers don't do real numbers

>> No.6507965
File: 16 KB, 300x225, 300x225xfry-300x225.jpg.pagespeed.ic.oXojI05aCq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6507965

>>6507902
>make me feel like I should take abstract algebra

Abstract algebra or pure math is never the answer… unless your goal is unemployment or professorship.

>> No.6507966

>>6507962
It's still copypasta.

>> No.6507967
File: 58 KB, 251x251, 1330488729484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6507967

>mfw a math tutor in my university's math department complained that they didn't get more funding than the engineering department
>mfw he thought they were entitled to more because of the work of previous mathematicians much greater than him
>mfw he said that because engineers, scientists, accountants use math - the math department should have a greater emphasis

Arrogant engineers may be bad, but arrogant mathematicians are worse.

>> No.6507969

> one data point
> 'sufficient sample from which to generalize'

>> No.6507970

>>6507962
>you don't see them often in computer science BECAUSE computers don't do real numbers

What the hell are you babbling about? My CS discrete math book included metric spaces and real construction and also complex construction.

>> No.6507984

>>6507902

If Newton didn't invent it, it has zero real-world applications.

>> No.6507988

>>6507984
what about Hooke?

>> No.6507992

>>6507988

>Implying it doesn't take ten minutes to arrive at F=-kx

>> No.6507993

>>6507970
why don't you read the post i replied to, silly goose. guy was saying real functions aren't applicable because he never sees them in computer science

>> No.6508007

>>6507962
>real and complex functions are used for fucking everything and the theory is just as rigorous as any other branch of math
I agree with you on these points, and yet... they are lacking.

>you don't see them often in computer science BECAUSE computers don't do real numbers
Have you ever considered WHY computers don't do real numbers? Look up automata theory or Finite State Machines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_state_machines

When you study actual computational science (not programming, not "how computers work", I mean the theories on what is and what isn't computable), the idea that anything can be broken down into an infinitude becomes an absurdity. Yes, we have calculus, we have limits at infinity, yes they produce real, effective results, but in computer science all we have are discrete, exact quantities, and I cannot help but believe that there is a more elegant method for obtaining the same results we see in calculus.

>> No.6508024

>>6507993
>why don't you read the post i replied to, silly goose. guy was saying real functions aren't applicable because he never sees them in computer science
That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying the motivation for moving to "real" numbers (which may have infinite length) from the rational numbers is lacking. In fact, I think there is a more compelling argument for why imaginary numbers are necessary than for why "real" numbers are necessary.

>> No.6508053

>>6507992
you mean <span class="math"> \sigma = E \epsilon [/spoiler].

>> No.6508055

I don't understand how people continue to be trolled by this image.

>> No.6508068

>>6507683
>>6507844
>>6507790
>>6507704
>>6507701

Why are there so many fucking idiots on this board? The engineer in OP's picture got the problem wrong because he saw that the jumps that were supposed to represent jumps of 1 were 1/5 as large as the jumps of 100 and assumed they corresponded to jumps of 20. The problem was that the visual aid was not to scale, not that person was an electronics engineer.

Who are you people who assume engineers don't understand math? What makes you so pompous that you feel the need to generalize the set of all engineers, to which millions of professionals belong, as 'bad at math'? Do you really think that there are no engineers out there that understand math at the same level as you? You are the reason why this board is terrible. Thank you and please kindly go fuck yourself

>> No.6508094

>>6508068
>and assumed they corresponded to jumps of 20.
>implying that all of the other small jumps were half as large as the initial small jump (and hence were valued at 10).

rekt

>> No.6508166

>>6508068
Only the small jump on the farthest right corresponds to 20, and the rest jump by 10.

I just think the whole "I'm an engineer" part was bullshit to begin with; it's just there to get hits. The engineers in general being idiots thing is pretty much a /sci/ meme, a part of the culture here. If you go to /a/, you're waifu a shit, go to /g/ and you must install Gentoo or remain a pleb, and you're "one of them" if you make an otherwise airtight counterargument to an /x/ conspiracy theory.

Look where you are, get used to it, and don't take it personally. Faget.

>> No.6508182

>>6508166
Engineers being idiots is also kind of the widespread culture amongst the pure math department at my university.

>> No.6508222

>>6507876
>jmaginary
Hheheheehehe

>> No.6508224

>>6508222
fuck I missed it again.

>> No.6508227

>>6508068
Shit I'm still undergrad engineer and even I can solve this problem.

>> No.6508266

>>6508227
I fucking hope you can. It's a 5th grade standardized test for arithmetic.

>> No.6508276

>>6507669
I don't get why you would teach mathematics this way. I mean, I understand word problems but this seems a bit silly. Where does this kid go to school?

>> No.6508278

>>6507789
>implying common core is only being criticized by the right
Do you watch the Colbert Report?

>> No.6508292

>>6507876
That's pretty close to what J do, yeah. J wouldn't call jt "jmaginary" though, that looks ljke you're multjplyjng by current, jt's called "jmagjnary."

>> No.6508334

Alright I'm confused as hell, someone is gonna have to explain this for me.

>> No.6508348

>>6508276
It's modern methodologies. The intention is to teach the why and not worry so much about the how. It makes sense considering these kids will probably never have to add subtract 10 digit long numbers by hand in their lifetime. They also aren't taught a single perspective but rather a whole lot of them so that they have lots of ways to visualize problems.

This method does seem silly, but I can definitely see it being useful in everyday life.

>Go to restaurant.
>Need to calculate an 18% tip.
One approach would be to break up the 18% into 10% + 5% + 1% + 1% + 1% or to break it up into 10% + 10% - 1% - 1%.
Why, 10s, 5s, and 1s you ask? because these are incredibly easy to compute in your head.
Bill/10 = 10% (just moves the decimal over by one unit to the left).
For example, 10% of 115.12 would be 11.512
Then you can get 5% by taking half of 10% and 1% by taking 1/10th of 10%. You can approximate these in your head without any real effort.

>> No.6508381

>>6508068
/sci/ is mad because engineers are being paid more than them.

>> No.6508382

>>6508381
>going into STEM for money
You are in for a rude awakening, freshman.

>> No.6508386

>>6508382
I don't, I actually like aerospace related things. Good money is just a bonus for me.

>> No.6508403

>>6507669
>engineers
>'good at math'
yfw you realise nobody but teh Math'magicians are good at Math

>> No.6508404

>>6508348
> almost 20% tip
Was zum Fick, Mann?
You tip 10%, no matter where you tip. Restaurant, hairdresser, car repair.

>> No.6508405

>Jack
The patriarchy again insisting math education is only for boys

>> No.6508409

>>6508405
Jack made a very simple mistake though, so this assignment is very prograssive and anti-misogynistic by showing that men are capable of failing. The girls who do this assignment will feel better about correcting a man's mistake, the cisgendered heterosexual males learn their place and everyone is happy.

>> No.6508410
File: 1001 KB, 500x378, ddmml.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6508410

>>6508403

>> No.6508447

>>6508404
Ah but you're European, jah?

Es ist in America was Anders, sie haben für Kellnern gah kein Mindestlohn. 15% ist gierig, 18-20% normal.

>> No.6508846

>>6508278
I didn't imply that. I was reported where it's mainly being circulated.

>counter example to the right is comedian who frequently impersonates views of the right

>> No.6508852

>>6507834
>you would just round them to significant digits.
I see you must also be in engineering.

inb4 multiplication is just repeated addition.

>> No.6508864
File: 33 KB, 500x376, 1327254662760.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6508864

>>6508068

I honestly didn't think engineers all sucked at math until I was in a senior-level complex calculus course at my university, and they all had to use their calculators to understand the unit circle.

>> No.6509503

>>6508068
Actually I am an engineer. I don't know any engineers who are "bad" at math. Most engineers are above average.
I mad this >>6507790 because its kind of true. Out of all the types of engineers Electronics are usually the least math inclined, except perhaps some civil. I just find it amusing all you pompous highschoolers flipping out about how you think you guys are so smart. You guys are like some sort of bad joke.