So when I turn 51 I can get into a relationship with three 17 year olds and all together they will be a perfect match for me... π€
Math is awesome.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
598 points (95.4% liked)
People Twitter
5383 readers
378 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This bugged me but then again
30 / 3 = 10 21 / 3 = 7
7+10 = 17
So yeah that makes perfect sense.
If it makes you feel any better, it's just (20 x 3) - (3 x 3).
I don't know why, but that makes me feel better.
This must be the new math that parents are so scared of.
Back in my day, we multiplied 3 by 17 because that's how you do it. You multiply 3 times 7, you multiply 3 times 10, and you add. Simple.
Adding three to 17, to make it 20, multiplying that by 3, and then multiplying that 3 by 3 to subtract js equally valid, and easier to work out mentally IMO. It lays the framework for good estimation skills, too.
and easier to work out mentally IMO.
And this is the key factor to why math teaching has changed. Rote memorization is actually really really awful for learning.
Teaching math used to be a case of having students fill out their times tables. I still remember having to fill out this chart in under 5 minutes:
This was a quiz that we had to do multiple times per week. It was given to us blank, and 5 minutes obviously isnβt enough time to actually calculate everything; We were expected to have it memorized. And when the students had memorized the table, the quizzes changed into a series of small calculations from the table, again under 5 minutes. So if we ever had to calculate anything out, we could just refer to our memorized times table and pull the number off of that. But the issue is that this only works up to a certain point; Nobody is going to be able to reasonably memorize their times table beyond maybe 15x15. And this means that the times table essentially becomes worthless for doing math in larger numbers.
So instead, the βnewβ math teaches students how to take complicated problems (like 17x3) and break it down into easier steps. 17x3 is complicated, but 20x3 is just 2x3 with an added 0, and 3x3 is easy too. So if we can convert 17x3 into (20x3)-(3x3) then it becomes much easier to do in your head. Because not everyone can calculate 17x3 accurately, but virtually anyone beyond 1st grade can calculate 60-9.
The βnewβ math was developed by studying how the students who were good at math actually did their calculations. And it turns out, when you actually understand the concepts, you can create mental shortcuts to break the difficult problem down into a series of smaller problems. And thatβs exactly what the βnewβ math does.
Good news, everyone. 314159 is not evenly divisible by 17, just as you'd expect.
Product of two primes.
Cryptographers hate this one simple trick.
21 being divisible by 7 was already weird, so this just seem like more of the same.
Iβve been aware of this since I was about 8. Not sure what Chloe is so upset about.
Maybe she was 2 cents short of figuring out the answer she was looking for?
3 is the real culprit
By a similar pattern, 91 is not a prime number. Really got me once.
Is it 13? I bet it's 13. Bloody thing keeps making trouble.
Yup, 7 and 13.
So simple math problems are blowing people's minds now?
I am more impressed that people know about divisibility. What's next, random people knowing about ideals?
Always has been.
Just wait for the annual "PEDMAS vs PEMDAS" ~~discussion~~ flame-war on any major social media platform.
"Pedmas" sounds like a holiday for pedophiles...
End of debate.
Why? Not sure what the debate is, if you divide/multiply first?
It can matter if you don't have enough significant figures, so I tend to do division last to preserve as much precision as I can. In theory it shouldn't matter, but it can matter in practice.
So the debate is whether it could or could not matter?
No, the debate is stupid.
I'm just saying there is a situation where it could matter, not that the debate is valid.
Ah, I'm still trying to figure out what the debate is. Sorry mate, but thanks for trying to respond, I appreciate you having tried. I'm just missing something.
100,000,001 is also divisible by 17
I'm really starting to think this 17 is not a good guy
Just wait until you find out that 17 is divisible by 17
Dart players know this
view more: next βΊ