Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Deadshot wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
On top of the failure to provide necessary information, your attempt to paraphrase the question also changed its meaning. You said "Hannah takes one orange sweet out", but this is not equivalent to "Hannah takes at random one sweet from the bag." According to what you said, there would have to be 16 sweets, not 10, because there is a 100% chance that she took an orange sweet the first time, followed by a 5/15 chance she took an orange sweet the second time.

The original question I read said she took an orange sweet followed by another unspecified sweet, and the chance of both being orange is 1/3. Must have been given the wrong information but I wasn't paraphrasing.

In that case, you just found out why people couldn't provide the proof: because the question you read didn't have a proof.

The very concept of there being 'A' or A*' (or whatever the English system calls it), question kinda freaks me out a little bit...

Especially if it's not well sign posted. I was only a (Scottish) B Grade student and I would have been so COMPLETELY screwed if working through the paper and I came up to a question like that.

In Scotland, our equivalent of GCSE's (I think, anyhow), were called Standard Grades, and were split into 3 different tests. - Foundation (Score 6-5), General (Score 4-3) and Credit (Score 2-1). You sat 2 of the papers depending on your ability.

It seemed quite a fair way to do it to me. If you were the type that was, "oh, I'm terrible at maths" you did the Foundation and General courses and it was more of a case of "these are the things you needed to learn to function in society."

But the credit paper was very much a, "ok, you're a high flyer, you want to do a scientific or something career maybe? Or maybe you're just bright. Take this exam."

In any case, it seemed like a fair way to me.


My sort of opinion on education now, keeping in mind, that I've been out of full time learning's for um... Lets say a few years now, is that there needs to start being more of an emphasis on finding out information.

In school, I had a class called 'Research Methods' and, it was basically a rubbish-ey joke class where we learned about the 'Dewey Decimal System' and half the time it was just 'free study' or whatever.

But actual, proper 'Research Methods' classes would be great.

I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that. So where the hell would you need "Advanced" math in political analysis? Statistics I don't consider to be advanced. So where in Political analysis do you use trigonometry and calculus?

 Compel wrote:
The very concept of there being 'A' or A*' (or whatever the English system calls it), question kinda freaks me out a little bit...

Especially if it's not well sign posted. I was only a (Scottish) B Grade student and I would have been so COMPLETELY screwed if working through the paper and I came up to a question like that.

In Scotland, our equivalent of GCSE's (I think, anyhow), were called Standard Grades, and were split into 3 different tests. - Foundation (Score 6-5), General (Score 4-3) and Credit (Score 2-1). You sat 2 of the papers depending on your ability.

It seemed quite a fair way to do it to me. If you were the type that was, "oh, I'm terrible at maths" you did the Foundation and General courses and it was more of a case of "these are the things you needed to learn to function in society."

But the credit paper was very much a, "ok, you're a high flyer, you want to do a scientific or something career maybe? Or maybe you're just bright. Take this exam."

In any case, it seemed like a fair way to me.


My sort of opinion on education now, keeping in mind, that I've been out of full time learning's for um... Lets say a few years now, is that there needs to start being more of an emphasis on finding out information.

In school, I had a class called 'Research Methods' and, it was basically a rubbish-ey joke class where we learned about the 'Dewey Decimal System' and half the time it was just 'free study' or whatever.

But actual, proper 'Research Methods' classes would be great.

I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam. All that work you did, any extra effort you put in to get a good grade in maths - doesn't matter, you can't achieve a higher grade than C (I think that's what the old foundation papers had as their maximum) no matter what you do, because it was decided before doing the exam that you weren't going to have the opportunity to attain the highest grade.

Also, the A/A* questions are a bit of a misnomer - in any given paper, there are questions from a range of difficulties. Nothing in the question is inherently tied to any particular grade, but some are just easier than others. This allows almost everyone to get some marks, but keeps the marks spread out enough that it is possible to fairly award grades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that. So where the hell would you need "Advanced" math in political analysis? Statistics I don't consider to be advanced. So where in Political analysis do you use trigonometry and calculus?

And that's the crux of the problem right there. I'd be willing to bet you've never had to do anything with a Normal, Poisson or even Binomial distribution, let alone any hypothesis tests or rank correlation coefficients. I don't want to say this, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

Please explain to me how I "Don't know what im talking about" in regards to what I posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excuse me I didn't see your highlighted section. SO I will agree that some Statistics are advanced but I would also venture that advanced statistics are useless for about 95%+ of the world.

 Compel wrote:
I can't remember how to do whatever the incarnation of that question actually is. But if I *did* have to answer it, I'd go look it up.

The problem with the "just look it up" approach is that if you never learned something in the first place looking it up is going to be incredibly slow and inefficient. Looking something up is fine when you can't remember if a term in a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, because once you get the equation you know how to use it and don't have to spend a bunch of time reading articles about the subject. But if you never learned the material you're going to have to waste time reading the basics before you can even attempt to solve the problem. That might be fine if you're talking about a forum thread on a math problem, but you'd better hope that it doesn't come up as part of your job.

And the unavoidable fact here is that the question in the OP is incredibly basic probability. If you understand the subject at all it should take less time to solve the problem than it would take you to google search for a statistics 101 article to read. If you have to look something up to answer the question it's a sign you don't understand probability at all, and you're going to be flailing around desperately looking for 101-level sources to teach yourself something you should have learned a long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that.

Which is funny, because the one class I took on signals as part of an electrical engineering degree was full of high-level math. I guess you were the kind of analyst/operator who knows what buttons to press for routine operations but doesn't understand how it works?

When I was at prep school I dreamt of having a French dictionary in which I would be able to look up anything at all that I needed to answer a homework question. But the real world doesn't work like that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I was a Signals analyst and a Signals operator for 5 years. The only math I needed the entire time was BASIC math up to basic algebra, never had to go a bit further then that.

Which is funny, because the one class I took on signals as part of an electrical engineering degree was full of high-level math. I guess you were the kind of analyst/operator who knows what buttons to press for routine operations but doesn't understand how it works?

And you have no idea what a Signals analyst/operator does If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it. And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation. We did routine things like setting up OE's and rigging FEA's wherever we needed them, and that was the extent to which you needed math skills, otherwise it was a simple mission and simple math was needed. IE basic statistics and basic math.

On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

 Da Boss wrote:
On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

My attitude is based on the way the Japanese school system operates. After a certain point you stop learning extra things that are irrelevant towards your degree. If your a history major it doesn't help you that much to know how to use calculus....unless your teaching the history of calculus.

Math is incredibly useful across the board in every persons life....up to a point. Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements and make every higher math a prerequisite only for degree programs where the person has a reasonable chance of coming into contact with it on a regular or at least semi regular basis. Instead, the university I went to had Statistics and Calculus as the minimums for most degree programs, almost 100% irrelevant for most people and yet required by the university.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements

IOW "decide early in high school if you want to have any chance at a math-heavy career in the future". This is a terrible idea, and the reasons should be obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it.

Oh really? So you did all the math with a pencil and paper? You never had software that did it for you?

(PS: if you did your Fourier transforms with a table instead of calculating it by hand each time then you had an easy button.)

And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation.

So you never used the instruction manual for your hardware and always re-calculated every piece of math that went into that instruction manual for each new situation?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements

IOW "decide early in high school if you want to have any chance at a math-heavy career in the future". This is a terrible idea, and the reasons should be obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If their was an "easy button" we sure as hell never found it.

Oh really? So you did all the math with a pencil and paper? You never had software that did it for you?

(PS: if you did your Fourier transforms with a table instead of calculating it by hand each time then you had an easy button.)

And to prove you have no idea what your talking about their was never a "routine" operation.

So you never used the instruction manual for your hardware and always re-calculated every piece of math that went into that instruction manual for each new situation?

So Japan then doesn't know what they are doing as far as education is concerned? Also, did you take Algebra freshmen year? because usually Algebra is taken Junior year or so. But I was actually talking about Freshman year of COLLEGE! Algebra should be the last math REQUIRED for the student, if they decide they wish to go into a math heavy job field then they are open to taking all sorts of other math courses that aren't required of all students.

So an analyst is supposed to help design the software for the gear he is using? your mistaking Electrical Engineer and Computer programmer for Analyst/Operator.

As for math on pen/paper, you bet your sweet butt we did all the time.

Antenna Length. To construct expedient, efficient antennas, the wavelength of the frequency being used must be known. The length of the antenna needed can be determined by using the proper formula below:
◾ To figure a quarter-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 234 (constant) by the operating frequency MHz.
◾ To figure a half-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 468 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.
◾ To figure a full-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 936 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.

BASIC MATH


here is the radio operators guide book with all the information you would ever need....well theres a lot more you need but this is still a good starting point.

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/usmc-radio-ops-hdbk.pdf

Then their was the other factors you had to calculate, such as the distance with which the gear you had would operate. This was always different depending terrain, prevailing weather conditions, gear available, condition of gear, and what kind of FEA you were using, what kind of sodder. all sorts of fun things. And at the end we would usually figure this out by measuring the distance we could communicate/receive from other units in our AO.

SO please enlighten me on how you know more about being a signals intelligence operator/analyst then I do.

nkelsch wrote:
That is the funny side, the tragic side is there are probably dozens of opportunities to use higher level math in their daily lives, but due to their math illiteracy, they don't see it and pretend they don't need it to get buy when they are literally stumbling over math-related issues all the time and are too uneducated to realize.

Yeah, which I think touches on the point I made about so many people having got through secondary and tertiary maths just through rote learning, and never understanding the principles behind the maths exercises.

I know people with who got through science and business degrees at uni who would rather risk getting screwed on a deal than take a second to use all that maths they learned to calculate what interest rate they'll be paying on a loan.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Also, did you take Algebra freshmen year?

Last year of middle school, actually. And that was the standard year to do it.

But I was actually talking about Freshman year of COLLEGE!

Which is hopelessly late. If you aren't taking basic algebra until college then you're not even remotely qualified for any math-heavy major. To finish a science or engineering degree in four years you have to start with calculus your first semester.

Algebra should be the last math REQUIRED for the student, if they decide they wish to go into a math heavy job field then they are open to taking all sorts of other math courses that aren't required of all students.

And the point is that a student doesn't know what they want to do for a career until well after basic algebra. We make the higher-level classes mandatory so that we don't have as many problems with "oops, I want to be a scientist after all". If you're ready to start calculus in your first semester of college then you're prepared for any major you want to do, and you aren't penalized for choices you made when you were 14 years old.

So an analyst is supposed to help design the software for the gear he is using? your mistaking Electrical Engineer and Computer programmer for Analyst/Operator.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that your field does use math, it just uses math that has been neatly packaged into a finished product by the engineers. Which is fine, as long as you never have to work outside of the instruction manuals written by those engineers. But you're going to be limited in your ability to go beyond following the directions because you don't know the math.

Antenna Length. To construct expedient, efficient antennas, the wavelength of the frequency being used must be known. The length of the antenna needed can be determined by using the proper formula below:
◾ To figure a quarter-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 234 (constant) by the operating frequency MHz.
◾ To figure a half-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 468 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.
◾ To figure a full-wavelength antenna in feet, divide 936 (constant) by the operating frequency in MHz.

And guess where those rough guidelines came from: someone who does know the math behind antenna design did a whole bunch of calculus. If you need to design an antenna for a situation where the rough guideline doesn't apply you're hopelessly screwed. On the other hand I could dust off my old textbook and do the math (or at least have a chance of doing it, I never learned more than the basics).

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with the "just look it up" approach is that if you never learned something in the first place looking it up is going to be incredibly slow and inefficient. Looking something up is fine when you can't remember if a term in a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, because once you get the equation you know how to use it and don't have to spend a bunch of time reading articles about the subject. But if you never learned the material you're going to have to waste time reading the basics before you can even attempt to solve the problem. That might be fine if you're talking about a forum thread on a math problem, but you'd better hope that it doesn't come up as part of your job.

A hell of a lot of what we learn isn't so we have all the information in our head to bring out at any time, but so we know where to start looking, and how to start reasoning through the problem.

That lesson couldn't have been made more clear than the first time I sat an open book exam - thinking it was open book I didn't think I had to study as I could just look it up in the exam. Wow was I wrong.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
On the papers I have seen, the questions increased in difficulty as you went through. Questions towards the end of the paper were aimed at the higher end. So it is designed in the IGCSE exaams anyhow, that you work through until you hit the questions you can't do. I teach maths when I'm n, ot teaching Biology, and the attitudes in the thread really depress me. I mean, who needs to learn how to read when we have text to speech software, amirite? Some real arrogance on display here.

My attitude is based on the way the Japanese school system operates. After a certain point you stop learning extra things that are irrelevant towards your degree. If your a history major it doesn't help you that much to know how to use calculus....unless your teaching the history of calculus.

Math is incredibly useful across the board in every persons life....up to a point. Basic Algebra is where schools should stop requirements and make every higher math a prerequisite only for degree programs where the person has a reasonable chance of coming into contact with it on a regular or at least semi regular basis. Instead, the university I went to had Statistics and Calculus as the minimums for most degree programs, almost 100% irrelevant for most people and yet required by the university.

My attitude comes from the stance that I am very likely preparing my students for jobs that don't exist yet. So whatever mental tools I am able to give them may be useful.

(This is aside from the point that maths can be beautiful and satisfying in it's own right)

I just think it is imprudent (not to mention arrogant on the part of my students, but they are teenagers so I forgive them) to think that they know already how much maths they are going to need in their lives.

The other thing is, if you're going for a technical profession you definitely need more than basic algebra and probability. And we need more technical people- the modern world is imagined, built and maintained by them. So if some less useful people need to sit through some maths they don't use so that we increase our number of engineers and scientists, I am also cool with that.

 -Shrike- wrote:

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam.

In my school, students would take both the 'Foundation' and 'General' level exams. - So, everyone would be taking the General exam. Additionally, as Standard Grades lasted 2 years, you could potentially move into the credit classes after your first years 'mock' exams, if you did well at the General exam there.

Even if, hypothetically, someone discovered their 'love' of maths a fortnight before the final Standard Grade exams, assuming they did well, they could then take the 'Intermediate 2' Math classes in their 5th year and then, potentially, the "Higher" Maths classes in 6th year.

Your 'Higher' results being the main Grade results required for universities from Scottish students. While yes, you do miss the 'Advanced Higher' classes if you go that route, Advanced Highers are effectively direct preparation for university and the one I took, matched the first 2/3rds of the first year at university.

Scotland has four year degrees, I believe, to make up for less specialisation earlier like we have in England.

IMO there is much to be said for maintaining a broader span of study.

My daughter is thinking of doing International Baccalaureate for that reason.

None of this means children should not study maths, of course. It is a fundamental achievement of the human intellect.

 Compel wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

I think one of the reasons we collectively gave up on splitting papers and giving them to students based on ability, is the effect it can have on students if their ability is incorrectly estimated. I mean, let's say you've been fething around in your maths lessons all year, not giving a gak and telling everyone that at every opportunity. You'd obviously only be entered for the lower paper, and you'd think that's great. Now, what if you suddenly decide a few weeks before the exam that maths does actually matter to you, and you just start revising and learning all of the higher level stuff, becoming a reasonably competent mathematician just before the exam - except you've been entered for the foundation exam.

In my school, students would take both the 'Foundation' and 'General' level exams. - So, everyone would be taking the General exam. Additionally, as Standard Grades lasted 2 years, you could potentially move into the credit classes after your first years 'mock' exams, if you did well at the General exam there.

Even if, hypothetically, someone discovered their 'love' of maths a fortnight before the final Standard Grade exams, assuming they did well, they could then take the 'Intermediate 2' Math classes in their 5th year and then, potentially, the "Higher" Maths classes in 6th year.

Your 'Higher' results being the main Grade results required for universities from Scottish students. While yes, you do miss the 'Advanced Higher' classes if you go that route, Advanced Highers are effectively direct preparation for university and the one I took, matched the first 2/3rds of the first year at university.

We have "Additional Maths" which is a separate subjects and covers stuff like Mechanics (forces and pulleys as sopposed to engineering exactly) and Statistics on one side, and pure maths on other like quadratic equations differentiation. Similarly there is A Level Maths which is similar to GCSE Add Maths, and then Further Maths which is supposedly first-year university level. In both cases they are a separate subject.

I don't think I can agree with your idea that a student who only works at the end can be entered into the higher papers for the exact reason you stated. Because he's only worked at the end, there is no evidence to suggest he is capable of doing the higher papers. And it also encourages students to continually work throughout the year rather than slacking off for most of it, which will ultimately provide better grades 99% of the time.

I saw this last week and did chuckle at all of the fuss that was made about it.

Pencil + Paper x a few minutes = solution

My biggest problem was that all the talk of sweets and colours distracted me (mmmmmm...sweeeeets), I mean really it was just the square root of 100).

I wasn't allowed to do higher maths (allowing the higher A or B grades) at school despite it being the only subject I was any good at, so I got a C at GCSE.

I'm now a commercial manager responsible for £100M+ Accounts.

School really prepared me for that!

High School taught me absolutely nothing. And it was hell due to being stuck with the same people in homegroup and classes year after year. I left at the end of year 11.

On the subject of math, I got mostly algebra from year 8 through to year 11. I flew through most of it at the time but even 4 years of it doesnt help me remember any of it now.

Im actually forgetting any and all math now so I guess people are right when they always said we are not taught properly these days.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

Hey you never know when a little girl has a bag of N fruits on a train going one way, and another train going another way. What would Jason Bourne do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

LOL probably the only people who use it on a regular basis, or even a remotely common basis.

I'm a political analyst and I have to use advanced math every day, so do all the other people I know who work in analytic positions. Being able to at least understand calculus is a perquisite for success in many industries....and if you can't do basic algebra you better be good at sports, crime, or have connections.

Calculus is not advanced math. I thought it was until I saw what the Boy was doing.
Just being picky. My level of math is "Noog has two rocks and three pointy sticks. Three hyenadons are chasing Noog. How far can Noog run before the hyenadons eat him?" (there was a practical lab component to this as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

Math is vastly overrated and 90%

I work in industry (Power) and I can gurantee you math is not over rated. What do you think your powergrid works on? Wizards?
Try doing even a basic power calculation and you'll see why math is important

1. Yes it is powered by wizards.
2. Your case is an excellent example. For some, differing levels of math is important. For others, not so much, or only specific forms of it. Heavens to Betsy its like all other forms of knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
That attitude (SPSS can do the maths for me) is the hallmark of a terrible scientist. In fact I would hesitate to call someone with that attitude a scientist at all.

How do you know which analysis is appropriate for your data, and what the analysis models? These are not trivial questions. When collecting data and designing studies they need to be considered and require a deep knowledge of the fundamentals of statistics, or you are likely to draw the wrong conclusions from data which is in any case useless.

He didn't say anything about being a scientist, just that the grind work of statistics can be done with programs. Indeed, all heavy statistics (and heavy math) really requires compute programs at this point.

yes I theoretically have to know the math for architetcture, but I now have architecture programs that inherent calculate the stress loads etc. Skynet understands math, and thats all that matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please explain to me how I "Don't know what im talking about" in regards to what I posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excuse me I didn't see your highlighted section. SO I will agree that some Statistics are advanced but I would also venture that advanced statistics are useless for about 95%+ of the world.

Pfft 5% confidence intervals are for wussies. Real menz use 1%!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When I was at prep school I dreamt of having a French dictionary in which I would be able to look up anything at all that I needed to answer a homework question. But the real world doesn't work like that.

You mean like Google?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Im so happy I am done with College math in all its useless forms.

so far in my professional career I have yet to encounter an instance where that math is useful.

Hey you never know when a little girl has a bag of N fruits on a train going one way, and another train going another way. What would Jason Bourne do?

Easy. Kill every melonfether on the trains.

Then everything explodes.

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

The BBC posted their solution here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33017299

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The BBC posted their solution here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33017299

The better solution is to kidnap the question maker. Put two pieces of fruit on the wall. Ask them how many pieces are there. Motivate them to come to the answer "three."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

If the sole purpose of learning higher math is to pass tests full of made up questions that nobody would ever feel the need to ask in real life, then there's no practical purpose in learning the math. If the vast majority of people in school only learn higher math to pass their tests and then as soon as students are done with the tests they'll start to forget it until after a few years they'll forget it completely or struggle mightily to solve the equations because they haven't needed that skill for years. It's the same thing with any subject. If students only learn specific historic dates, people and events to pass tests in school and then never need that information again, years later they will struggle to retain it. People like to laugh at those Man on the Street segments that shows do when they ask random people questions about subjects they learned in school as children and laugh at the people who can't come up with the answers. The audience laughing at the Man on the Street would struggle just as hard to get the right answers as the people intervied on camera because both groups of people are comprised of people who haven't had to remember information that they learned decades ago simply to pass a test in school.

Probability is a waste of time. A mathmatical construct used to make a supposed "educated" guess that is still just a guess and that doesn't exert any influence on the outcome itself. If you want to know what's going to happen next, just be patient, you'll find out. Your desired outcome will either happen or it won't, you have a 50/50 shot, trying to come up with needless overly complex equations to sort out a sliding scale of maybe just for the intellectual exercise is a waste of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=probability+is+a+sliding+scale+of+maybe&source=bl&ots=KPtZjfPoYG&sig=UEKM6N7x69eyQIq06I30KPfpWjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJt1VcvPOoS_sAXBqICgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=probability%20is%20a%20sliding%20scale%20of%20maybe&f=false

Maths is not practical says the guy typing his response into an internet forum made possible only by incredibly complex mathematical operations layered on top of each other to produce operating systems and the internet. Oh dear.

What you posted about probability shows a deep misunderstanding of what probability is about too, but after your first statement that is not surprising.

When people say "Learning maths is not practical" they mean "I don't use maths much in my life", sometimes with the addendum "because I can't". Mathematics is part of every advance in science, every feat of engineering. We live in a world made possible by people doing complex mathematics day in day out.

If you can't take part in that, okay, I can't take part in conversations happening in Japanese either, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to deride all Japanese as worthless.

Prestor Jon wrote:


I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

Your response here is hilariously ignorant as M&Ms explicitly control ratio of colors in their bags as they have deep market research on how the colors of the candies impact the mood of the customer. So they increase sales and enjoyment of their product by explicitly knowing and controlling "what color sweet someone will pull out next."

Having an equation makes answers much easier than having 200 million customers 'just look in the bag' and report back to M&M. And a change in the formula can impact millions of dollars. What you call 'worthless' is a live or die formula for a major corporation.

The ability to understand a situation, break it down into an equation, then extrapolate it into usable data is EXACTLY the kind of thing a math illiterate person won't do because they are too buys 'looking in the bag' via manual processes because their brains can't even conceptualize other solutions besides manual processes because they are so illiterate in math. This kind of application of math happens across all industries every day.

nkelsch wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


I can see why that question would prove difficult for people. It's a question that no one is ever likely to ask. Most people just buy a bag of sweets in order to consume those sweets not to create superfluous questions to be solved by higher math equations for no practical benefit. If I want to know which specific sweet I'm going to pull out of the bag next, I'll just reach in and pull one out and look at it. That will give me the answer much faster and easier than solving the equation. Especially since the equation doesn't have any practical meaning to the situation. If Hannah wants an orange sweet she can look in the bag and pull one out, if she doesn't she can look in the bag and grab one that isn't. Regardless of the what the probability of pulling out an orange sweet is, Hannah is not held captive by that probability, the sweet will either be orange or it won't and she can exert complete control over the outcome with ease.

Your response here is hilariously ignorant as M&Ms explicitly control ratio of colors in their bags as they have deep market research on how the colors of the candies impact the mood of the customer. So they increase sales and enjoyment of their product by explicitly knowing and controlling "what color sweet someone will pull out next."

Having an equation makes answers much easier than having 200 million customers 'just look in the bag' and report back to M&M. And a change in the formula can impact millions of dollars. What you call 'worthless' is a live or die formula for a major corporation.

The ability to understand a situation, break it down into an equation, then extrapolate it into usable data is EXACTLY the kind of thing a math illiterate person won't do because they are too buys 'looking in the bag' via manual processes because their brains can't even conceptualize other solutions besides manual processes because they are so illiterate in math. This kind of application of math happens across all industries every day.

I know you've thoroughly enjoyed that condescending attack but:
*He has a point. Word problems through the ages have been argued as being without merit.
*Studies have shown that you typically forget 90% of what you learned within 5 years.
*Your example is what we call...gak. They will make up a simple percentage for candles that have samples of more than one each. Even higher level logistics chains aren't usually very high math.
*Each occupation has its different level of math. Part of my business is reviewing complex cash flow models. Those models can become monsters such that 3rd party consultants are hired to make them. But its specialized (and rather quite simple math actually). Absent engineering, design, etc. you're not going to be using high levels of math outside of certain forms. And that just means you'll be replaced by robots a few years later.

 Deadshot wrote:

I don't think I can agree with your idea that a student who only works at the end can be entered into the higher papers for the exact reason you stated. Because he's only worked at the end, there is no evidence to suggest he is capable of doing the higher papers. And it also encourages students to continually work throughout the year rather than slacking off for most of it, which will ultimately provide better grades 99% of the time.

I didn't say (or intend to say anyhow), that they could enter into the Credit exams 2 weeks before the exams are happening. I was intending to illustrate that there are other classes (Intermediate 2) available in the next year that will give them equivalent knowledge to the 'Credit' level classes and, actually a little more as all to prime them for choosing the Higher level classes in 6th year, of they course to have a 6th year that is.


Heck, if someone is really keen or crazy, in their final 6th year they could cost to take a "Crash Higher" in a subject they haven't previously studied at all.


Of course this is all based on my experiences. I was in the Foundation\General classes in my first year of standard grade maths (3rd year of secondary education) and moved up to the General/Credit classes in my 2nd Year of Standard Grades. I then went on to take Maths as one of my Highers.