And no specifics on your algorithm. Nor any comments on the alternative one I offered or what Lou re-posted.
On Jul 1, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Wayne Bishop wrote:
> At 07:45 AM 7/1/2007, Haim wrote: > >> I do note one confusing element in Wayne's comment. First he >> writes he did not teach the LDAsq when he taught high school, but >> then writes he explains the algebra of it in his classes. I take >> that to mean he explains the algorithm in the college classes he >> has been teaching in the 40 years since he taught high school. A >> clarification from Wayne would be nice. > > Happy to oblige. No, I did not mean the college classes since; I > meant high school algebra way back when. After alerting the > students to the fact that they would not be tested on the material, > I gave a numerical example (a few had seen it) and explained (using > algebraic terminology) the essence of why it works. Although I > consider the topic useful in this form, I would not consider its > inclusion in algebra standards such as the excellent ones for > California: > http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/math-ch2-8-12.pdf > http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm? > id=338&pubsubid=1185&doc=pdf > > Incidentally, using the algorithm with base 2 positional notation > is kind of fun. The estimation skill needed in base 10 becomes > absolutely trivial in base 2. > > Wayne > > >