On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Greg Goodknight wrote:
> Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote: >> >> >> "The first method (guess and check) actually works around what the >> square root is all about, so I would consider exercises with it as >> essential to help children understand the concept of square root. >> >> Depending on the child, it might be good to concentrate first on >> teaching the concept of square root without taking the time for >> paper-pencil calculations. In this case, you can study the guess >> and check method with the help of a simple calculator that doesn't >> calculate square roots but can quickly do the multiplications." >> >> This is how I played with a calculator in my 20s to find square >> roots without using the square root key. > Better late than never.
Well, I don't know about you, Greggie, but calculators were rather pricey when I was in my early 20s. By the late 1970s, a scientific calculator was affordable, so I got one.
It's impossible for you not to be snide, I know, but you say the most ignorant things trying to be clever, it's really remarkable. The above is a good example, of course, but what follows is even better.
>> In any case, what are your thoughts about the recommendation about >> "guess and check" as an approach here, with or without the >> calculator as a tool? > ahhh, it was "guess and check" that was to be the gotcha.
Right, Greggie. I read Wayne's mind and KNEW he would point to the web site he did (even though I'd never been to that site before. Then, cleverly, I "trapped" him by asking his opinion.
Are you the densest, most asinine putz in California, or does that title belong to some other ignoramus in the MC/HOLD camp.
> How is that "guess and check" different from the guess and check > inherent in long division?
Did I say it was? Did I say it wasn't? I just asked Wayne (you aren't secretly the same guy, perchance, or has he contracted you and Ed to answer for him?) what he thought. You understand the words "what are your thoughts on" don't you? > > Can you see how that is different than the "guess and check" used > as a substitute for symbolic manipulation in the fuzzier algebra > curricula, which is the "guess and check" that is roundly (and > fairly) criticized by the MC/HOLD crowd?
You mean, do I understand that the mindless RANDOM guessing process you folks invented to substitute for the same thoughtful process that problem solvers have used for centuries, is NOT the actual one reformers advocate? Yes, I do. It's sad, even pathetic that you folks can't deal with reality. You probably could actually do some good if you were to offer constructive criticism that didn't depend entirely or nearly so on distortion, exaggeration, straw men of your own invention, and outright lies and fantasies. Everyone would benefit. But you can't or won't.