|
|
Re: 1 3/4 : 1/2 [WAS Re: Data from Ma's study]
Posted:
May 18, 2000 10:30 AM
|
|
I think I answered RayM's question in the paragraph below
his. The answer "18" can be interpreted as "18 thirds" if
you impose the interpretation of "6 : (1/3)" as "how many
1/3 in 6?". But, in a unit-less problem, that is an
interpretation imposed by someone for convenience. If FG
(whoever it is) meant that was the ONLY correct answer" I
would disagree. However, in the original post by FG, there
is a statement "The problem 6 divided by 1/3 *can be
interpreted* to mean..." So, the answer of "18 thirds" is
for that particular interpretation.
Tad Watanabe
Towson University
Towson, Maryland
RayM wrote:
>
> > RayM wrote:
> ...
> Well then how do you interpret FG's post on 5/15:
> "The one aspect of fractional division I find fascinating is that
> most people do not seem to know what the label of the answer is.
> The problem 6 divided by 1/3 can be interpreted to mean:
> How many thirds are there in 6? Answer: 18 thirds."
> which is what I was responding to. The implication is that the ONLY
> correct answer is 18 thirds and that most people don't know that.
> Rightfully so in my mind.
>
> Even in the
> > unit-less 6 : (1/3) = 18, it is only possible to "think of"
> > the quotient 18 as "18 thirds" because we can "think of" 6 :
> > (1/3) as asking "How many 1/3 are in 6?" Of course, in a
> > unit-less problem, that is only an interpretation imposed by
> > someone, perhaps to help make sense of the abstract
> > problem. But, that does not mean the answer *is* 18 thirds.
> >
> > Tad Watanabe
> > Towson University
> > Towson, Maryland
|
|
