|
|
Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Posted:
Dec 13, 2011 6:34 PM
|
|
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Dan Christensen
> <dc@dcproof.com> wrote:
>
> << snip >>
>
> >>
> >> That's right - and from there one can go on and
> muse
> >> about how and why the math meaning of the word
> >> "function" has become so abstract and inert.
>
> This abstract meaning was part of the conventional
> Dolciani
> presentation. The concept fossilized a long time
> ago, along with
> surjective, injective, bijective or whatever
> synonyms.
>
Fossilized??? I can assure you that these concepts are alive and kicking!
> However, when it comes to scripting logical agents to
> get work done
> (manage baggage handling, run a supermarket), there's
> a strong bias
> towards rules we might both write and follow (aka
> "encode").
>
> The practice of law is similar: fine to have your
> castle-in-the-sky
> definitions,
It has been said that there is nothing more practical than a good theory.
> but lets not pretend lawyers earn their
> keep by governing
> in Plato's Realm.
>
> >
> > For most students, a "black-box-input-output" model
> of functions will suffice. I am, however, focusing
> more on students tending to proof-based mathematics
> in their immediate futures. It would be nice if
> everyone could master these "abstractions" and the
> basic methods of proof, but few are motivated to do
> so. I hope my little video and my software will help
> a bit in this regard.
> >
>
> I'm a little leery of this "for most students" as it
> consigns them to
> a proprietary "black box" or "none of your business"
> view of internal
> workings, whereas our students are encouraged to dig
> into banking,
> insurance, real estate, with gusto, to discover all
> the business rules
> involved.
You are to be applauded!
Dan
http://www.dcproof.com
|
|
