On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:23 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > It did catch on, in the 1900s, and there's a branch of mathematics > exploring this new territory. > > > You keep jumping here, but you started at very different spot. You said > that this would supplant the orthogonal cube as the mental reference for > volume with kids. I said that you have enough material for a great 10th or > 11th grade math course. Why blow it?:) > > Bob Hansen >
No, I never said that. Do you have a quote handy?
My goal is greater cultural / literary / mathematical literacy.
Here's a post where I say that:
"Why not at least dabble? This is tourism, not dogmatism. We're young. Give us the big picture."
No one is going to erase thousands of years of cube-fixated mathematics, might as well go kick a Giza pyramid and expect it to crumble.
The cube model of 3rd powering is in absolutely no danger.
Yet its defenders get mighty defensive as a standard reflex I've noticed.
Something to do with the cube's inherent instability I presume, but there's nothing I can really do about that, except reassure them that their fortifications are sufficient (even if sometimes overbuilt and awkward-looking).