Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Common Core snippet a little distressing
Replies: 73   Last Post: Jul 26, 2013 6:27 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 frank zubek Posts: 222 Registered: 5/12/09
Re: Common Core snippet a little distressing
Posted: Jul 26, 2013 6:27 PM

Kirby wrote;
We send mixed messages when we encourage "constructing one's own reality"
in the sense of being willing to question age-old assumptions, and then
level a charge of "ego-mania" if anyone actually follows this advise too
avidly.
- ----------------------------------------------------------
I would like to know please, how ? and where is Fuller differentiating from a old cube realm.
There is a cube, it is dissected in to tetra blocks. in one case in to 72 blocks, in a another case in to 24 modules, considering a Mite = 3 A-B modules and these modules are same individually as the modules from the 72 module cube. So these cubes are same in SIZE, there is a another cube that is dissected in to 24 modules and also 48 modules,so all 4 mentioned cubes are SAME just dissected differently all these cubes MUST be also modeled with same size spheres ALL 4 mentioned cubes.

Now we both doing TETRAHEDRAL accounting, we both evaluate the magnitude of solids, tetras, cubeoctas.cubes, rh. dodec, rh. triconta and countless relations of say, octhedrons, Mite, Smite as per Koski named a divided Mite in to a Smite correct?

we BOTH CAN SAY A oblate octahedron aka. coupler is 1/6 of a rh. dodeca, and we know a coupler is 1/3 of a related cube correct? we also know that the long face diagonal of the mentioned rh. dodeca in SYNERGETICS is considered a sphere DIAMETER or unit radius spheres same thing.

Anyway, if at this point everything is correct , in which way Fuller is different or unique ? where both systems are same, just dissected differently, of course my unit radius sphere, can model the inner octahedron found in a coupler, whereas in synergetics there is none, because the coupler is 24 modules and octhedron 96 modules hence the tremendous difference, and we all know a cothedron is 1/6 of a cube, noticing the same ratios of the SAME modules a coupler is 1/6 of the rh. dodeca and the octahedron is 1/6 of the cube,
but your cube = 72 A-B modules a 24 Mite cube also = 72 modules, and your octahedron = 96 such modules, so the 1/6 RATIO DOES NOT EXISTS in synergetics,

why it can not be sphere stocked ?
So Fuller is not done anything special or unique but from this point on he is also incorrect, after all a octahedron is 1/6 of a cube made of 6 unit radius spheres and two of these spheres kissing are the long face diagonal of our rh. dodeca. So you see, you can't have it both ways, ONLY ONE WAY, after all cant have two different answers modeling with same blocks,derived from same cubes explaining the same phenomena of RELATIVE VOL.
and on top of all as you said, you can model my modules from A-B my courtesi to you, well, that was my purpose to show you guys we modeling with same cubes you Kirby can model my cube from YOUR blocks,SO WE ARE FINALLY HOME, that mean I also sphere stock this same cube with my spheres and it shows and it must show to you that, indeed the octahedron is 1/6 of a cube and a Two ferq. Cube = 24 MIte, and a octahedron = 4 Mite volumes correct ? so basically 1/6.

Hence a cube of TRUE 1-Freq.
Cube = 3 tetras, octahed = 4 such tetras,NOTICE PLEASE OCTEHEDRON IS 1/3 larger than a cube, NO 1/6 relation exists this is what makes my cube so powerfull tool, anyway cubeoctahed. = 20 such tetras, or 12 around 1 same size spheres, it is all modeled but your shpere is enclosed in a rh. dodeca, it can **not** model ANYTHING at this level, so only one true relation of magnitudes is correct.

frank

Date Subject Author
7/13/13 Peter Duveen
7/13/13 Robert Hansen
7/13/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/14/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/14/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/14/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/14/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Robert Hansen
7/15/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Wayne Bishop
7/14/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Wayne Bishop
7/15/13 kirby urner
7/15/13 Robert Hansen
7/15/13 Christian Baune
7/15/13 kirby urner
7/16/13 Wayne Bishop
7/16/13 kirby urner
7/14/13 Wayne Bishop
7/14/13 Joe Niederberger
7/15/13 Joe Niederberger
7/15/13 Joe Niederberger
7/15/13 Robert Hansen
7/15/13 kirby urner
7/15/13 Robert Hansen
7/16/13 kirby urner
7/16/13 Robert Hansen
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/15/13 CCSSIMath
7/16/13 Joe Niederberger
7/16/13 Robert Hansen
7/16/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 Joe Niederberger
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 kirby urner
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/18/13 Wayne Bishop
7/17/13 Joe Niederberger
7/17/13 Joe Niederberger
7/17/13 Robert Hansen
7/18/13 Wayne Bishop
7/18/13 Joe Niederberger
7/18/13 kirby urner
7/18/13 Joe Niederberger
7/20/13 kirby urner
7/19/13 Joe Niederberger
7/19/13 kirby urner
7/19/13 Joe Niederberger
7/19/13 Joe Niederberger
7/20/13 kirby urner
7/21/13 Joe Niederberger
7/23/13 kirby urner
7/24/13 frank zubek
7/24/13 frank zubek
7/24/13 kirby urner
7/25/13 frank zubek
7/25/13 kirby urner
7/25/13 frank zubek
7/25/13 frank zubek
7/25/13 frank zubek
7/26/13 frank zubek
7/26/13 frank zubek