What's the point of the 11 times table?
Discussion
simoid said:
Not sure if serious...!?
Deadly serious. Nothing funny about learning difficulties I'm afraid, however trivial they can sometimes seem. But if you're smart, you can learn to work around them. And there are a lot of highly intelligent people around who do have some sort of learning difficulty when measured against what is considered "normal". s2art said:
We used to, up to the 20 times table. But that faded away sometime after WW2, maybe with the onslaught of 'Modern Maths'.
First thing we did maths-wise at secondary school ( it was & still is a grammar)in the late 70's was to learn the tables from 13 to 25. It is surprising how often it comes in useful. It is not uncommon during a meeting that a multiple of numbers is required above 12 and everybody else jumps for the calculator. I just come out with the answer automatically. I don't need to think about it, it was taught into me.
Learning the "Times Tables" as though one is learning a Poem (assuming we all hated poetry) is tiresome and at the time appears irrelevant.
Can be useful later, a list to long to list.
Familiarity with numbers make it easier to convert Hex to dec and recognise Hex or askey in binary.
Of course not everyone needs this, but it is not a super power, just a little practice.
How do you think those dart players work out their next targets!
Can be useful later, a list to long to list.
Familiarity with numbers make it easier to convert Hex to dec and recognise Hex or askey in binary.
Of course not everyone needs this, but it is not a super power, just a little practice.
How do you think those dart players work out their next targets!
Derek Smith said:
Randy Winkman said:
It's only partially related, but do folk know the explanation of why things have been done in 12s, rather than 10s? I'm told it comes from market traders because you can divide a dozen in halves, thirds, quarters or sixths and end up with whole numbers.
I think it was something to do with the fact that there are 12 hours in half a day.I might be wrong though.
Randy Winkman said:
I think hours are just made up by people though.
Once upon a time the Romans had a decimal calendar, which is why September (7), October (8), November (9) and December (10) are wrongly named in our 12 month calendar today.The French also had a go at it a couple of hundred years ago.
I'd be all in favour of a 100 hour day (approx. 15 of our minutes each) with 100 minutes (approx. one and a half of our minutes each) and 100 seconds (almost identical to our seconds).
For the months I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of the "short February" nonsense and simply have all the usual 12 months with either 30 or 31 days as required.
No point at all in times tables.
It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
cymtriks said:
No point at all in times tables.
It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
My son learnt his tables by tote. He enjoys maths, got A* ins the and further maths a level last year and the same grade in physics. After his gap year he has a place to do a masters in theoretical astrophysics which is almost solely maths. It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
cymtriks said:
No point at all in times tables.
It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
10 years of tables ? Dear god. We did it in 1 or 2. Sounds like some stupendously bad curriculum design.It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
The real problem, as far as I encountered when dealing with the end product of the school system, is that any sort of curiosity and inventiveness is discouraged in favour of passing the tests. No problem solving, just recall and rote application.
cymtriks said:
No point at all in times tables.
It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
Since the whole point of the announcement is that kids should have learned their tables by the end of primary school, I'm not sure where 10 years comes from. Did you not bother much with subtraction either It causes immense damage to encouraging children to take STEM subjects. By the time they take their options they've had getting on for ten years of rote learning tables. No wonder the kids can't wait to drop anything with maths in it.
I actually make my living out of applied mathematics (engineering analysis) and never bothered much with tables at school.
More seriously, I think the most telling thing is that almost everyone on this thread that can remember their times tables, have said they use them loads. When determining whether something is useful, best to ask those that have the option and have tried it.
She's the reason why I watch Countdown... 
Fats25 said:
I feel for people that do not know their times table, and therefore struggle with "mental" arithmetic. This means that you probably leave the room when the Numbers game is on countdown.
You are therefore missing out on Rachel Riley.
A sad state of affairs if you have to miss this!
You are therefore missing out on Rachel Riley.
A sad state of affairs if you have to miss this!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff