Primary school maths
Discussion
A wail link if you dare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4809178/...
All the puzzles on that page are a piece of piss with the exception of the pyramid one, whats it going on about? I cant even decipher the wording.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4809178/...
All the puzzles on that page are a piece of piss with the exception of the pyramid one, whats it going on about? I cant even decipher the wording.
Justayellowbadge said:
3 numbers on the bottom row.
The left and centre add to make the left hand numbEr on the 2nd row, the centre and right the right hand on the second row.
The second row numbers make the top.
Still none the wiser, why do you need the top two pyramids to find the value of the blue box in the bottom one.The left and centre add to make the left hand numbEr on the 2nd row, the centre and right the right hand on the second row.
The second row numbers make the top.
mickmcpaddy said:
Justayellowbadge said:
3 numbers on the bottom row.
The left and centre add to make the left hand numbEr on the 2nd row, the centre and right the right hand on the second row.
The second row numbers make the top.
Still none the wiser, why do you need the top two pyramids to find the value of the blue box in the bottom one.The left and centre add to make the left hand numbEr on the 2nd row, the centre and right the right hand on the second row.
The second row numbers make the top.
Being as I am a current 3rd year engineering student I figured I should have a bash at them.
That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.
All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
caelite said:
the jat one I used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated
You know you'll be adding 7 to jar 1, and taking 3 from jar 3, so eliminate those now. So 40 less the 7 and plus the 3 gives you 36. Divide that by 3, and you have a 'base' for each jar of 12. Now add back the 7 to jar 1 and take the 3 from jar 3.19. 12. 9. Total = 40
The fractions one, I do not get. 7/10 is 21/30, so the white bit is 9/30. 11/15 is 22/30, so the white bit is 8/30. 9/30 + 8/30 is 17/30, not 13.
Edited by Doofus on Monday 21st August 17:36
caelite said:
Being as I am a current 3rd year engineering student I figured I should have a bash at them.
That triangle one stumped the fk out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.
All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
Have I missed a Whoosh Parrot??That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
Really?
And a 3rd Year Engineering student?? Really??
as that is clearly what you are studying at Uni 
If you are having problems with primary school algebra in your third year at uni then something has gone badly wrong.caelite said:
Being as I am a current 3rd year engineering student I figured I should have a bash at them.
That triangle one stumped the fk out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.
All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
Dear god...That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
I do hope you're not going to be doing the structural calcs for bridges or similar...
Slaav said:
caelite said:
Being as I am a current 3rd year engineering student I figured I should have a bash at them.
That triangle one stumped the fk out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.
All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
Have I missed a Whoosh Parrot??That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
Really?
And a 3rd Year Engineering student?? Really??
as that is clearly what you are studying at Uni k. I'll need to remember that when I am next sitting in my thermofluids class, nah these equations of heat transfer & fluid motion are pants, I really should have been studying dodgy number triangles this whole time. I have well and truly failed at life... and possibly sudoku. 
The point I was making was that, in my eyes, much of the 'raw' maths concepts they teach you in school, aren't very good for the majority of students, there where always be the 2 or 3 students to a class whos brains are just wired the same way as the courses creators who will just 'get it'. But I would say that the majority of the concepts they teach kids don't truly 'learn' until they see real life application and in class will only absorb enough to scrape a pass at the class then forget everything after that. Of course for basic adding, subtracting, dividing, multiplying etc day to day life mandates full understanding of these concepts, so most people take it on, however for more advanced, seldom used, concepts, I would say school only gives a basic insight into, and that nobody truly learns the concepts until they see its application, for instance integration, differentiation and other elements of calculus have so many scientific applications, yet all you get taught of it at your GSCE to A level maths is what it looks like on a graph.
So with that being said, in my mind the best thing we could do for mathematical teaching is introduce kids to real life application as early as possible and teach from there, physics, biology, chemistry & engineering all make extensive use of mathematical concepts taught in early school years, however the current methods of teaching seem to want to teach kids the concepts, without ever introducing them to the science that mandates them until much later on. I think the best way forward would be to introduce kids to science early, and teach them the concepts within their real life applications, rather than trying to make up extremely convoluted question systems in order to 'force' understanding.
caelite said:
Being as I am a current 3rd year engineering student I figured I should have a bash at them.
That triangle one stumped the fk out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.
All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
How on Earth is there anything convoluted there?That triangle one stumped the f
k out of me, the jar one I just used process of elimination with a calculator to find the answer, although I assume there is a structured, rigidly enforced process which they have formulated, two fraction ones was pretty straight forward.All in it seems to be the have actually found a more convoluted way of teaching basic mathematics to the one that was used when I was in school, I suppose they should be commended for that. Although in my many years of maths based education I have learned that pure maths teachers seem to find the most convoluted ways of explaining literally any concept, I only hope that there will be some sort of science teacher present to actually teach them something useful.
What flavour of engineering are you studying?
Lucas CAV said:
How on Earth is there anything convoluted there?
What flavour of engineering are you studying?
Mechanical engi b-eng. It's convoluted because instead of just teaching the basic concept of, for instance adding and subtracting mixed fractions (i.e (7/10)+(11/15)-(4/15)-(3/10)) they are adding extra steps and turning into 'puzzles' to make them more complicated in order to create a better understanding of the base concepts, that is by definition, adding convolution. My argument would be that better understanding could be granted by keeping it as simple as possible and teaching kids the scientific application of mathematical concepts earlier on rather than turning them into puzzles. Both would accomplish the feat of granting a deeper understanding of the basic concept, however the scientific application would grant a more meaningful understanding. What flavour of engineering are you studying?
Edit: The type of teaching I am citing is already being trialed in Finland, they tend to have a fairly good handle on things: https://www.sciencealert.com/no-more-physics-and-m...
Edited by caelite on Monday 21st August 19:20
caelite said:
fk. I'll need to remember that when I am next sitting in my thermofluids class, nah these equations of heat transfer & fluid motion are pants, I really should have been studying dodgy number triangles this whole time. I have well and truly failed at life... and possibly sudoku.
The point I was making was that, in my eyes, much of the 'raw' maths concepts they teach you in school, aren't very good for the majority of students, there where always be the 2 or 3 students to a class whos brains are just wired the same way as the courses creators who will just 'get it'. But I would say that the majority of the concepts they teach kids don't truly 'learn' until they see real life application and in class will only absorb enough to scrape a pass at the class then forget everything after that. Of course for basic adding, subtracting, dividing, multiplying etc day to day life mandates full understanding of these concepts, so most people take it on, however for more advanced, seldom used, concepts, I would say school only gives a basic insight into, and that nobody truly learns the concepts until they see its application, for instance integration, differentiation and other elements of calculus have so many scientific applications, yet all you get taught of it at your GSCE to A level maths is what it looks like on a graph.
So with that being said, in my mind the best thing we could do for mathematical teaching is introduce kids to real life application as early as possible and teach from there, physics, biology, chemistry & engineering all make extensive use of mathematical concepts taught in early school years, however the current methods of teaching seem to want to teach kids the concepts, without ever introducing them to the science that mandates them until much later on. I think the best way forward would be to introduce kids to science early, and teach them the concepts within their real life applications, rather than trying to make up extremely convoluted question systems in order to 'force' understanding.
You seem to be contradicting yourself there - these questions are the perfect examples of applying the (basic) maths to solve the problems. Exactly what you say they should be teaching kids. And that's what engineering is basically - solving problems, using the science.k. I'll need to remember that when I am next sitting in my thermofluids class, nah these equations of heat transfer & fluid motion are pants, I really should have been studying dodgy number triangles this whole time. I have well and truly failed at life... and possibly sudoku. The point I was making was that, in my eyes, much of the 'raw' maths concepts they teach you in school, aren't very good for the majority of students, there where always be the 2 or 3 students to a class whos brains are just wired the same way as the courses creators who will just 'get it'. But I would say that the majority of the concepts they teach kids don't truly 'learn' until they see real life application and in class will only absorb enough to scrape a pass at the class then forget everything after that. Of course for basic adding, subtracting, dividing, multiplying etc day to day life mandates full understanding of these concepts, so most people take it on, however for more advanced, seldom used, concepts, I would say school only gives a basic insight into, and that nobody truly learns the concepts until they see its application, for instance integration, differentiation and other elements of calculus have so many scientific applications, yet all you get taught of it at your GSCE to A level maths is what it looks like on a graph.
So with that being said, in my mind the best thing we could do for mathematical teaching is introduce kids to real life application as early as possible and teach from there, physics, biology, chemistry & engineering all make extensive use of mathematical concepts taught in early school years, however the current methods of teaching seem to want to teach kids the concepts, without ever introducing them to the science that mandates them until much later on. I think the best way forward would be to introduce kids to science early, and teach them the concepts within their real life applications, rather than trying to make up extremely convoluted question systems in order to 'force' understanding.
What university are you studying at anyway?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff