The NumWorks graphing calculator [LWN.net]

The NumWorks graphing calculator

Posted Sep 29, 2017 12:18 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
In reply to: The NumWorks graphing calculator by gdt
Parent article: The NumWorks graphing calculator

Learning and understanding how to compute the roots of an polynomial or how to solve a (small) linear equation system manually yourself is a good thing.
Without doing it manually on paper you don't understand how it works, and it trains your brain.

I know this may sound old...
I still think that one of the best lectures I had (20 years ago) was one where the professor explained the stuff by drawing it on a blackboard. IMO the best way to make somebody understand a problem is a person writing/drawing and explaining and pointing at the same time. Works without any computer.

to post comments

The NumWorks graphing calculator

Posted Sep 29, 2017 15:07 UTC (Fri) by gutschke (subscriber, #27910) [Link] (3 responses)

That's why it often makes sense to administer those type of tests without allowing any calculators.

There are a good number of numerical problems that can be computed without the help of calculators.

And once the student has mastered the mechanics of math, you can let them take future tests "open book" and with a calculator.

Of course, those tests will be much more difficult

The NumWorks graphing calculator

Posted Oct 12, 2017 15:08 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

One only has to ask why do modern students make blunders with orders of magnitude. Someone who's learnt maths the hard way (ie long multiplication etc), on being presented with a sum like "3 times thirty", will *know* the answer is approximately 100.

Somebody who's been taught to just enter it into a calculator will quite happily accept an answer that is approximately 10, or approximately 1000.

I regularly do a "sloppy calculation" in my head when using a calculator, precisely to pick up "finger trouble" errors, and it regularly saves my bacon ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

The NumWorks graphing calculator

Posted Oct 12, 2017 16:34 UTC (Thu) by gutschke (subscriber, #27910) [Link]

I think I was in sixth grade, when I memorized log10(2) and log10(3). Turns out, that means with a second or two to think about it, I know the logarithms of all the numbers from 1 through 10. Although, admittedly, log10(5) and log10(7) are trickier and I'd have to interpolate.

There are an amazing number of problems that can be approximated, if you know these logarithms. You can usually get the order of magnitude and sometimes one or two significant digits. That's absolutely good enough to eyeball the results for plausibility.

Also, like most of you, I know the powers of two up to at least 16 -- and probably higher, if I give it a little thought. Turns out, a lot of problems that look difficult in base 10 look really easy in base 2.

Math is all about reducing a complicated problem to a different problem that is easy. And if you memorize a small number of constants from different problem domains, then your toolbox grows exponentially more powerful. Logarithms are particularly good for this, but some of the trigonometric functions are pretty useful, too.

I distinctly remember moments in university (back, when I still needed to do lots of math), when I would arrive at an approximate answer within seconds, whereas my peers took about one minute to get the exact answer from their calculators. Turns out, my answers were always within less than 10% of theirs, and often better -- which frequently is good enough.

The NumWorks graphing calculator

Posted Oct 14, 2017 7:22 UTC (Sat) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

I can testify that children taught operations by hand will absolutely have as much problems with decimal orders of magnitude as those taught using calculators. Order of magnitude (well... Sense based validation of results) is a different and mostly independent, unrelated, teaching. They can be quite conflated.
Take for example decimal comma positioning in manual multiplication. It will be placed by a calculus on operand comma position, not on estimated expected order of magnitude of the result. And learners will stick with it.