Category Archives: language in math
It all started with an aside in a blog post in which the author said how
some students have a real problem with statements such as “A square is a
From early years kids naturally like exclusive definitions, and have to be weaned off this. This would be easier if we were more careful with the word “is”. Even to me the statement ” a square is a rhombus” sounds weird, if not actually wrong. It would be better to be less brutal, and say “a square is also a rhombus” (and all the other such statements).
Even better, and quite mathematical, is the phrasing “a square is a special case of a rhombus”, as the idea of special cases is very important, and usually overlooked.
It is odd that the classification of triangles is done entirely with adjectives and the difficulty is thus avoided (but see later).
After fighting with a Venn Diagram I did a tree diagram to show the relationships:
I then got thinking about the words “triangle”, “quadrilateral”, “pentagon” etcetera.
Let us see what the full extended lines look like:
Let ab be the name for the full line through A and B
Likewise ac, bd and dc
Then we can see that the quadrilateral is determined by the points of intersection of the two pairs of lines ab,cd and ac,bd.
ab and cd meet at point E; ac and bd meet at point F
But if we consider the four lines then there are three ways of pairing them up. The two others are ab,ac with bd,cd and ab,bd with ac,cd.
This gives us two more quadrilaterals, and they all have the property that each side falls on one only of the four lines.
The three quadrilaterals are ABCD, FCEB and FDEA
ABCD is convex, FCEB is twisted and FDEA is not convex (concave at A)
Not only that, but also the first two are fitted together to give the third one.
This arrangement is called the “complete quadrilateral”, and has four lines and six points.
More next time.
You should all read this, from the Washington Post October 2013.
“Why are some kids crying when they do homework these days? Here’s why, from award-winning Principal Carol Burris of South Side High School in New York”.
Here is the actual test paper (for 5-year-olds), to save you time:
“Is” is a very overworked word, to the point of illogicality.
Technically in both cases none of them.
In everyday language we can get away with the question and accept the answer “The first one” even though it is actually a picture of the head of a dog.
In math we MUST be more precise, and ask “Which of these graphs is the graph of a function?”, or “Which of these graphs could represent a function?”.
A graph is NEVER a function, and a function is not a graph. If we actually followed the Common Core on this it would be even more troublesome, as a graph is DEFINED as a set of ordered pairs as below —
Define, evaluate, and compare functions.
1. Understand that a function is a rule that assigns to each input exactly
one output. The graph of a function is the set of ordered pairs
consisting of an input and the corresponding output.
But at least WE all know what a graph is…..or do we?
This was found on “talking math with your kids” as an example of the “strange” stuff that kids bring home and cause mystification in their parents.
“The whole is 8. One part is 8. What is the other part ?”.
Just what exactly is this supposed to mean?
That the whole always consists of two parts?
Since when did numbers have parts?
What is the definition of “part”?
Even if we are talking about 8 things, then the natural AND logical answer is “There isn’t another part”.
If I want to see ways of creating 8, using adding, then what is wrong with
8=1+7 8=2+6 8=3+5 … 8=7+1 and 8=8+0 for completeness’ sake.
To call zero a part of 8 is going to lay the groundwork for a feeling that math hasn’t got a lot to do with real life, which is a crying shame. This feeling can arise at any stage, we should give reality a chance at this level. To conclude “What a stupid question!”.
If the x axis is moved 2 steps left and the y axis is moved one step down then the coordinates of the original point E in the moved axes are (3,2)
This will be the case for any original point – the coordinates of each one of them will be the same as the coordinates of their new positions under the translation (in the original coordinate system).
This can be seen to be true for the other rigid motions, for example
rotation about the origin through an angle theta is equivalent to a rotation about the origin of the axes through an angle minus theta. So there is a one to one correspondence between rigid motions and change of axes (scales preserved).
On a lighter note, it does seem easier to rotate a pair of axes than rotating the whole plane ! ! !
I thought I would write a computer routine to check if two figures were congruent by the CCSS definition (rigid motions). One day I will post it.
The most important thing was to be specific as to what is a geometrical figure. You can read the CCSS document from front to back, back to front, upside down and more, but NO DEFINITION of a geometrical figure. For the computer program I decided that a geometrical figure was simply a set of points. My diagram may show some of them joined, but any two points describe a line segment (or a line). So a line segment “exists” for any pair of points.
The question is “Are the two figures shown below congruent or not?
I rest my case…..
Idly passing the time this morning I thought of a – b = a + (-b).
Fair enough, it is the interpretation of subtraction in the extended positive/negative number system.
I then thought of a – (b + c)
Sticking to the rules I got a + (-(b + c))
To proceed further I had to guess that -(b + c) = (-b) + (-c)
and then, quite ok, a – (b + c) = a – b – c
But -(b + c) = (-b) + (-c) is guesswork.
I cannot see a rule to apply to this situation.
The only way forward is to use -1 as a multiplier:
So a – b = a + (-1)b = a + (-b),
and then -(b + c) = (-1)(b + c) = (-1)b + (-1)c = (-b) + (-c)
by the distributive law.
It’s not surprising that kids have trouble with negative numbers!
Do we just assert that the distributive law applies everywhere, even when it is only defined with ++’s ?
George, to his teacher:
I have now integrated my preconceived ideas and the enlightenments engendered by yourself, but I still have trouble differentiating between “the limit of” and “the limits of”.
George’s teacher, aside:
I think George would be better off writing a novel. he could call it “The Limits of Continuity”.
Alfred North Whitehead, professor of mathematics and philosophy, and famous for his collaboration with Bertrand Russell on their joint effort, the Principia Mathematica, also wrote a book, “Introduction to Mathematics”, in 1911, for High School students and others who really wanted to know what math was all about.
The section on negative numbers is so relevant to the teaching of that topic today that it is a MUST READ. Click the link to download this section.