Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #424224 > unrolled thread

1,2-Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  1,2-Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:05 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 00:17 +0000
    Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-25 00:19 +0000

#424224 — 1,2-Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

1,2Newsgroups: sci.math

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:19:48 -0700 (PDT)



Subject: Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE

 MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:19:48 +0000





Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium 



Preface: 



Alright I devote the entire years 2018-19 to doing this textbook on math. A textbook like none other for it takes the student from age 5 through to age 25 for all their math studies, throughout the subject of mathematics. The one book that teaches all of mathematics. Of course we supplement with some outside sources like the common core curriculum in Grade School, High School, and some specific texts in College, although I have found most math books are full of error. So I want the teacher to be very very careful that they do not use fake pollution math of other sources, for the hassles of explaining to students the mistakes by others is too much of a hassle and thus, not bother using those books at all, especially those that still believe in Negative numbers, for negative numbers are fake math. And especially those that teach the fake numbers they called "Reals", very very fake garbage was the "Reals". Certainly not worth the time for the teacher to explain a bad rotten Old Math system.



This book is historic in the sense that it cleans out all the errors of Old Math, and believe you me, the errors in Old Math were vast. So vast, that the best thing is to rewrite all the math textbooks, throw out the old-- so to speak. 



And historic in the sense the book is used from ages 5 to 25 as a single math text, where teachers supplement blank pages to tailor fit their class. I write this textbook with the Common Core Curriculum in the USA, in mind, not for their content because their math teachings are full of error or just plain irrelevant math, but rather, I use the common core to see at what maturity the student is, whether they are at an age to learn the given math. So I know what Grade level students are taught specific topics. But here the teachers have to help this book along as to what is most appropriate for their classrooms, and have to tailor-make many lessons. 



I write this textbook in a style never seen before in science textbooks, for I am talking most often to the student, but also, talking very much to the teacher, sometimes the parents. So both the student and teacher and parents are addressed in this textbook. 



This book is unique, in that you need only this text of math for all school needs. None of this buying a new book for each course, a new book for each year level. And it requires work by the teacher to fill in blanks. I cover only the very basic. But the beauty of that, is many students bored with the lessons under study at the moment, will keep on looking further ahead in the pages, at more advanced math-- for it is available and open to their eyes at all times to wander on into what their future math lessons are going to be-- what we now call Surfing the book in our age of computers- surfing the web. I was a teacher myself when young and out of College, and a valuable lesson I learned, is that if you offer students a full range of work-study-items, and only a few of them meant for the students at that year level, 9 times out of 10, the students will progress further and further ahead, without you ever asking them to do so.





#2-1 Division  TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018 



First day in class for 8 year olds should be a review. We want kids to feel smart and confident to go on further.



Review the word "commutative" in this Multiplication Table, by saying commutative is switching around is the same as not switching around and do the table all over again. Switching around does not change the answer for 2x3 is the same as 3x2. That 9x6 is the same as 6x9.



3x2 =6 

4x2 =8 

5x2 =10 

6x2 =12 

7x2 =14 

8x2 = 16 

9x2 =18 



4x3 = 12 

5x3 = 15 

6x3 = 18 

7x3 = 21 

8x3 = 24 

9x3 = 27 

  

5x4 = 20 

6x4 = 24 

7x4 =28 

8x4 = 32 

9x4 = 36 



6x5 = 30 

7x5 = 35 

8x5 = 40 

9x5 = 45 



7x6 = 42 

8x6 = 48 

9x6 = 54 

  

8x7 = 56 

9x7 = 63 



9x8 = 72 



Now, teacher, make sure all the 8 year olds have that table memorized, to where they say the answer from rote memory. Throughout life, they need to know multiplication by rote memory. A few of the above are tricky for youngsters-- such as the 54, 56. And teach the students that you have the same answer (commutative) going in either direction. I mean that 5x7 = 35 is the same as 7x5 = 35. 



Now I do not recall how I learned this table myself when I was a youngster around 1958, and parents and teachers probably know better than I on how to teach this table rote memory. Whether daily, out loud questions where all the students answer, so the teacher says 7x3 is what? Then 8x6 is what? so on and so forth. 



Students have to memorize the multiplication table because when you do division, you have to have memorized multiplication to do division. The huge importance of a memorized multiplication, is that you are handicapped if not memorized, when doing division.



Why all the fuss about memorization of multiplication, why why why? Because division depends on your memorized multiplication. You cannot do division with any accuracy, with any speed or any proficiency if you do not know the multiplication table. So, why memorize Multiplication? Why? Because then you can do division.



Now, teacher, stay with that table of memorizing multiplication, until you feel that the students have it rote memorized. It is important to have it memorized because division depends on the students memorizing multiplication. If they do not memorize it, and go to division, they are frustrated and possibly breakdown.  Frustrated frustrated and frustrated, and cannot go on to higher math.



Now let us review Addition , Subtraction and Multiplication and what they mean.



Add is self explanatory-- we increase something by joining it with more of something.



Subtract-- what does it mean? Remember what you were taught in prior years what subtract really means? It means Remove or removal. But remember the law you cannot break-- you cannot remove more than what is available.



Multiply-- what does it mean? Remember in prior years you learned Multiply was Rapid Add. Remember those wood block cubes, how easy it was to know how many there are by just multiplying instead of adding each one individually.



Commutative or commute-- what does that mean? Remember it means you can add or multiply and the order makes no difference.



But now, we ask a question is Subtraction is it commutative?



We know add is commutative in that 2 + 5 = 7 and that 5 + 2 = 7



We know that multiply is commutative in that 2 x 5 = 10 and that 5 x 2 = 10



But, what about subtract, is it commutative  5 - 2 = 3 but what about 2 - 5 ? Here we learned a Rule of Arithmetic-- we cannot remove more than what is available, so that 2 - 5 is nonsense, it is not mathematics for it violates that rule.



Subtraction is not commutative.



What about division?



10 divided by 2 is written like this  10 / 2 = 5



Remember multiplication is commutative 2 x 5 = 10



Here we have 10/2 = 5



What do you think 10/5 is going to equal?



We had 2x5 = 10 and we have 10/2 = 5



What is 10/5 going to be? 



The reason we have a Rule in Subtraction that you cannot remove more than is available is because subtraction does not commute.



We will learn that there is a rule in division, similar to you cannot remove more than what is available, and the rule in division is you cannot divide by 0. The Division Rule, you cannot divide by 0, comes about, because division like subtraction does not Commute.



Subtraction is Remove and subtraction does not commute meaning there is a Rule to obey you cannot remove more than available.



Division is Rapid Remove or rapid subtraction, and it does not commute, for 10/2 is not the same as 2/10, remember 2x10 is the same as 10x2. Because division does not commute it has a Rule to obey. And that rule is -- you can never divide by 0.



Now the reason subtraction and division are not commutative is because they have a barrier that is impossible to pass. The barrier for subtraction is 0, the number 0 which creates the rule you can not subtract more than what is available. You can subtract 9 - 9 = 0 but you cannot subtract 5 - 9 for 9 is more than 5 and the barrier is 0 amd you cannot pass that barrier. However, if we had (6+5) - 9 means 11 - 9 is math with an answer of 2. 



Division is not commutative because 6/2 is not the same as 2/6. This means also that division has a barrier impossible to pass and creates another rule— you can never divide by 0. 



In subtraction we can never pass the barrier of 0. 



In division we can never pass the barrier of dividing by 0. No 1/0 nor 2/0, nor 3/0 or any number call it N can you have N/0. 



AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424229 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

> kibo-shein-stalkershitparade-Moroney loves AP's theory that Starpower is

Still haven't figured out not to attack me, have you, Failure Plutonium.
You attack, I respond... and not the way you want me to....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424230 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

> kibo-shein-stalkershitparade-Moroney loves AP's theory that Starpower is

I hope you haven't forgotten to write apology posts to your superiors 
here....

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web