Posted on 12/09/2019 10:17:36 AM PST by Red Badger
I agree. its not new unless you are a self centered millennial who thinks that everything started when you were born. I met one who said she liked classic rock, I mentioned I liked deep purple and she said “ who?”. typical. shfh
If you looked at the answers, there would be two pairs, varying in sign. Pick the painfully obvious pair, and check the sign.
Always got a kick out of the proctor coming over when I’d finished, and saying I had time to check my answers. “I did.”
Quadratic equations say common core is no such thing.
Two of the ‘answers’ were always WAAAAAAAY OFF!...... so then you were 1:2....................
He acknowledges that it’s not new, and is hundreds of years old. But it’s a new way to teach solving quadratics without the quadratic formula. For people who have trouble memorizing, this might be preferable.
I saved time in high school by skipping those math classes. Turns out I was right and my parents were wrong, it was useless information that I would never need. My argument was useless at the time.......
It is an easier way. but yiu have to have some bright peolple to teach them a concept , most people need a step by step fromula to do math. they cant just see 13x12 =13x13 -(13). or 169-13 or 156. they have to break it down, (3x1)+(3x10)+(10x1). etc.. . etc.. I was at 169-13 when i wrote the problem
It is an easier way. but yiu have to have some bright peolple to teach them a concept , most people need a step by step fromula to do math. they cant just see 13x12 =13x13 -(13). or 169-13 or 156. they have to break it down, (3x1)+(3x10)+(10x1). etc.. . etc.. I was at 169-13 when i wrote the problem
The Algebra textbooks I had in the late ‘70s/early ‘80s show this method as an explanation of the quadratic formula. Of course, those textbooks were written before Carter’s Department of Education was created...
Bump for later...
Wow...looks like he re-discovered Descartes!
...oh René Descartes was a drunken fart ..
...I drink therefore I am!
Furthermore, the technique demonstrated applies only to the special case of quadratics where a=1. If you add in the complication of a<>1, although I haven't tried to apply this new method, you are going to have more complicated expressions and you might as well have started with the general solution to begin with.
Meth cooking at MIT reaches new levels...
Not necessary.....
I guess I live a sheltered life. I can't remember the last time, in the course of my day to day activities, when I've been asked to solve an quadratic equation.
I have kids telling me they learned this last year.
I’m surprised!.......................That they still teach QE!.....................
You can always make a=1, you just divide both sides by a. Since the other side is 0, it really doesn’t matter.
But having not had time to watch his video, I’m still trying to figure out why the general quadratic equation is considered “hard to understand”.
The article shows the old way with a single equation. If the new way is so easy, why doesn’t the article describe how to do it? Minus b plus and minus the square root of b squared minus four a c all over 2a can be performed in less than a minute with a calculator to do the square root and described in a single sentence. The new method requires you to watch a video??? Every time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.