<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_2058215</id>
	<title>Wolfram Alpha Rekindles Campus Math Tool Debate</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244802300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends in a story about how Wolfram Alpha is becoming <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/2009/06/19910n.htm">the latest tool students are using to help with their schoolwork</a>, and why some professors are worried it will interfere with the learning process. Quoting:
<i>"The goal of WolframAlpha is to bring high-level mathematics to the masses, by letting users type in problems in plain English and delivering instant results. As a result, some professors say the service poses tough questions for their classroom policies. 'I think this is going to reignite a math war,' said Maria H. Andersen, a mathematics instructor at Muskegon Community College, referring to past debates over the role of graphing calculators in math education. 'Given that there are still pockets of instructors and departments in the US where graphing calculators are still not allowed, some instructors will likely react with resistance (i.e. we still don't change anything) or possibly even with the charge that using WA is cheating.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends in a story about how Wolfram Alpha is becoming the latest tool students are using to help with their schoolwork , and why some professors are worried it will interfere with the learning process .
Quoting : " The goal of WolframAlpha is to bring high-level mathematics to the masses , by letting users type in problems in plain English and delivering instant results .
As a result , some professors say the service poses tough questions for their classroom policies .
'I think this is going to reignite a math war, ' said Maria H. Andersen , a mathematics instructor at Muskegon Community College , referring to past debates over the role of graphing calculators in math education .
'Given that there are still pockets of instructors and departments in the US where graphing calculators are still not allowed , some instructors will likely react with resistance ( i.e .
we still do n't change anything ) or possibly even with the charge that using WA is cheating .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends in a story about how Wolfram Alpha is becoming the latest tool students are using to help with their schoolwork, and why some professors are worried it will interfere with the learning process.
Quoting:
"The goal of WolframAlpha is to bring high-level mathematics to the masses, by letting users type in problems in plain English and delivering instant results.
As a result, some professors say the service poses tough questions for their classroom policies.
'I think this is going to reignite a math war,' said Maria H. Andersen, a mathematics instructor at Muskegon Community College, referring to past debates over the role of graphing calculators in math education.
'Given that there are still pockets of instructors and departments in the US where graphing calculators are still not allowed, some instructors will likely react with resistance (i.e.
we still don't change anything) or possibly even with the charge that using WA is cheating.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318305</id>
	<title>Re:Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244886180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try this:</p><p>PolarPlot[(1 + 0.9 Cos[8 t]) (1 + 0.1 Cos[24 t]) (0.9 + 0.05 Cos[200 t]) (1 + Sin[t]), {t, -Pi, Pi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this : PolarPlot [ ( 1 + 0.9 Cos [ 8 t ] ) ( 1 + 0.1 Cos [ 24 t ] ) ( 0.9 + 0.05 Cos [ 200 t ] ) ( 1 + Sin [ t ] ) , { t , -Pi , Pi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this:PolarPlot[(1 + 0.9 Cos[8 t]) (1 + 0.1 Cos[24 t]) (0.9 + 0.05 Cos[200 t]) (1 + Sin[t]), {t, -Pi, Pi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157</id>
	<title>What's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math tools like Maple have existed for years. WA hardly added anything besides its ability understand English. If using WA is a problem, such problem should have surfaced years ago.</p><p>And a simple solution: just make students show their steps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math tools like Maple have existed for years .
WA hardly added anything besides its ability understand English .
If using WA is a problem , such problem should have surfaced years ago.And a simple solution : just make students show their steps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math tools like Maple have existed for years.
WA hardly added anything besides its ability understand English.
If using WA is a problem, such problem should have surfaced years ago.And a simple solution: just make students show their steps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317751</id>
	<title>Re:I belong to that pocket of math instructors...</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I respect your opinion as a teacher who has more experience than I do in teaching (I never have, beyond random tutoring sessions), I still think not allowing students to use calculators is pretty much wasting everyone's time.</p><p>There's no point in the future that they're going to need to use any higher math when they don't have a calculator.  If they do, its to convince the people they're trapped on an island with that they can do higher math without a calculator.</p><p>In my opinion, a better teaching experience would be to teach them the steps to it, then show them how to do it on a calculator.  Teach them why it works.  Teach them the method behind the madness of each step.  If they want to learn more, delve deeper, get a real hands-on feel for it, fine.  Let them.  If they want to get their homework/studying done so they can go to work or hang out at a party, that's fine too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I respect your opinion as a teacher who has more experience than I do in teaching ( I never have , beyond random tutoring sessions ) , I still think not allowing students to use calculators is pretty much wasting everyone 's time.There 's no point in the future that they 're going to need to use any higher math when they do n't have a calculator .
If they do , its to convince the people they 're trapped on an island with that they can do higher math without a calculator.In my opinion , a better teaching experience would be to teach them the steps to it , then show them how to do it on a calculator .
Teach them why it works .
Teach them the method behind the madness of each step .
If they want to learn more , delve deeper , get a real hands-on feel for it , fine .
Let them .
If they want to get their homework/studying done so they can go to work or hang out at a party , that 's fine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I respect your opinion as a teacher who has more experience than I do in teaching (I never have, beyond random tutoring sessions), I still think not allowing students to use calculators is pretty much wasting everyone's time.There's no point in the future that they're going to need to use any higher math when they don't have a calculator.
If they do, its to convince the people they're trapped on an island with that they can do higher math without a calculator.In my opinion, a better teaching experience would be to teach them the steps to it, then show them how to do it on a calculator.
Teach them why it works.
Teach them the method behind the madness of each step.
If they want to learn more, delve deeper, get a real hands-on feel for it, fine.
Let them.
If they want to get their homework/studying done so they can go to work or hang out at a party, that's fine too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316019</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As per the university's academic dishonesty policy, ask what is and isn't allowed in a given class, whether math-based or not.</p><p>Some teachers are okay with the use of high-end calculators, others are not. But, the key is, showing one's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As per the university 's academic dishonesty policy , ask what is and is n't allowed in a given class , whether math-based or not.Some teachers are okay with the use of high-end calculators , others are not .
But , the key is , showing one 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As per the university's academic dishonesty policy, ask what is and isn't allowed in a given class, whether math-based or not.Some teachers are okay with the use of high-end calculators, others are not.
But, the key is, showing one's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315825</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say....</title>
	<author>cellocgw</author>
	<datestamp>1244811720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Feeling of Power" by Isaac Asimov.</p><p>FWIW,  I'm opposed to *requiring* graphing calculators, not to *allowing* them.  Calculators, graphics tools, etc. are not math; they're engineering tools.  Mathematics is (with a few rare exceptions) purely symbolic.  If you don't understand that, you don't understand math.  And, yeah,  YACAS and Mathematica do solve symbolic problems.  I wouldn't allow them during tests, but if students want to use the tools instead of learning math, that's their own funeral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Feeling of Power " by Isaac Asimov.FWIW , I 'm opposed to * requiring * graphing calculators , not to * allowing * them .
Calculators , graphics tools , etc .
are not math ; they 're engineering tools .
Mathematics is ( with a few rare exceptions ) purely symbolic .
If you do n't understand that , you do n't understand math .
And , yeah , YACAS and Mathematica do solve symbolic problems .
I would n't allow them during tests , but if students want to use the tools instead of learning math , that 's their own funeral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Feeling of Power" by Isaac Asimov.FWIW,  I'm opposed to *requiring* graphing calculators, not to *allowing* them.
Calculators, graphics tools, etc.
are not math; they're engineering tools.
Mathematics is (with a few rare exceptions) purely symbolic.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand math.
And, yeah,  YACAS and Mathematica do solve symbolic problems.
I wouldn't allow them during tests, but if students want to use the tools instead of learning math, that's their own funeral.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315853</id>
	<title>Re:What's new?</title>
	<author>Captain Cabron</author>
	<datestamp>1244811960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Maple, Tools -&gt; Tutors will show you the steps to solving loads of the most common math problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Maple , Tools - &gt; Tutors will show you the steps to solving loads of the most common math problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Maple, Tools -&gt; Tutors will show you the steps to solving loads of the most common math problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316793</id>
	<title>Re:Using the book is cheating!</title>
	<author>wrappingpaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To a certain extent this is correct. Boring books with lots of exercises do work, if there is a teacher who knows what they are doing.</p><p>In primary school you get taught the basics of algebra (commutativity, associativity, distributivity, the + and &#215; identities, etc.) and the exercises <i>should</i> familiarize you to those properties. It depends a lot on the teacher though--in my experience teachers were all gentlemanly types who let us pick whatever pages we wanted (from some selection) as long as we noted clearly which ones they were, and as long as we did enough. That way, when it got boring we could stop.</p><p>Developing intuition is important, but when you are learning you need a good idea of where you are going. Hence rigorous methods are lost on some people, since they don't see why you need to have Definition 1 about [some basic idea].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To a certain extent this is correct .
Boring books with lots of exercises do work , if there is a teacher who knows what they are doing.In primary school you get taught the basics of algebra ( commutativity , associativity , distributivity , the + and   identities , etc .
) and the exercises should familiarize you to those properties .
It depends a lot on the teacher though--in my experience teachers were all gentlemanly types who let us pick whatever pages we wanted ( from some selection ) as long as we noted clearly which ones they were , and as long as we did enough .
That way , when it got boring we could stop.Developing intuition is important , but when you are learning you need a good idea of where you are going .
Hence rigorous methods are lost on some people , since they do n't see why you need to have Definition 1 about [ some basic idea ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To a certain extent this is correct.
Boring books with lots of exercises do work, if there is a teacher who knows what they are doing.In primary school you get taught the basics of algebra (commutativity, associativity, distributivity, the + and × identities, etc.
) and the exercises should familiarize you to those properties.
It depends a lot on the teacher though--in my experience teachers were all gentlemanly types who let us pick whatever pages we wanted (from some selection) as long as we noted clearly which ones they were, and as long as we did enough.
That way, when it got boring we could stop.Developing intuition is important, but when you are learning you need a good idea of where you are going.
Hence rigorous methods are lost on some people, since they don't see why you need to have Definition 1 about [some basic idea].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315179</id>
	<title>f you don't know it, you don't know it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might mess around with the process of homework, but if a student has been using WA all semester to solve his work, he's still screwed when it comes to the in-class exam.  Not to mention following class discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might mess around with the process of homework , but if a student has been using WA all semester to solve his work , he 's still screwed when it comes to the in-class exam .
Not to mention following class discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might mess around with the process of homework, but if a student has been using WA all semester to solve his work, he's still screwed when it comes to the in-class exam.
Not to mention following class discussions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315791</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>djurban</author>
	<datestamp>1244811420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe finally people will have to pass exams testing *understanding* of the subject in contrast to knowing how to apply patterns and rewriting systems to solve simple taks that are computer solvable now. It's always good to see the bar going higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe finally people will have to pass exams testing * understanding * of the subject in contrast to knowing how to apply patterns and rewriting systems to solve simple taks that are computer solvable now .
It 's always good to see the bar going higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe finally people will have to pass exams testing *understanding* of the subject in contrast to knowing how to apply patterns and rewriting systems to solve simple taks that are computer solvable now.
It's always good to see the bar going higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318417</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1244888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and Moses invests</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Moses invests</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Moses invests</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316747</id>
	<title>This may sound obvious but..</title>
	<author>Skythe</author>
	<datestamp>1244820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you have to be able to show the working to prove how you arrived at an answer? So what if a student uses it to verify their answer, I did the same myself in high school with the "answer" section of the book. Was a very useful tool to show that I was in the wrong direction and that I should see where i'm going wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you have to be able to show the working to prove how you arrived at an answer ?
So what if a student uses it to verify their answer , I did the same myself in high school with the " answer " section of the book .
Was a very useful tool to show that I was in the wrong direction and that I should see where i 'm going wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you have to be able to show the working to prove how you arrived at an answer?
So what if a student uses it to verify their answer, I did the same myself in high school with the "answer" section of the book.
Was a very useful tool to show that I was in the wrong direction and that I should see where i'm going wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28323543</id>
	<title>I see this as simple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244898780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I see this as very simple.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Some classes, you're supposed to show you understand what integration, derivatives, etc. actually MEAN.. not just how to press the right buttons on a calculator.  You really need to show your work to show you know how to do it.  They generally therefore ban using a calculator, matehmatica, etc. to do it for you in these classes.  One poster said Wolfram Alpha will show steps; well, if you use this to cheat, this'll bite you in the ass at test time if you haven't actually learned how to do the concepts.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In later classes, you're expected to know how to do this stuff already, and are doing more complex mathematical manipulations.  These classes did not expect the level of detail of "showing your work" for every single derivative, etc. ( 1. You were supposed to know how to do that already.  2. A 2 or 3 page assignment would balloon to like 50 pages with that much detail, which would be unwieldy for the grader if nothing else.)           These classes allowed Mathematica and the like.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I've taken both types of classes, and in context, both views make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this as very simple .
          Some classes , you 're supposed to show you understand what integration , derivatives , etc .
actually MEAN.. not just how to press the right buttons on a calculator .
You really need to show your work to show you know how to do it .
They generally therefore ban using a calculator , matehmatica , etc .
to do it for you in these classes .
One poster said Wolfram Alpha will show steps ; well , if you use this to cheat , this 'll bite you in the ass at test time if you have n't actually learned how to do the concepts .
          In later classes , you 're expected to know how to do this stuff already , and are doing more complex mathematical manipulations .
These classes did not expect the level of detail of " showing your work " for every single derivative , etc .
( 1 .
You were supposed to know how to do that already .
2. A 2 or 3 page assignment would balloon to like 50 pages with that much detail , which would be unwieldy for the grader if nothing else .
) These classes allowed Mathematica and the like .
          I 've taken both types of classes , and in context , both views make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I see this as very simple.
          Some classes, you're supposed to show you understand what integration, derivatives, etc.
actually MEAN.. not just how to press the right buttons on a calculator.
You really need to show your work to show you know how to do it.
They generally therefore ban using a calculator, matehmatica, etc.
to do it for you in these classes.
One poster said Wolfram Alpha will show steps; well, if you use this to cheat, this'll bite you in the ass at test time if you haven't actually learned how to do the concepts.
          In later classes, you're expected to know how to do this stuff already, and are doing more complex mathematical manipulations.
These classes did not expect the level of detail of "showing your work" for every single derivative, etc.
( 1.
You were supposed to know how to do that already.
2. A 2 or 3 page assignment would balloon to like 50 pages with that much detail, which would be unwieldy for the grader if nothing else.
)           These classes allowed Mathematica and the like.
          I've taken both types of classes, and in context, both views make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315191</id>
	<title>Too general</title>
	<author>dexmachina</author>
	<datestamp>1244807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends a lot on the nature of the class, so there's no one-size-fits-all answer for when tools like graphing calculators or WA should be allowed. In first year calculus, when you're learning how to integrate, a program that can do symbolic integration isn't an appropriate tool. On the other hand, for a first class in ODEs, the integration is the least essential part of the process and so the right tools make it easier to focus on whats really important. Yes, I know WA can solve diff eq's too, but that's just an example. Just requiring that work be shown isn't always sufficient, since it's an important skill in mathematics to understand how to get a solution, even when you can't immediately see what the solution is. So I don't think it's unreasonable for graphing calculators or things like Wolfram Alpha to be disallowed for certain classes.

That being said, labelling it academic misconduct is pretty unreasonable. I look at it in the same as recommended homework problems: it's just a suggestion, but come exam time it's your funeral. Back to the first year calculus example, I remember the syllabus explicitly saying that all problem sets were to be completed independently and without computer aids. No one really did that, and the TAs didn't even try to enforce it. In university, formal evaluation carries most of the weight in grading. The people who just copied off of other people or the internet had a smooth ride until the first test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends a lot on the nature of the class , so there 's no one-size-fits-all answer for when tools like graphing calculators or WA should be allowed .
In first year calculus , when you 're learning how to integrate , a program that can do symbolic integration is n't an appropriate tool .
On the other hand , for a first class in ODEs , the integration is the least essential part of the process and so the right tools make it easier to focus on whats really important .
Yes , I know WA can solve diff eq 's too , but that 's just an example .
Just requiring that work be shown is n't always sufficient , since it 's an important skill in mathematics to understand how to get a solution , even when you ca n't immediately see what the solution is .
So I do n't think it 's unreasonable for graphing calculators or things like Wolfram Alpha to be disallowed for certain classes .
That being said , labelling it academic misconduct is pretty unreasonable .
I look at it in the same as recommended homework problems : it 's just a suggestion , but come exam time it 's your funeral .
Back to the first year calculus example , I remember the syllabus explicitly saying that all problem sets were to be completed independently and without computer aids .
No one really did that , and the TAs did n't even try to enforce it .
In university , formal evaluation carries most of the weight in grading .
The people who just copied off of other people or the internet had a smooth ride until the first test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends a lot on the nature of the class, so there's no one-size-fits-all answer for when tools like graphing calculators or WA should be allowed.
In first year calculus, when you're learning how to integrate, a program that can do symbolic integration isn't an appropriate tool.
On the other hand, for a first class in ODEs, the integration is the least essential part of the process and so the right tools make it easier to focus on whats really important.
Yes, I know WA can solve diff eq's too, but that's just an example.
Just requiring that work be shown isn't always sufficient, since it's an important skill in mathematics to understand how to get a solution, even when you can't immediately see what the solution is.
So I don't think it's unreasonable for graphing calculators or things like Wolfram Alpha to be disallowed for certain classes.
That being said, labelling it academic misconduct is pretty unreasonable.
I look at it in the same as recommended homework problems: it's just a suggestion, but come exam time it's your funeral.
Back to the first year calculus example, I remember the syllabus explicitly saying that all problem sets were to be completed independently and without computer aids.
No one really did that, and the TAs didn't even try to enforce it.
In university, formal evaluation carries most of the weight in grading.
The people who just copied off of other people or the internet had a smooth ride until the first test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316723</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding</title>
	<author>p!ngu</author>
	<datestamp>1244819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>psst how did you know you learnt anything if you didn't do problems.

Guys, the exams... aren't hard. They aren't allowed to be hard, they're easier than assignments. One of the most fundamental aspects of learning mathematics is to do the problems. See the cases.

Mathematicians don't think maths is just crunching formulas from a book. The closest you could get to that is people who are into numerical analysis... who are they, you might ask? They are the guys who are making the methods for calculators and computers! We've come full circle, people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>psst how did you know you learnt anything if you did n't do problems .
Guys , the exams... are n't hard .
They are n't allowed to be hard , they 're easier than assignments .
One of the most fundamental aspects of learning mathematics is to do the problems .
See the cases .
Mathematicians do n't think maths is just crunching formulas from a book .
The closest you could get to that is people who are into numerical analysis... who are they , you might ask ?
They are the guys who are making the methods for calculators and computers !
We 've come full circle , people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>psst how did you know you learnt anything if you didn't do problems.
Guys, the exams... aren't hard.
They aren't allowed to be hard, they're easier than assignments.
One of the most fundamental aspects of learning mathematics is to do the problems.
See the cases.
Mathematicians don't think maths is just crunching formulas from a book.
The closest you could get to that is people who are into numerical analysis... who are they, you might ask?
They are the guys who are making the methods for calculators and computers!
We've come full circle, people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315123</id>
	<title>Community College</title>
	<author>halcyonandon1</author>
	<datestamp>1244806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it funny that their article quotes a number of community college professors.

So, their big concern is that the pregnant Denny's waitress and the 18 year old who graduated bottom 10\% of his high school class are going to cheat at college algebra 101 in the pursuit of their respective associate degree in something trivial? A degree that probably won't even help them land anything above an entry level position anyways?

Either way, I'll stick to cheating with my abacus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny that their article quotes a number of community college professors .
So , their big concern is that the pregnant Denny 's waitress and the 18 year old who graduated bottom 10 \ % of his high school class are going to cheat at college algebra 101 in the pursuit of their respective associate degree in something trivial ?
A degree that probably wo n't even help them land anything above an entry level position anyways ?
Either way , I 'll stick to cheating with my abacus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny that their article quotes a number of community college professors.
So, their big concern is that the pregnant Denny's waitress and the 18 year old who graduated bottom 10\% of his high school class are going to cheat at college algebra 101 in the pursuit of their respective associate degree in something trivial?
A degree that probably won't even help them land anything above an entry level position anyways?
Either way, I'll stick to cheating with my abacus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319039</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1244899020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you should have spent more time learning how to do math. Those "silly mistakes" are exactly the kind of thing you're supposed to be able to find on your own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should have spent more time learning how to do math .
Those " silly mistakes " are exactly the kind of thing you 're supposed to be able to find on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should have spent more time learning how to do math.
Those "silly mistakes" are exactly the kind of thing you're supposed to be able to find on your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318599</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244891040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sage?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sage?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315809</id>
	<title>Just another Slashvert for Wolfram.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that Slashdot's ever so devoutly 'anti-proprietary anything' stance totally dissolves the moment somebody like Stephen Wolfram - oh, I'm sorry, that should be <em>"an anonymous reader"</em> - submits their lastest batch of advertising drivel to Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that Slashdot 's ever so devoutly 'anti-proprietary anything ' stance totally dissolves the moment somebody like Stephen Wolfram - oh , I 'm sorry , that should be " an anonymous reader " - submits their lastest batch of advertising drivel to Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that Slashdot's ever so devoutly 'anti-proprietary anything' stance totally dissolves the moment somebody like Stephen Wolfram - oh, I'm sorry, that should be "an anonymous reader" - submits their lastest batch of advertising drivel to Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315025</id>
	<title>Seriously thats what they worry?</title>
	<author>konigstein</author>
	<datestamp>1244806140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm worried about all these highfallutin complex math equations enabling this thing to evolve into skynet, and these guys are worried that it's going to help people with their homework!?!

*adds another layer to tinfoil hat*</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm worried about all these highfallutin complex math equations enabling this thing to evolve into skynet , and these guys are worried that it 's going to help people with their homework ! ? !
* adds another layer to tinfoil hat *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm worried about all these highfallutin complex math equations enabling this thing to evolve into skynet, and these guys are worried that it's going to help people with their homework!?!
*adds another layer to tinfoil hat*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316139</id>
	<title>All I know is...</title>
	<author>thatskinnyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244814420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wlfram Alpha answers the age-old question "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" <a href="http://www71.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=How+many+licks+does+it+take+to+get+to+the+center+of+a+Tootsie+Pop\%3F" title="wolframalpha.com">correctly</a> [wolframalpha.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wlfram Alpha answers the age-old question " How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop ?
" correctly [ wolframalpha.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wlfram Alpha answers the age-old question "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
" correctly [wolframalpha.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315225</id>
	<title>Is this really a problem?</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1244807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely there must be ways to write a test for their students where they are not Internet enabled?</p><p>Let them mess up their learning process all they want if that's what they wish.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p It's a bit of a cliche, but it's really true -- "they're only fooling themselves".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely there must be ways to write a test for their students where they are not Internet enabled ? Let them mess up their learning process all they want if that 's what they wish .
: p It 's a bit of a cliche , but it 's really true -- " they 're only fooling themselves " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely there must be ways to write a test for their students where they are not Internet enabled?Let them mess up their learning process all they want if that's what they wish.
:p It's a bit of a cliche, but it's really true -- "they're only fooling themselves".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317383</id>
	<title>What about symbolic manipulation?</title>
	<author>grahamsz</author>
	<datestamp>1244827980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a TI-89 back in college and it was great because you could actually type in an equation and have it solve it symbolically. Our school had a list of banned calculators and a blanket ban on anything with a QWERTY keyboard. At the time, the TI-89 wasn't available in the UK so it dodged the ban, other students ordered TI-92s from france so they'd have an AZERTY keyboard.</p><p>I did talk to the a fairly senior staff member about it, and his point was roughly:</p><p>"If this were the real world and you worked for me, then i'd fully expect you to borrow, plagiarize and use whatever tools will help you get the right answer quicker. My job is to ensure I set exams and assignments where that won't make any difference"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a TI-89 back in college and it was great because you could actually type in an equation and have it solve it symbolically .
Our school had a list of banned calculators and a blanket ban on anything with a QWERTY keyboard .
At the time , the TI-89 was n't available in the UK so it dodged the ban , other students ordered TI-92s from france so they 'd have an AZERTY keyboard.I did talk to the a fairly senior staff member about it , and his point was roughly : " If this were the real world and you worked for me , then i 'd fully expect you to borrow , plagiarize and use whatever tools will help you get the right answer quicker .
My job is to ensure I set exams and assignments where that wo n't make any difference "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a TI-89 back in college and it was great because you could actually type in an equation and have it solve it symbolically.
Our school had a list of banned calculators and a blanket ban on anything with a QWERTY keyboard.
At the time, the TI-89 wasn't available in the UK so it dodged the ban, other students ordered TI-92s from france so they'd have an AZERTY keyboard.I did talk to the a fairly senior staff member about it, and his point was roughly:"If this were the real world and you worked for me, then i'd fully expect you to borrow, plagiarize and use whatever tools will help you get the right answer quicker.
My job is to ensure I set exams and assignments where that won't make any difference"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317501</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.</p></div><p>Bullshit.</p><p>ANYONE who has to do calculus must be able to that.  Now a lot of engineers, scientists, etc. don't actually need to do calculus.  As an embedded programmer I only had to use derivatives and know what an integral was.  Most of the people I worked with admitted that they couldn't remember how to do calculus.</p><p>BUT for anyone who does need to do calculus, this should be something they do as easily as breathing.  You may argue who needs to perform calculus, but for those who do you cannot argue whether they need to be capable of such a basic technique!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.Bullshit.ANYONE who has to do calculus must be able to that .
Now a lot of engineers , scientists , etc .
do n't actually need to do calculus .
As an embedded programmer I only had to use derivatives and know what an integral was .
Most of the people I worked with admitted that they could n't remember how to do calculus.BUT for anyone who does need to do calculus , this should be something they do as easily as breathing .
You may argue who needs to perform calculus , but for those who do you can not argue whether they need to be capable of such a basic technique !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.Bullshit.ANYONE who has to do calculus must be able to that.
Now a lot of engineers, scientists, etc.
don't actually need to do calculus.
As an embedded programmer I only had to use derivatives and know what an integral was.
Most of the people I worked with admitted that they couldn't remember how to do calculus.BUT for anyone who does need to do calculus, this should be something they do as easily as breathing.
You may argue who needs to perform calculus, but for those who do you cannot argue whether they need to be capable of such a basic technique!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318659</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>tenco</author>
	<datestamp>1244892420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators (this is the top university in the state).</p></div><p>You mean this isn't common? I know nothing else. I seldom had exams where (non-graphing, non-programmable) calculators were allowed, but they were of no use then, anyway. I carry around a calculator like <a href="http://edu.casio.com/products/standard/fx85ms/" title="casio.com">this</a> [casio.com], but only for crunching numbers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators ( this is the top university in the state ) .You mean this is n't common ?
I know nothing else .
I seldom had exams where ( non-graphing , non-programmable ) calculators were allowed , but they were of no use then , anyway .
I carry around a calculator like this [ casio.com ] , but only for crunching numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators (this is the top university in the state).You mean this isn't common?
I know nothing else.
I seldom had exams where (non-graphing, non-programmable) calculators were allowed, but they were of no use then, anyway.
I carry around a calculator like this [casio.com], but only for crunching numbers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318695</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>infinitelink</author>
	<datestamp>1244893140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate courses with assignments; we're not in grade school, so stop trying to treat everyone like children: let them keep-up or fail and learn how to control themselves; I've found that often classes with assignments are such the assignments won't necessarily be important in the grand scheme of things, but they're just important enough they can screw you even if in the end you learn the materials exceptionally well (and can demonstrate it on a test).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:*(  Now, if there are assignments optional and recitations to get help (which I've found typically aren't there to help you with current, but past crap, er...) then great!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate courses with assignments ; we 're not in grade school , so stop trying to treat everyone like children : let them keep-up or fail and learn how to control themselves ; I 've found that often classes with assignments are such the assignments wo n't necessarily be important in the grand scheme of things , but they 're just important enough they can screw you even if in the end you learn the materials exceptionally well ( and can demonstrate it on a test ) .
: * ( Now , if there are assignments optional and recitations to get help ( which I 've found typically are n't there to help you with current , but past crap , er... ) then great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate courses with assignments; we're not in grade school, so stop trying to treat everyone like children: let them keep-up or fail and learn how to control themselves; I've found that often classes with assignments are such the assignments won't necessarily be important in the grand scheme of things, but they're just important enough they can screw you even if in the end you learn the materials exceptionally well (and can demonstrate it on a test).
:*(  Now, if there are assignments optional and recitations to get help (which I've found typically aren't there to help you with current, but past crap, er...) then great!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315899</id>
	<title>Orals</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1244812320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day in Poland (I don't know if it still happens) you were graded through a conversation with the teacher/professor. It would reveal whether you really understood the topic. Only problem is this requires a high level of quality teachers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day in Poland ( I do n't know if it still happens ) you were graded through a conversation with the teacher/professor .
It would reveal whether you really understood the topic .
Only problem is this requires a high level of quality teachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day in Poland (I don't know if it still happens) you were graded through a conversation with the teacher/professor.
It would reveal whether you really understood the topic.
Only problem is this requires a high level of quality teachers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316615</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244818980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As one who teaches those business majors, I disagree.  I can give problems that a calculator cannot do, but that largely involves making them needlessly complicated as examples, getting them lost in the algebra rather than the calculus concepts.  Instead, I try to make sure that they can apply the standard methods of integration - substitution, integration by parts, etc.  I wish there were some middle ground where they could graph the functions, but not use the calculator to find the answer directly.  Catching where a calculator was used involves a much more in depth analysis of their work and risks reducing them to following prescribed algorithms rather than being able to actually problem solve.  I would argue that the calculus techniques are kind of like teaching Comp Sci students about search, etc algorithms - you have them code their own to help them understand what is really going on and then let them use built-in libraries when applying it.  Unfortunately most testing situations involve both the theory and application, so it is difficult to allow them for some problems and not other without breaking up the test into multiple parts, thereby preventing them from rechecking when done, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As one who teaches those business majors , I disagree .
I can give problems that a calculator can not do , but that largely involves making them needlessly complicated as examples , getting them lost in the algebra rather than the calculus concepts .
Instead , I try to make sure that they can apply the standard methods of integration - substitution , integration by parts , etc .
I wish there were some middle ground where they could graph the functions , but not use the calculator to find the answer directly .
Catching where a calculator was used involves a much more in depth analysis of their work and risks reducing them to following prescribed algorithms rather than being able to actually problem solve .
I would argue that the calculus techniques are kind of like teaching Comp Sci students about search , etc algorithms - you have them code their own to help them understand what is really going on and then let them use built-in libraries when applying it .
Unfortunately most testing situations involve both the theory and application , so it is difficult to allow them for some problems and not other without breaking up the test into multiple parts , thereby preventing them from rechecking when done , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one who teaches those business majors, I disagree.
I can give problems that a calculator cannot do, but that largely involves making them needlessly complicated as examples, getting them lost in the algebra rather than the calculus concepts.
Instead, I try to make sure that they can apply the standard methods of integration - substitution, integration by parts, etc.
I wish there were some middle ground where they could graph the functions, but not use the calculator to find the answer directly.
Catching where a calculator was used involves a much more in depth analysis of their work and risks reducing them to following prescribed algorithms rather than being able to actually problem solve.
I would argue that the calculus techniques are kind of like teaching Comp Sci students about search, etc algorithms - you have them code their own to help them understand what is really going on and then let them use built-in libraries when applying it.
Unfortunately most testing situations involve both the theory and application, so it is difficult to allow them for some problems and not other without breaking up the test into multiple parts, thereby preventing them from rechecking when done, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315015</id>
	<title>"Pockets of instructors"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they protected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they protected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they protected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318617</id>
	<title>Re:I belong to that pocket of math instructors...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244891580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good way of teaching people how to minimize errors (eg. using originally given values as much as possible)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good way of teaching people how to minimize errors ( eg .
using originally given values as much as possible )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good way of teaching people how to minimize errors (eg.
using originally given values as much as possible)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316579</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>p!ngu</author>
	<datestamp>1244818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is fine for practical, applied type people. But recall that a picture is but a picture... it gives you an indication of what the equation / object looks like, but sometimes it lies! Think the Dirichlet function (1 for rationals, 0 for irrationals (or vice versa)). A bit boring on a computer, but we know it is slightly less so...

Graphs are good for "hunch feelings" or as a lead. They are not a substitute for actual thinking. Of course, one cannot pull oneself up by the bootstraps, but still... sometimes seeing it will prevent a student from thinking in alternative ways about the question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is fine for practical , applied type people .
But recall that a picture is but a picture... it gives you an indication of what the equation / object looks like , but sometimes it lies !
Think the Dirichlet function ( 1 for rationals , 0 for irrationals ( or vice versa ) ) .
A bit boring on a computer , but we know it is slightly less so.. . Graphs are good for " hunch feelings " or as a lead .
They are not a substitute for actual thinking .
Of course , one can not pull oneself up by the bootstraps , but still... sometimes seeing it will prevent a student from thinking in alternative ways about the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is fine for practical, applied type people.
But recall that a picture is but a picture... it gives you an indication of what the equation / object looks like, but sometimes it lies!
Think the Dirichlet function (1 for rationals, 0 for irrationals (or vice versa)).
A bit boring on a computer, but we know it is slightly less so...

Graphs are good for "hunch feelings" or as a lead.
They are not a substitute for actual thinking.
Of course, one cannot pull oneself up by the bootstraps, but still... sometimes seeing it will prevent a student from thinking in alternative ways about the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315565</id>
	<title>No kidding</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1244809680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The math class I learned the most in was a community college precalc class. I had to take it my senior year in high school because I had a schedule conflict with the high school precalc class. In the end, that was a really good thing.</p><p>As background, I am "good" at math, but not nearly to the extent of many geeks. I don't struggle with it to a great degree, but nor do I find it trivial. In university integration gave me a huge problem and I had to drop calc 2 to an audit after the first test because I couldn't learn it fast enough. I also am not a math head, I don't love it and desire to know tons about it. So I'm not bad at it, but not great at it.</p><p>Now then the class. Homework was given, and graded, but not counted. So you did as much or as little homework as you felt necessary. If you turned it in, the teacher would grade it thoroughly and give it back to you to let you know how you did, and where you made mistakes. No scores were recorded, it was for your learning. This let people like me, who find that listening in particular (I'm an auditory learner) and reading are more valuable than doing (I'm not much of a kinesthetic learner) spend time on that, rather than problems. Also if there was only a few areas you had trouble with, you did those problems, or more of those problems, rather than a bunch you already knew.</p><p>As for tests? All tests were graphing calculator allowed, open note, open book, open teacher. Yes, you could go up and ask him questions. He wouldn't give you the answer, but he'd help you figure out where and why you were stuck.</p><p>The way I know I learned so much in that class? Well one I did very well on the SATs which I took right near the end but more over was when I got in to university. One of the first things we did in calc 1 was take a precalc test. Teacher wanted to see where we stood. I aced that, beat everyone out, even those who had taken calculus in high school. Because of that precalc class, my precalc knowledge as solid.</p><p>Real, valuable, learning isn't about memorization. It isn't about how many facts and formulas you can store in your brain. That isn't useful anymore since a computer is way better at that than you will ever be. It isn't really even about analyzation, as in crunching numbers through formulas. Again, computers and crunch the numbers better than you. What it is about is synthesis, meaning integrating the knowledge in to your other knowledge, and about application, applying it to novel problems.</p><p>The reason is that's what you do in real life. When there's a network problem, my boss doesn't say "Fix that and you can't use any resources, you need to have everything in your head you need to know." I'm perfectly welcome to look in a reference book, check a website, use a calculator to do subnetting. The important ability is to solve the problem.</p><p>Those sorts of things should be perfectly testable, even when people have access to calculators, and books and the web and so on, just like in the real world.</p><p>So even with a highly analytical subject like math, you can teach like that. I know it can be done as I've experienced it. However it takes a good teacher, one who really understands the math, and not some guy who thinks math is just crunching a bunch of formulas from a book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The math class I learned the most in was a community college precalc class .
I had to take it my senior year in high school because I had a schedule conflict with the high school precalc class .
In the end , that was a really good thing.As background , I am " good " at math , but not nearly to the extent of many geeks .
I do n't struggle with it to a great degree , but nor do I find it trivial .
In university integration gave me a huge problem and I had to drop calc 2 to an audit after the first test because I could n't learn it fast enough .
I also am not a math head , I do n't love it and desire to know tons about it .
So I 'm not bad at it , but not great at it.Now then the class .
Homework was given , and graded , but not counted .
So you did as much or as little homework as you felt necessary .
If you turned it in , the teacher would grade it thoroughly and give it back to you to let you know how you did , and where you made mistakes .
No scores were recorded , it was for your learning .
This let people like me , who find that listening in particular ( I 'm an auditory learner ) and reading are more valuable than doing ( I 'm not much of a kinesthetic learner ) spend time on that , rather than problems .
Also if there was only a few areas you had trouble with , you did those problems , or more of those problems , rather than a bunch you already knew.As for tests ?
All tests were graphing calculator allowed , open note , open book , open teacher .
Yes , you could go up and ask him questions .
He would n't give you the answer , but he 'd help you figure out where and why you were stuck.The way I know I learned so much in that class ?
Well one I did very well on the SATs which I took right near the end but more over was when I got in to university .
One of the first things we did in calc 1 was take a precalc test .
Teacher wanted to see where we stood .
I aced that , beat everyone out , even those who had taken calculus in high school .
Because of that precalc class , my precalc knowledge as solid.Real , valuable , learning is n't about memorization .
It is n't about how many facts and formulas you can store in your brain .
That is n't useful anymore since a computer is way better at that than you will ever be .
It is n't really even about analyzation , as in crunching numbers through formulas .
Again , computers and crunch the numbers better than you .
What it is about is synthesis , meaning integrating the knowledge in to your other knowledge , and about application , applying it to novel problems.The reason is that 's what you do in real life .
When there 's a network problem , my boss does n't say " Fix that and you ca n't use any resources , you need to have everything in your head you need to know .
" I 'm perfectly welcome to look in a reference book , check a website , use a calculator to do subnetting .
The important ability is to solve the problem.Those sorts of things should be perfectly testable , even when people have access to calculators , and books and the web and so on , just like in the real world.So even with a highly analytical subject like math , you can teach like that .
I know it can be done as I 've experienced it .
However it takes a good teacher , one who really understands the math , and not some guy who thinks math is just crunching a bunch of formulas from a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The math class I learned the most in was a community college precalc class.
I had to take it my senior year in high school because I had a schedule conflict with the high school precalc class.
In the end, that was a really good thing.As background, I am "good" at math, but not nearly to the extent of many geeks.
I don't struggle with it to a great degree, but nor do I find it trivial.
In university integration gave me a huge problem and I had to drop calc 2 to an audit after the first test because I couldn't learn it fast enough.
I also am not a math head, I don't love it and desire to know tons about it.
So I'm not bad at it, but not great at it.Now then the class.
Homework was given, and graded, but not counted.
So you did as much or as little homework as you felt necessary.
If you turned it in, the teacher would grade it thoroughly and give it back to you to let you know how you did, and where you made mistakes.
No scores were recorded, it was for your learning.
This let people like me, who find that listening in particular (I'm an auditory learner) and reading are more valuable than doing (I'm not much of a kinesthetic learner) spend time on that, rather than problems.
Also if there was only a few areas you had trouble with, you did those problems, or more of those problems, rather than a bunch you already knew.As for tests?
All tests were graphing calculator allowed, open note, open book, open teacher.
Yes, you could go up and ask him questions.
He wouldn't give you the answer, but he'd help you figure out where and why you were stuck.The way I know I learned so much in that class?
Well one I did very well on the SATs which I took right near the end but more over was when I got in to university.
One of the first things we did in calc 1 was take a precalc test.
Teacher wanted to see where we stood.
I aced that, beat everyone out, even those who had taken calculus in high school.
Because of that precalc class, my precalc knowledge as solid.Real, valuable, learning isn't about memorization.
It isn't about how many facts and formulas you can store in your brain.
That isn't useful anymore since a computer is way better at that than you will ever be.
It isn't really even about analyzation, as in crunching numbers through formulas.
Again, computers and crunch the numbers better than you.
What it is about is synthesis, meaning integrating the knowledge in to your other knowledge, and about application, applying it to novel problems.The reason is that's what you do in real life.
When there's a network problem, my boss doesn't say "Fix that and you can't use any resources, you need to have everything in your head you need to know.
" I'm perfectly welcome to look in a reference book, check a website, use a calculator to do subnetting.
The important ability is to solve the problem.Those sorts of things should be perfectly testable, even when people have access to calculators, and books and the web and so on, just like in the real world.So even with a highly analytical subject like math, you can teach like that.
I know it can be done as I've experienced it.
However it takes a good teacher, one who really understands the math, and not some guy who thinks math is just crunching a bunch of formulas from a book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319243</id>
	<title>This just shows that teacher do it wrong</title>
	<author>jopet</author>
	<datestamp>1244901960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure its easiest to mark a multiple choice test, but to see if or what a student understands and where her problems are, the first approach is to judge the contribution in class. Make them do and explain projects. If a written test has to be at all,  make them explain why a certain problem has a certain result or make them prove or explain something.<br>WolframAlpha won't help with any of that simple because then WolframAlpha would have to *understand* math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure its easiest to mark a multiple choice test , but to see if or what a student understands and where her problems are , the first approach is to judge the contribution in class .
Make them do and explain projects .
If a written test has to be at all , make them explain why a certain problem has a certain result or make them prove or explain something.WolframAlpha wo n't help with any of that simple because then WolframAlpha would have to * understand * math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure its easiest to mark a multiple choice test, but to see if or what a student understands and where her problems are, the first approach is to judge the contribution in class.
Make them do and explain projects.
If a written test has to be at all,  make them explain why a certain problem has a certain result or make them prove or explain something.WolframAlpha won't help with any of that simple because then WolframAlpha would have to *understand* math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316209</id>
	<title>Re:Protestant Work Ethic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244814900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Teachers who worry about cheating obviously don't have the skills to assess their students abilities.</p></div><p>Wow, that's quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have seen on slashdot, and that's saying something.  Ever teach?  If so, I feel badly for your students.</p><p>Perhaps those of us who do teach worry that assessing you, which we have to do because you must be graded in some sense, will either go too far and ask questions that can examine you without worry for cheating or not go far enough and enable ineffective assessment.</p><p>--sigh--  Perhaps it is a sign of the times or whatever.  This type of philosophical tripe is becoming more commonplace.  How it is that someone who wishes to learn about something, e.g. a student, would presume to know more about something than the person from whom he/she wishes to learn is a mystery to me and many others who take our classes very seriously.  The other arguments floating around above and below really miss the point entirely in most cases.  Oh well.  The asian and indian students who don't waste energy engaging in this nonsense will subsume you all at some point, mooting the whole business.  Then you can subsist in your monkeywork paying back the money you owe them and their governments for the next century.  Maybe if you'd bothered to learn a little math, you'd understand the wool that's been pulled over your eyes by the current governments in the US and Europe.  You see, that's why it's important that \_you\_ think, and not your calculator or computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teachers who worry about cheating obviously do n't have the skills to assess their students abilities.Wow , that 's quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have seen on slashdot , and that 's saying something .
Ever teach ?
If so , I feel badly for your students.Perhaps those of us who do teach worry that assessing you , which we have to do because you must be graded in some sense , will either go too far and ask questions that can examine you without worry for cheating or not go far enough and enable ineffective assessment.--sigh-- Perhaps it is a sign of the times or whatever .
This type of philosophical tripe is becoming more commonplace .
How it is that someone who wishes to learn about something , e.g .
a student , would presume to know more about something than the person from whom he/she wishes to learn is a mystery to me and many others who take our classes very seriously .
The other arguments floating around above and below really miss the point entirely in most cases .
Oh well .
The asian and indian students who do n't waste energy engaging in this nonsense will subsume you all at some point , mooting the whole business .
Then you can subsist in your monkeywork paying back the money you owe them and their governments for the next century .
Maybe if you 'd bothered to learn a little math , you 'd understand the wool that 's been pulled over your eyes by the current governments in the US and Europe .
You see , that 's why it 's important that \ _you \ _ think , and not your calculator or computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teachers who worry about cheating obviously don't have the skills to assess their students abilities.Wow, that's quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have seen on slashdot, and that's saying something.
Ever teach?
If so, I feel badly for your students.Perhaps those of us who do teach worry that assessing you, which we have to do because you must be graded in some sense, will either go too far and ask questions that can examine you without worry for cheating or not go far enough and enable ineffective assessment.--sigh--  Perhaps it is a sign of the times or whatever.
This type of philosophical tripe is becoming more commonplace.
How it is that someone who wishes to learn about something, e.g.
a student, would presume to know more about something than the person from whom he/she wishes to learn is a mystery to me and many others who take our classes very seriously.
The other arguments floating around above and below really miss the point entirely in most cases.
Oh well.
The asian and indian students who don't waste energy engaging in this nonsense will subsume you all at some point, mooting the whole business.
Then you can subsist in your monkeywork paying back the money you owe them and their governments for the next century.
Maybe if you'd bothered to learn a little math, you'd understand the wool that's been pulled over your eyes by the current governments in the US and Europe.
You see, that's why it's important that \_you\_ think, and not your calculator or computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315823</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1244811720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ODE I &amp; II courses let you use Maple &amp; a Calculator. There were 2 parts to the test. A Maple part and a calculator part.</p><p>Every one I tell this to from a different school thinks that the tests must have been the easiest ones in the world, quite the opposite. You actually had to have a grasp of the point of ODEs.</p><p>Meaning instead of x''+2x'+x'=y'' x(0)=4, etc<br>It was "the rate of which the rabbit population changes is based on the rate of the population of wolves. Rabbits breed this fast, wolves breed this fast. Find equilibrium".</p><p>I wouldn't have been able to do as well in HS if I didn't have a calculator. I was a very solid B student all because of my dyslexia. All I needed was a basic solar one and I made it through even Calc 100x better. Something about punching numbers in instead of writing them down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ODE I &amp; II courses let you use Maple &amp; a Calculator .
There were 2 parts to the test .
A Maple part and a calculator part.Every one I tell this to from a different school thinks that the tests must have been the easiest ones in the world , quite the opposite .
You actually had to have a grasp of the point of ODEs.Meaning instead of x' ' + 2x ' + x ' = y' ' x ( 0 ) = 4 , etcIt was " the rate of which the rabbit population changes is based on the rate of the population of wolves .
Rabbits breed this fast , wolves breed this fast .
Find equilibrium " .I would n't have been able to do as well in HS if I did n't have a calculator .
I was a very solid B student all because of my dyslexia .
All I needed was a basic solar one and I made it through even Calc 100x better .
Something about punching numbers in instead of writing them down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ODE I &amp; II courses let you use Maple &amp; a Calculator.
There were 2 parts to the test.
A Maple part and a calculator part.Every one I tell this to from a different school thinks that the tests must have been the easiest ones in the world, quite the opposite.
You actually had to have a grasp of the point of ODEs.Meaning instead of x''+2x'+x'=y'' x(0)=4, etcIt was "the rate of which the rabbit population changes is based on the rate of the population of wolves.
Rabbits breed this fast, wolves breed this fast.
Find equilibrium".I wouldn't have been able to do as well in HS if I didn't have a calculator.
I was a very solid B student all because of my dyslexia.
All I needed was a basic solar one and I made it through even Calc 100x better.
Something about punching numbers in instead of writing them down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1244806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator. This was at a large public research university. I also don't think it would have helped...</i></p><p>I helped me. It would have caught the silly mistakes I made. Like confirming a function had no zeroes, rather than me wasting time thinking I'd screwed up. or catching that the function was discontinuous in the region I was supposed to take a derivative in, etc.</p><p>"Seeing the curve" in general will reveal things about it, like how its roots work, or help you estimate what an integral should work out to, explain why newtons method is flaking out and give you a better starting point, etc.</p><p>It makes checking that the limit you worked out is right trivial.</p><p>I got hooked on Maple, not for its ability to do my homework, which it could have done, but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better. Unfortunately, a lot of my classmates used it to just do the homework. Their loss in the long term for the lack of the deeper understanding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but they still got an A in the class. And sadly, that's actually worth more on a cynical level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , in regular college level calculus I was n't allowed to use a graphing calculator .
This was at a large public research university .
I also do n't think it would have helped...I helped me .
It would have caught the silly mistakes I made .
Like confirming a function had no zeroes , rather than me wasting time thinking I 'd screwed up .
or catching that the function was discontinuous in the region I was supposed to take a derivative in , etc .
" Seeing the curve " in general will reveal things about it , like how its roots work , or help you estimate what an integral should work out to , explain why newtons method is flaking out and give you a better starting point , etc.It makes checking that the limit you worked out is right trivial.I got hooked on Maple , not for its ability to do my homework , which it could have done , but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better .
Unfortunately , a lot of my classmates used it to just do the homework .
Their loss in the long term for the lack of the deeper understanding ... but they still got an A in the class .
And sadly , that 's actually worth more on a cynical level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator.
This was at a large public research university.
I also don't think it would have helped...I helped me.
It would have caught the silly mistakes I made.
Like confirming a function had no zeroes, rather than me wasting time thinking I'd screwed up.
or catching that the function was discontinuous in the region I was supposed to take a derivative in, etc.
"Seeing the curve" in general will reveal things about it, like how its roots work, or help you estimate what an integral should work out to, explain why newtons method is flaking out and give you a better starting point, etc.It makes checking that the limit you worked out is right trivial.I got hooked on Maple, not for its ability to do my homework, which it could have done, but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better.
Unfortunately, a lot of my classmates used it to just do the homework.
Their loss in the long term for the lack of the deeper understanding ... but they still got an A in the class.
And sadly, that's actually worth more on a cynical level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315131</id>
	<title>Oh man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just don't know if I can deal with all this math-debating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't know if I can deal with all this math-debating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't know if I can deal with all this math-debating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315759</id>
	<title>I had to learn trig with tables in mid/late-80s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My high school trig teacher made us learn to solve trig problem using just tables.  She also made us memorize the easy ones.</p><p>In the same school we had to learn to multiply using logarithms from tables and interpolation.  We didn't have slide rules.</p><p>Only after we learned the theory were we allowed to use calculators.</p><p>Teach the skill.  Once the skill is mastered let the student use tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My high school trig teacher made us learn to solve trig problem using just tables .
She also made us memorize the easy ones.In the same school we had to learn to multiply using logarithms from tables and interpolation .
We did n't have slide rules.Only after we learned the theory were we allowed to use calculators.Teach the skill .
Once the skill is mastered let the student use tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My high school trig teacher made us learn to solve trig problem using just tables.
She also made us memorize the easy ones.In the same school we had to learn to multiply using logarithms from tables and interpolation.
We didn't have slide rules.Only after we learned the theory were we allowed to use calculators.Teach the skill.
Once the skill is mastered let the student use tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315477</id>
	<title>Misguided Universities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The professors who are afraid of calculators and automatic problem solvers are the same as those who think class attendance matter. A university, if anything in the world, should be a place for learning, not a very expensive kindergarten. In that perspective the activities of the students are irrelevant: if they learn practical abilities through Wolfram Alpha, great. If they don't, that's their problem. Ultimately the student is the paying customer. Professors much too often slide into this illusion of grandeur where they think the student owes them anything or needs to satisfy <i>the professors</i> when it's in fact the other way around.</p><p>If you choose to go to and pay for a university education, do it your way. If Wolfram Alpha gives you the insights you need, then that's the right tool for you. If your style of learning is snoozing under a tree, occasionally watching an apple fall, then do that. If you never go to a class in your life but you come out as the next Einstein you have succeeded. If you waste all your time 'cheating' that's your problem. You're the boss, you're the one paying for it.</p><p>And before somebody brings it up, grades are arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system. If they are affected by something as simple as the use of Wolfram Alpha that's just another demonstration of how little real world value they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The professors who are afraid of calculators and automatic problem solvers are the same as those who think class attendance matter .
A university , if anything in the world , should be a place for learning , not a very expensive kindergarten .
In that perspective the activities of the students are irrelevant : if they learn practical abilities through Wolfram Alpha , great .
If they do n't , that 's their problem .
Ultimately the student is the paying customer .
Professors much too often slide into this illusion of grandeur where they think the student owes them anything or needs to satisfy the professors when it 's in fact the other way around.If you choose to go to and pay for a university education , do it your way .
If Wolfram Alpha gives you the insights you need , then that 's the right tool for you .
If your style of learning is snoozing under a tree , occasionally watching an apple fall , then do that .
If you never go to a class in your life but you come out as the next Einstein you have succeeded .
If you waste all your time 'cheating ' that 's your problem .
You 're the boss , you 're the one paying for it.And before somebody brings it up , grades are arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system .
If they are affected by something as simple as the use of Wolfram Alpha that 's just another demonstration of how little real world value they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The professors who are afraid of calculators and automatic problem solvers are the same as those who think class attendance matter.
A university, if anything in the world, should be a place for learning, not a very expensive kindergarten.
In that perspective the activities of the students are irrelevant: if they learn practical abilities through Wolfram Alpha, great.
If they don't, that's their problem.
Ultimately the student is the paying customer.
Professors much too often slide into this illusion of grandeur where they think the student owes them anything or needs to satisfy the professors when it's in fact the other way around.If you choose to go to and pay for a university education, do it your way.
If Wolfram Alpha gives you the insights you need, then that's the right tool for you.
If your style of learning is snoozing under a tree, occasionally watching an apple fall, then do that.
If you never go to a class in your life but you come out as the next Einstein you have succeeded.
If you waste all your time 'cheating' that's your problem.
You're the boss, you're the one paying for it.And before somebody brings it up, grades are arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system.
If they are affected by something as simple as the use of Wolfram Alpha that's just another demonstration of how little real world value they have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317277</id>
	<title>Pre-written essays ok too then?</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1244826600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class.</p></div><p>
Perhaps it is for the same reason that those people in engineering/math/science aren't allowed to take pre-written paragraphs on relevant topics into an english/history etc. exam and then stitch several relevant of them together to answer a question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the people not in engineering/math/science , I do n't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class .
Perhaps it is for the same reason that those people in engineering/math/science are n't allowed to take pre-written paragraphs on relevant topics into an english/history etc .
exam and then stitch several relevant of them together to answer a question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class.
Perhaps it is for the same reason that those people in engineering/math/science aren't allowed to take pre-written paragraphs on relevant topics into an english/history etc.
exam and then stitch several relevant of them together to answer a question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316967</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided Universities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The student is not a paying customer in the same was as they are in starbucks.  Student satisfaction is obviously important, but that shouldn't come at the expense of academic rigour: the student has just as much of an obligation in the opposite direction to learn the material and demonstrate that they have learnt the material to an acceptable standard - at least if they want a qualification at the end.  It undermines the whole enterprise and renders the qualification worthless otherwise - what use is a degree if students have no obligation to actually demonstrate they have learned anything or participated.  If you don't think you owe the institution anything, then the institution doesn't owe you a degree - it's supreme arrogance to think otherwise even if you smart.</p><p>Class attendance does matter... there are outliers but there's a pretty strong correlation between learning the material and (shock, horror) attending the class.  It can be one way for students to satisfy professors that they are participating and learning the material, and it can often be an effective way to stop a downward spiral of worsening attendance, lowering standards, and poorer educational outcomes.</p><p>Grades are somewhat arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system, yes, but it's an enormous logical leap to say that they have no value.  I wonder how you would have people demonstrate their knowledge.   When the assessment is half-decent and the expectations are clear, they are still very indicative of how well a student understands and has mastered a body of material.</p><p>In short, if you don't want to actually participate in classes, or you think that actually being required to do the work is somehow an abrogration of your freedom, don't go to university, simple as that, the whole enterprise will be better off without you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The student is not a paying customer in the same was as they are in starbucks .
Student satisfaction is obviously important , but that should n't come at the expense of academic rigour : the student has just as much of an obligation in the opposite direction to learn the material and demonstrate that they have learnt the material to an acceptable standard - at least if they want a qualification at the end .
It undermines the whole enterprise and renders the qualification worthless otherwise - what use is a degree if students have no obligation to actually demonstrate they have learned anything or participated .
If you do n't think you owe the institution anything , then the institution does n't owe you a degree - it 's supreme arrogance to think otherwise even if you smart.Class attendance does matter... there are outliers but there 's a pretty strong correlation between learning the material and ( shock , horror ) attending the class .
It can be one way for students to satisfy professors that they are participating and learning the material , and it can often be an effective way to stop a downward spiral of worsening attendance , lowering standards , and poorer educational outcomes.Grades are somewhat arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system , yes , but it 's an enormous logical leap to say that they have no value .
I wonder how you would have people demonstrate their knowledge .
When the assessment is half-decent and the expectations are clear , they are still very indicative of how well a student understands and has mastered a body of material.In short , if you do n't want to actually participate in classes , or you think that actually being required to do the work is somehow an abrogration of your freedom , do n't go to university , simple as that , the whole enterprise will be better off without you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The student is not a paying customer in the same was as they are in starbucks.
Student satisfaction is obviously important, but that shouldn't come at the expense of academic rigour: the student has just as much of an obligation in the opposite direction to learn the material and demonstrate that they have learnt the material to an acceptable standard - at least if they want a qualification at the end.
It undermines the whole enterprise and renders the qualification worthless otherwise - what use is a degree if students have no obligation to actually demonstrate they have learned anything or participated.
If you don't think you owe the institution anything, then the institution doesn't owe you a degree - it's supreme arrogance to think otherwise even if you smart.Class attendance does matter... there are outliers but there's a pretty strong correlation between learning the material and (shock, horror) attending the class.
It can be one way for students to satisfy professors that they are participating and learning the material, and it can often be an effective way to stop a downward spiral of worsening attendance, lowering standards, and poorer educational outcomes.Grades are somewhat arbitrary statistics based on a flawed system, yes, but it's an enormous logical leap to say that they have no value.
I wonder how you would have people demonstrate their knowledge.
When the assessment is half-decent and the expectations are clear, they are still very indicative of how well a student understands and has mastered a body of material.In short, if you don't want to actually participate in classes, or you think that actually being required to do the work is somehow an abrogration of your freedom, don't go to university, simple as that, the whole enterprise will be better off without you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316559</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1244818260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is because in mathematics, you should be able to discern if there are zeros or not from your equations, graphs cannot be trusted, and graphs are utterly useless once you get beyond 3 dimensional functions.</p><p>You see mathematics is about being an arrogant ass who expresses condescention for all other beings of lesser godliness (ie: any other field). And by requiring a graphics calculator you simply fail the test for acceptance into this cloister of quite simply better people.</p><p>Now face it, you might as well just go off and become something utterly useless to society, like an engineer or a scientist.</p><p>(/sarcasm in case you somehow missed it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because in mathematics , you should be able to discern if there are zeros or not from your equations , graphs can not be trusted , and graphs are utterly useless once you get beyond 3 dimensional functions.You see mathematics is about being an arrogant ass who expresses condescention for all other beings of lesser godliness ( ie : any other field ) .
And by requiring a graphics calculator you simply fail the test for acceptance into this cloister of quite simply better people.Now face it , you might as well just go off and become something utterly useless to society , like an engineer or a scientist .
( /sarcasm in case you somehow missed it : D )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because in mathematics, you should be able to discern if there are zeros or not from your equations, graphs cannot be trusted, and graphs are utterly useless once you get beyond 3 dimensional functions.You see mathematics is about being an arrogant ass who expresses condescention for all other beings of lesser godliness (ie: any other field).
And by requiring a graphics calculator you simply fail the test for acceptance into this cloister of quite simply better people.Now face it, you might as well just go off and become something utterly useless to society, like an engineer or a scientist.
(/sarcasm in case you somehow missed it :D)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315653</id>
	<title>Re:The ability to check your work is crucial!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244810340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, becasue it is impossible to cheat on an exam~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , becasue it is impossible to cheat on an exam ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, becasue it is impossible to cheat on an exam~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316101</id>
	<title>Re:a physics teacher's perspective</title>
	<author>Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1244814120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience as a physics student was that professors really only expected us to work things out by hand during the first two years, e.g. while we were still learning the mathematics.  After we'd slogged through three quarters of Calculus and a quarter each for Linear and DE we were considered "good enough".  After that it was pretty much expected that we would be using Mathematica or equivalent software to do the heavy crunching, many of my submitted homework assignments were in fact printouts of a Mathematica notebook.  The point being, of course, that the actual step-by-step mathematics were secondary to the heart of the matter: physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience as a physics student was that professors really only expected us to work things out by hand during the first two years , e.g .
while we were still learning the mathematics .
After we 'd slogged through three quarters of Calculus and a quarter each for Linear and DE we were considered " good enough " .
After that it was pretty much expected that we would be using Mathematica or equivalent software to do the heavy crunching , many of my submitted homework assignments were in fact printouts of a Mathematica notebook .
The point being , of course , that the actual step-by-step mathematics were secondary to the heart of the matter : physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience as a physics student was that professors really only expected us to work things out by hand during the first two years, e.g.
while we were still learning the mathematics.
After we'd slogged through three quarters of Calculus and a quarter each for Linear and DE we were considered "good enough".
After that it was pretty much expected that we would be using Mathematica or equivalent software to do the heavy crunching, many of my submitted homework assignments were in fact printouts of a Mathematica notebook.
The point being, of course, that the actual step-by-step mathematics were secondary to the heart of the matter: physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316933</id>
	<title>Re:Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note, though, that it tries to soften the blow by helpfully telling you that this is 3 times the length of an AA battery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note , though , that it tries to soften the blow by helpfully telling you that this is 3 times the length of an AA battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note, though, that it tries to soften the blow by helpfully telling you that this is 3 times the length of an AA battery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316227</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244815140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 2 3 4 I declare a math war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 2 3 4 I declare a math war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 2 3 4 I declare a math war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316203</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244814900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maple is okay, but I prefered MathCAD for similar reasons. However, any decent class should require that the student shows their work. I never took a math class where you could simply put the answer down and it was accepted. Perhaps for very simple and early assignments, such as trivial integrations, but nothing past the first few weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maple is okay , but I prefered MathCAD for similar reasons .
However , any decent class should require that the student shows their work .
I never took a math class where you could simply put the answer down and it was accepted .
Perhaps for very simple and early assignments , such as trivial integrations , but nothing past the first few weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maple is okay, but I prefered MathCAD for similar reasons.
However, any decent class should require that the student shows their work.
I never took a math class where you could simply put the answer down and it was accepted.
Perhaps for very simple and early assignments, such as trivial integrations, but nothing past the first few weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318979</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a math professor, and I don't care about Al</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244898060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's cool.</p><p>The next time I'm flying in an airplane, I won't really care if the engineers got the right answers when designing the plane-just as long as they demonstrated good problem solving ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's cool.The next time I 'm flying in an airplane , I wo n't really care if the engineers got the right answers when designing the plane-just as long as they demonstrated good problem solving ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's cool.The next time I'm flying in an airplane, I won't really care if the engineers got the right answers when designing the plane-just as long as they demonstrated good problem solving ability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315617</id>
	<title>Re:The ability to check your work is crucial!</title>
	<author>jhp64</author>
	<datestamp>1244810100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.</p></div><p>
So learn how to check your work. First, look at your answer and try to determine whether it makes sense, and then see if you made any silly algebra mistakes. Then if you're learning integration, for example, take the derivative and see if you get the original function back again.  If you're learning differential equations, plug your purported solution in and see if it is actually a solution. In many situations, you have more than one method available to solve a problem, so try both and see if they produce the same thing.
</p><p>
In the real world you don't have a solution manual, so it's a valuable skill to be able to check your work without one.  Furthermore, some students use solution manuals badly: if they don't get the right answer, they tinker with their work until their answer matches the right one, with no understanding of what they did wrong or what they did to correct it. It's a good idea to not have all of the answers available; for calculus, half seems about the right proportion.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This, of course, is precisely backwards of how math is taught.  They try to teach the mathematic principles, and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems.  This has never worked for me.</p></div><p>
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- mathematics is taught lots of different ways: there is no single, monolithic, method for "how math is taught."
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the ability to check your work is crucial .
So learn how to check your work .
First , look at your answer and try to determine whether it makes sense , and then see if you made any silly algebra mistakes .
Then if you 're learning integration , for example , take the derivative and see if you get the original function back again .
If you 're learning differential equations , plug your purported solution in and see if it is actually a solution .
In many situations , you have more than one method available to solve a problem , so try both and see if they produce the same thing .
In the real world you do n't have a solution manual , so it 's a valuable skill to be able to check your work without one .
Furthermore , some students use solution manuals badly : if they do n't get the right answer , they tinker with their work until their answer matches the right one , with no understanding of what they did wrong or what they did to correct it .
It 's a good idea to not have all of the answers available ; for calculus , half seems about the right proportion .
This , of course , is precisely backwards of how math is taught .
They try to teach the mathematic principles , and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems .
This has never worked for me .
I 'm not sure what you 're talking about -- mathematics is taught lots of different ways : there is no single , monolithic , method for " how math is taught .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.
So learn how to check your work.
First, look at your answer and try to determine whether it makes sense, and then see if you made any silly algebra mistakes.
Then if you're learning integration, for example, take the derivative and see if you get the original function back again.
If you're learning differential equations, plug your purported solution in and see if it is actually a solution.
In many situations, you have more than one method available to solve a problem, so try both and see if they produce the same thing.
In the real world you don't have a solution manual, so it's a valuable skill to be able to check your work without one.
Furthermore, some students use solution manuals badly: if they don't get the right answer, they tinker with their work until their answer matches the right one, with no understanding of what they did wrong or what they did to correct it.
It's a good idea to not have all of the answers available; for calculus, half seems about the right proportion.
This, of course, is precisely backwards of how math is taught.
They try to teach the mathematic principles, and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems.
This has never worked for me.
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- mathematics is taught lots of different ways: there is no single, monolithic, method for "how math is taught.
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28320033</id>
	<title>This is fine for theoretical mathematics</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1244910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, IMHO, if you're an engineer, you probably don't care about the fancy math and the theory behind it, you need the results.  Or you're more likely to need to know how to turn a formula into executable code.  Beyond that, when I was in college, the debate was whether or not you should be allowed a formula sheet during an exam.  IMHO, if you can't have one then the exercise is half about memorization and half about application.  Once again, as an engineer, it's pretty rare that you have to remember a formula especially one you rarely use.  Commonly used ones become memory with increasing use.  Knowing what to do with the formulae is more important.  Then the onus is on the teacher to create problems that aren't plug-and-chug but require you to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , IMHO , if you 're an engineer , you probably do n't care about the fancy math and the theory behind it , you need the results .
Or you 're more likely to need to know how to turn a formula into executable code .
Beyond that , when I was in college , the debate was whether or not you should be allowed a formula sheet during an exam .
IMHO , if you ca n't have one then the exercise is half about memorization and half about application .
Once again , as an engineer , it 's pretty rare that you have to remember a formula especially one you rarely use .
Commonly used ones become memory with increasing use .
Knowing what to do with the formulae is more important .
Then the onus is on the teacher to create problems that are n't plug-and-chug but require you to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, IMHO, if you're an engineer, you probably don't care about the fancy math and the theory behind it, you need the results.
Or you're more likely to need to know how to turn a formula into executable code.
Beyond that, when I was in college, the debate was whether or not you should be allowed a formula sheet during an exam.
IMHO, if you can't have one then the exercise is half about memorization and half about application.
Once again, as an engineer, it's pretty rare that you have to remember a formula especially one you rarely use.
Commonly used ones become memory with increasing use.
Knowing what to do with the formulae is more important.
Then the onus is on the teacher to create problems that aren't plug-and-chug but require you to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28320233</id>
	<title>Problem Solved</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1244911920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the TOS of WolframAlpha it says that they/it own the copyright to any output generated. Kids using it as their own work should get sued. Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the TOS of WolframAlpha it says that they/it own the copyright to any output generated .
Kids using it as their own work should get sued .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the TOS of WolframAlpha it says that they/it own the copyright to any output generated.
Kids using it as their own work should get sued.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28320507</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a math professor, and I don't care about Al</title>
	<author>dfenstrate</author>
	<datestamp>1244914140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I grade, I don't care about the answer. I look at the way the student solves the problem. If the setup is correct, the computations are reasonable, and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the student knows what she's doing, then I give it full credit even if the answer is wrong.</i><br>I hope you're not teaching engineers!</p><p>To paraphrase some other slashdot comment,<br>"You build bridge. Bridge fall down. You want partial credit?"</p><p>Not to say that partial credit isn't appropriate in largely the manner you described, but being right has to also count, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I grade , I do n't care about the answer .
I look at the way the student solves the problem .
If the setup is correct , the computations are reasonable , and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the student knows what she 's doing , then I give it full credit even if the answer is wrong.I hope you 're not teaching engineers ! To paraphrase some other slashdot comment , " You build bridge .
Bridge fall down .
You want partial credit ?
" Not to say that partial credit is n't appropriate in largely the manner you described , but being right has to also count , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I grade, I don't care about the answer.
I look at the way the student solves the problem.
If the setup is correct, the computations are reasonable, and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the student knows what she's doing, then I give it full credit even if the answer is wrong.I hope you're not teaching engineers!To paraphrase some other slashdot comment,"You build bridge.
Bridge fall down.
You want partial credit?
"Not to say that partial credit isn't appropriate in largely the manner you described, but being right has to also count, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315405</id>
	<title>really guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really think it will be an issue because its functionality is web based and if you can acess the internet on a test you could cheat off of the internet anyway</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think it will be an issue because its functionality is web based and if you can acess the internet on a test you could cheat off of the internet anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think it will be an issue because its functionality is web based and if you can acess the internet on a test you could cheat off of the internet anyway</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316469</id>
	<title>I get to use Mathematica on exams.</title>
	<author>VGVL</author>
	<datestamp>1244817480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been allowed to use Mathematica on Calculus and Differential Equations. Not just the classes, but the exams. Most of the class examples were Mathematica-based.

We had to understand the concepts thoroughly in order to apply them quickly. The calculations are grunt work so we let the computers do that part. Also, the exams wouldn't be a list of equations to solve, they were real world problems. Mathematica/MATLAB usage wasn't mandatory, but it was strongly encouraged as it would make us more competitive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been allowed to use Mathematica on Calculus and Differential Equations .
Not just the classes , but the exams .
Most of the class examples were Mathematica-based .
We had to understand the concepts thoroughly in order to apply them quickly .
The calculations are grunt work so we let the computers do that part .
Also , the exams would n't be a list of equations to solve , they were real world problems .
Mathematica/MATLAB usage was n't mandatory , but it was strongly encouraged as it would make us more competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been allowed to use Mathematica on Calculus and Differential Equations.
Not just the classes, but the exams.
Most of the class examples were Mathematica-based.
We had to understand the concepts thoroughly in order to apply them quickly.
The calculations are grunt work so we let the computers do that part.
Also, the exams wouldn't be a list of equations to solve, they were real world problems.
Mathematica/MATLAB usage wasn't mandatory, but it was strongly encouraged as it would make us more competitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class. Either write problems that require the student to understand the material, or consider whether they even need calculus. I enjoyed learning it, but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand. If an introductory calculus course is all that is needed, concepts are more important than being able to perform the operations by hand. Business majors and the like just have to be able to see d$/dx, not freak out, and understand how to maximize $.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the people not in engineering/math/science , I do n't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class .
Either write problems that require the student to understand the material , or consider whether they even need calculus .
I enjoyed learning it , but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand .
If an introductory calculus course is all that is needed , concepts are more important than being able to perform the operations by hand .
Business majors and the like just have to be able to see d $ /dx , not freak out , and understand how to maximize $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class.
Either write problems that require the student to understand the material, or consider whether they even need calculus.
I enjoyed learning it, but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.
If an introductory calculus course is all that is needed, concepts are more important than being able to perform the operations by hand.
Business majors and the like just have to be able to see d$/dx, not freak out, and understand how to maximize $.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317941</id>
	<title>Re:Instant Results?</title>
	<author>zaffir</author>
	<datestamp>1244923440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have touched upon my single biggest complaint, and the source of all of my struggles in mathematics.

I don't think it's necessarily a conscious decision on the part of the authors and professors. I have a job tutoring for the math department at my university, and I have to be very, very careful that I don't assume the students in college algebra know how or why i did any particular step. It's not uncommon for me to catch myself assuming they know the intuitive obvious, when in fact they don't.

Point being: people who do a lot of math are almost completely unable to see these intuitive leaps that they're making.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have touched upon my single biggest complaint , and the source of all of my struggles in mathematics .
I do n't think it 's necessarily a conscious decision on the part of the authors and professors .
I have a job tutoring for the math department at my university , and I have to be very , very careful that I do n't assume the students in college algebra know how or why i did any particular step .
It 's not uncommon for me to catch myself assuming they know the intuitive obvious , when in fact they do n't .
Point being : people who do a lot of math are almost completely unable to see these intuitive leaps that they 're making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have touched upon my single biggest complaint, and the source of all of my struggles in mathematics.
I don't think it's necessarily a conscious decision on the part of the authors and professors.
I have a job tutoring for the math department at my university, and I have to be very, very careful that I don't assume the students in college algebra know how or why i did any particular step.
It's not uncommon for me to catch myself assuming they know the intuitive obvious, when in fact they don't.
Point being: people who do a lot of math are almost completely unable to see these intuitive leaps that they're making.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317877</id>
	<title>Stephen Wolfram is a fat bald-headed fag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316135</id>
	<title>Memorization Factories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244814360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schools are all about busywork, memorization, and labor-intensive repetitive work, all of which are pretty much irrelevant in the real world, where we have the ability to look up any piece of information and use existing tools to help us figure things out.  Making people demonstrate such knowledge as the barometer of their worth is pointless; making them put those things into *practice* and demonstrate real-world problem-solving using those things, regardless of the methods used, should be the real measure of someone's worth in an educational environment.</p><p>Teach them how, obviously, but don't put them on the spot for anything trivial enough to look up.  As an example, make people learn basic math and multiplication tables for practical use, but beyond that, for fuck's sake, let them use a calculator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schools are all about busywork , memorization , and labor-intensive repetitive work , all of which are pretty much irrelevant in the real world , where we have the ability to look up any piece of information and use existing tools to help us figure things out .
Making people demonstrate such knowledge as the barometer of their worth is pointless ; making them put those things into * practice * and demonstrate real-world problem-solving using those things , regardless of the methods used , should be the real measure of someone 's worth in an educational environment.Teach them how , obviously , but do n't put them on the spot for anything trivial enough to look up .
As an example , make people learn basic math and multiplication tables for practical use , but beyond that , for fuck 's sake , let them use a calculator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schools are all about busywork, memorization, and labor-intensive repetitive work, all of which are pretty much irrelevant in the real world, where we have the ability to look up any piece of information and use existing tools to help us figure things out.
Making people demonstrate such knowledge as the barometer of their worth is pointless; making them put those things into *practice* and demonstrate real-world problem-solving using those things, regardless of the methods used, should be the real measure of someone's worth in an educational environment.Teach them how, obviously, but don't put them on the spot for anything trivial enough to look up.
As an example, make people learn basic math and multiplication tables for practical use, but beyond that, for fuck's sake, let them use a calculator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315881</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet, let's try it out!</title>
	<author>jmknsd</author>
	<datestamp>1244812140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, until it can accept ASCII circuit diagrams, it is worthless to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , until it can accept ASCII circuit diagrams , it is worthless to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, until it can accept ASCII circuit diagrams, it is worthless to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322773</id>
	<title>Re:Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244890560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Size of penis is equal or lesser than the sculptors. In this case wolfram has bigger than 5.94?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Size of penis is equal or lesser than the sculptors .
In this case wolfram has bigger than 5.94 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Size of penis is equal or lesser than the sculptors.
In this case wolfram has bigger than 5.94?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316833</id>
	<title>Re:I had to learn trig with tables in mid/late-80s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>similar story - my middle school math only allowed abacus in class.  funny how times have changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>similar story - my middle school math only allowed abacus in class .
funny how times have changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>similar story - my middle school math only allowed abacus in class.
funny how times have changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493</id>
	<title>I belong to that pocket of math instructors...</title>
	<author>Mao</author>
	<datestamp>1244809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who do not allow calculators.  Part of my rationale is that if I allow calculators, then those who have the fanciest equipment would have an unfair advantage over those who don't.  And I hate to have students feel that they must buy expensive equipment in order to stay competitive in the class.</p><p>So, this WolframAlpha might actually be a good thing, for it could level the playing field (The majority of my students do have internet access).  I am sure one could design math problems in a way that still tests a student's mathematical aptitude and knowledge, while taking into account the availability of WA.</p><p>Think about this the other way round:  If WA doesn't exist, and some $1000 calculator can do what WA does, then the rich students who could afford to buy the calculator would have an unfair advantage over those who couldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who do not allow calculators .
Part of my rationale is that if I allow calculators , then those who have the fanciest equipment would have an unfair advantage over those who do n't .
And I hate to have students feel that they must buy expensive equipment in order to stay competitive in the class.So , this WolframAlpha might actually be a good thing , for it could level the playing field ( The majority of my students do have internet access ) .
I am sure one could design math problems in a way that still tests a student 's mathematical aptitude and knowledge , while taking into account the availability of WA.Think about this the other way round : If WA does n't exist , and some $ 1000 calculator can do what WA does , then the rich students who could afford to buy the calculator would have an unfair advantage over those who could n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who do not allow calculators.
Part of my rationale is that if I allow calculators, then those who have the fanciest equipment would have an unfair advantage over those who don't.
And I hate to have students feel that they must buy expensive equipment in order to stay competitive in the class.So, this WolframAlpha might actually be a good thing, for it could level the playing field (The majority of my students do have internet access).
I am sure one could design math problems in a way that still tests a student's mathematical aptitude and knowledge, while taking into account the availability of WA.Think about this the other way round:  If WA doesn't exist, and some $1000 calculator can do what WA does, then the rich students who could afford to buy the calculator would have an unfair advantage over those who couldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315211</id>
	<title>It even shows the steps</title>
	<author>IronicToo</author>
	<datestamp>1244807220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many professors got around the graphing calculator problem by requiring students to show their work.  WA can even do this for you, if you click on show steps it will walk you though how to solve the problem.  This could be a very helpful tool to learn math, but more probably it will be used as a short cut on homework allowing the lazy to learn even less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many professors got around the graphing calculator problem by requiring students to show their work .
WA can even do this for you , if you click on show steps it will walk you though how to solve the problem .
This could be a very helpful tool to learn math , but more probably it will be used as a short cut on homework allowing the lazy to learn even less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many professors got around the graphing calculator problem by requiring students to show their work.
WA can even do this for you, if you click on show steps it will walk you though how to solve the problem.
This could be a very helpful tool to learn math, but more probably it will be used as a short cut on homework allowing the lazy to learn even less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229</id>
	<title>I'm a math professor, and I don't care about Alpha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244815140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a math prof. at a reasonably large school.
<br>
<br>
I teach plenty of calculus.
<br>
<br>
When I grade, I don't care about the answer.  I look at the way the
student solves the problem.  If the setup is correct, the computations
are reasonable, and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the
student knows what she's doing, then I give it full credit even if the
answer is wrong.  I couldn't care less about careless errors (poor pun
intended).  I'm measuring the student's problem solving abilities, not
her ability to do lots of tedious computations in a short amount of
time (that's what computers are for).  Likewise, if a student
magically produces the correct answer without showing any work (or if
the work is clearly B.S.) then I give them no credit.  The answer is
irrelevant, it's the process that matters.
<br>
<br>
I am completely unconcerned about Wolfram Alpha.
<br>
<br>
I also have a CS background, and I recognize that most CS related jobs
don't require calculus.  However, the whole point of taking calculus
is to practice logical reasoning.  A good calculus course will force
you to solve lots of long complex problems, clearly express your
reasoning, and maybe even do a bunch of delta-epsilon proofs.
Unfortunately, many calculus courses end up being reduced to mundane
computations of derivatives and integrals... those courses ARE a waste
of time.
<br>
<br>
p.s.  If you're a student who actually wants to learn a subject, then
go to that "rate my professor" site and look for professors who are
"clear" and "hard".  Take those professors.  You won't learn much from
an easy professor, and three years after you graduate that easy "A"
will be meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a math prof. at a reasonably large school .
I teach plenty of calculus .
When I grade , I do n't care about the answer .
I look at the way the student solves the problem .
If the setup is correct , the computations are reasonable , and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the student knows what she 's doing , then I give it full credit even if the answer is wrong .
I could n't care less about careless errors ( poor pun intended ) .
I 'm measuring the student 's problem solving abilities , not her ability to do lots of tedious computations in a short amount of time ( that 's what computers are for ) .
Likewise , if a student magically produces the correct answer without showing any work ( or if the work is clearly B.S .
) then I give them no credit .
The answer is irrelevant , it 's the process that matters .
I am completely unconcerned about Wolfram Alpha .
I also have a CS background , and I recognize that most CS related jobs do n't require calculus .
However , the whole point of taking calculus is to practice logical reasoning .
A good calculus course will force you to solve lots of long complex problems , clearly express your reasoning , and maybe even do a bunch of delta-epsilon proofs .
Unfortunately , many calculus courses end up being reduced to mundane computations of derivatives and integrals... those courses ARE a waste of time .
p.s. If you 're a student who actually wants to learn a subject , then go to that " rate my professor " site and look for professors who are " clear " and " hard " .
Take those professors .
You wo n't learn much from an easy professor , and three years after you graduate that easy " A " will be meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a math prof. at a reasonably large school.
I teach plenty of calculus.
When I grade, I don't care about the answer.
I look at the way the
student solves the problem.
If the setup is correct, the computations
are reasonable, and the flow of the solution demonstrates that the
student knows what she's doing, then I give it full credit even if the
answer is wrong.
I couldn't care less about careless errors (poor pun
intended).
I'm measuring the student's problem solving abilities, not
her ability to do lots of tedious computations in a short amount of
time (that's what computers are for).
Likewise, if a student
magically produces the correct answer without showing any work (or if
the work is clearly B.S.
) then I give them no credit.
The answer is
irrelevant, it's the process that matters.
I am completely unconcerned about Wolfram Alpha.
I also have a CS background, and I recognize that most CS related jobs
don't require calculus.
However, the whole point of taking calculus
is to practice logical reasoning.
A good calculus course will force
you to solve lots of long complex problems, clearly express your
reasoning, and maybe even do a bunch of delta-epsilon proofs.
Unfortunately, many calculus courses end up being reduced to mundane
computations of derivatives and integrals... those courses ARE a waste
of time.
p.s.  If you're a student who actually wants to learn a subject, then
go to that "rate my professor" site and look for professors who are
"clear" and "hard".
Take those professors.
You won't learn much from
an easy professor, and three years after you graduate that easy "A"
will be meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</id>
	<title>Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244807100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Wolfram Alpha has been a big buzz kill for me.... My query was "average penis length?".... WA answered: 5.94 inches.</p><p>Now I understand the meaning of "ignorance is a bliss"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Wolfram Alpha has been a big buzz kill for me.... My query was " average penis length ? " ... .
WA answered : 5.94 inches.Now I understand the meaning of " ignorance is a bliss "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Wolfram Alpha has been a big buzz kill for me.... My query was "average penis length?"....
WA answered: 5.94 inches.Now I understand the meaning of "ignorance is a bliss"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316765</id>
	<title>Re:The ability to check your work is crucial!</title>
	<author>p!ngu</author>
	<datestamp>1244820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, this is probably incorrect. I'm not purporting to be an expert on pedagogy, but the books need sufficient worked examples to illustrate the basic methods and variations of attack. After that, "answers in the back of the book" serve limited utility. Of course, they can help to an extent ("I'm out by a factor of two", etc.) but they are far from the be-all end-all.

A handy thing about mathematics is that if you're right, you're right. Hence why the "even numbers have solutions only" style is so successful. And much like what the fellow above me said - just check the answer yourself! Integrals, differentiate and so forth. It's only in the higher level maths courses where checking becomes harder than the problem itself, at which stage those who have trouble with mathematics have given up anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is probably incorrect .
I 'm not purporting to be an expert on pedagogy , but the books need sufficient worked examples to illustrate the basic methods and variations of attack .
After that , " answers in the back of the book " serve limited utility .
Of course , they can help to an extent ( " I 'm out by a factor of two " , etc .
) but they are far from the be-all end-all .
A handy thing about mathematics is that if you 're right , you 're right .
Hence why the " even numbers have solutions only " style is so successful .
And much like what the fellow above me said - just check the answer yourself !
Integrals , differentiate and so forth .
It 's only in the higher level maths courses where checking becomes harder than the problem itself , at which stage those who have trouble with mathematics have given up anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is probably incorrect.
I'm not purporting to be an expert on pedagogy, but the books need sufficient worked examples to illustrate the basic methods and variations of attack.
After that, "answers in the back of the book" serve limited utility.
Of course, they can help to an extent ("I'm out by a factor of two", etc.
) but they are far from the be-all end-all.
A handy thing about mathematics is that if you're right, you're right.
Hence why the "even numbers have solutions only" style is so successful.
And much like what the fellow above me said - just check the answer yourself!
Integrals, differentiate and so forth.
It's only in the higher level maths courses where checking becomes harder than the problem itself, at which stage those who have trouble with mathematics have given up anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28325169</id>
	<title>Sage is about as powerful as Mathematica, but free</title>
	<author>Nivag064</author>
	<datestamp>1245011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.sagemath.org/" title="sagemath.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sagemath.org/</a> [sagemath.org]</p><p>Sage is a free open-source mathematics software system licensed under the GPL. It combines the power of many existing open-source packages into a common Python-based interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sagemath.org/ [ sagemath.org ] Sage is a free open-source mathematics software system licensed under the GPL .
It combines the power of many existing open-source packages into a common Python-based interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sagemath.org/ [sagemath.org]Sage is a free open-source mathematics software system licensed under the GPL.
It combines the power of many existing open-source packages into a common Python-based interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316963</id>
	<title>Stereotypes about Mathematicians</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1244822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel"</p><p>Obviously, you haven't heard of Gauss or Ramanujan.  The former began his mathematical career at the age of 3, correcting accounting errors in his father's business.  The latter was a self taught genius who rose from extreme poverty on the strength of his mathematical ideas alone.  Had he not died prematurely and his work more accessible to the less gifted, he would have been much more widely known.</p><p>In fact there are a great many famous mathematicians from very humble backgrounds, which only goes to prove that you do yourself and humanity a great disservice in perpetuating stereotypes.  There is no single path to genius nor is there a single special kind of intellect.  Any young student may prove they have talent, if they can learn to think clearly enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel " Obviously , you have n't heard of Gauss or Ramanujan .
The former began his mathematical career at the age of 3 , correcting accounting errors in his father 's business .
The latter was a self taught genius who rose from extreme poverty on the strength of his mathematical ideas alone .
Had he not died prematurely and his work more accessible to the less gifted , he would have been much more widely known.In fact there are a great many famous mathematicians from very humble backgrounds , which only goes to prove that you do yourself and humanity a great disservice in perpetuating stereotypes .
There is no single path to genius nor is there a single special kind of intellect .
Any young student may prove they have talent , if they can learn to think clearly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel"Obviously, you haven't heard of Gauss or Ramanujan.
The former began his mathematical career at the age of 3, correcting accounting errors in his father's business.
The latter was a self taught genius who rose from extreme poverty on the strength of his mathematical ideas alone.
Had he not died prematurely and his work more accessible to the less gifted, he would have been much more widely known.In fact there are a great many famous mathematicians from very humble backgrounds, which only goes to prove that you do yourself and humanity a great disservice in perpetuating stereotypes.
There is no single path to genius nor is there a single special kind of intellect.
Any young student may prove they have talent, if they can learn to think clearly enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119</id>
	<title>Instant Results?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process, particularly when it comes to learning.

That being said, the biggest gripe I have with math in the classroom is the reliance by instructors and authors on readers to just "get" what is being taught; textbooks that provide one or two examples and assignments far beyond what the text really offers, or make the assumption that every reader is going to reflexively make all the intuitive leaps needed to get to the solution, and a correct one at that.

Hey, I understand wanting to pass only the people who are willing to work hard to succeed, but right now the "system" makes people work hard for the wrong reasons.  I can't say that I see Wolfram Alpha help the problem I outlined--it's a step sideward, really.  At least now we can check our work? haha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as I 'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math , the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on " results " and so little attention to process , particularly when it comes to learning .
That being said , the biggest gripe I have with math in the classroom is the reliance by instructors and authors on readers to just " get " what is being taught ; textbooks that provide one or two examples and assignments far beyond what the text really offers , or make the assumption that every reader is going to reflexively make all the intuitive leaps needed to get to the solution , and a correct one at that .
Hey , I understand wanting to pass only the people who are willing to work hard to succeed , but right now the " system " makes people work hard for the wrong reasons .
I ca n't say that I see Wolfram Alpha help the problem I outlined--it 's a step sideward , really .
At least now we can check our work ?
haha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process, particularly when it comes to learning.
That being said, the biggest gripe I have with math in the classroom is the reliance by instructors and authors on readers to just "get" what is being taught; textbooks that provide one or two examples and assignments far beyond what the text really offers, or make the assumption that every reader is going to reflexively make all the intuitive leaps needed to get to the solution, and a correct one at that.
Hey, I understand wanting to pass only the people who are willing to work hard to succeed, but right now the "system" makes people work hard for the wrong reasons.
I can't say that I see Wolfram Alpha help the problem I outlined--it's a step sideward, really.
At least now we can check our work?
haha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317027</id>
	<title>Calculators in class?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a TI-82 for Discrete I and II and Calc I, then a TI-89 for Calc II, as did lots of my fellow students. Nobody ever cared about students using calculators.</p><p>High school was a different story. My high school's math department was headed by a very rude and ineffective teacher who drove away any good math teachers [ie, that made her look bad]. She allowed graphing calculators on exams [I had that TI-82 taking Analytic Geometry from her], but she insisted on erasing their memories to make sure we did not have programs on them. I told her "You do not have permission to modify my calculator"--forcing me to borrow a TI-82 from her school-owned arsenal.</p><p>Come college, I never really used my calculator's memory to store notes. I have a feeling that most professors realized that while it could be done...c'mon, if you can punch your notes into a non-QWERTY graphing calculator, recall them, and apply them to the questions on the exam, then you obviously know the material--you had to show your work anyway.</p><p>In high school, my also-rude-and-ineffective trig teacher made everyone go home and list something like 15 Pythagorean triples. I wrote a program in QBASIC and handed in a printout of 15 Pythagorean triples along with the source code of the program. Needless to say, she got pissed off, even though it was pretty obvious I learned the subject matter.</p><p>It boils down to learning the subject matter vs. brain-dumping your way through, whether it's a Master's degree or your MCSE. Ultimately, you'll have a job requiring said skill, and you'll be screwed.</p><p>Of course, if your parents bought your way through college, you just wind up President.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a TI-82 for Discrete I and II and Calc I , then a TI-89 for Calc II , as did lots of my fellow students .
Nobody ever cared about students using calculators.High school was a different story .
My high school 's math department was headed by a very rude and ineffective teacher who drove away any good math teachers [ ie , that made her look bad ] .
She allowed graphing calculators on exams [ I had that TI-82 taking Analytic Geometry from her ] , but she insisted on erasing their memories to make sure we did not have programs on them .
I told her " You do not have permission to modify my calculator " --forcing me to borrow a TI-82 from her school-owned arsenal.Come college , I never really used my calculator 's memory to store notes .
I have a feeling that most professors realized that while it could be done...c'mon , if you can punch your notes into a non-QWERTY graphing calculator , recall them , and apply them to the questions on the exam , then you obviously know the material--you had to show your work anyway.In high school , my also-rude-and-ineffective trig teacher made everyone go home and list something like 15 Pythagorean triples .
I wrote a program in QBASIC and handed in a printout of 15 Pythagorean triples along with the source code of the program .
Needless to say , she got pissed off , even though it was pretty obvious I learned the subject matter.It boils down to learning the subject matter vs. brain-dumping your way through , whether it 's a Master 's degree or your MCSE .
Ultimately , you 'll have a job requiring said skill , and you 'll be screwed.Of course , if your parents bought your way through college , you just wind up President .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a TI-82 for Discrete I and II and Calc I, then a TI-89 for Calc II, as did lots of my fellow students.
Nobody ever cared about students using calculators.High school was a different story.
My high school's math department was headed by a very rude and ineffective teacher who drove away any good math teachers [ie, that made her look bad].
She allowed graphing calculators on exams [I had that TI-82 taking Analytic Geometry from her], but she insisted on erasing their memories to make sure we did not have programs on them.
I told her "You do not have permission to modify my calculator"--forcing me to borrow a TI-82 from her school-owned arsenal.Come college, I never really used my calculator's memory to store notes.
I have a feeling that most professors realized that while it could be done...c'mon, if you can punch your notes into a non-QWERTY graphing calculator, recall them, and apply them to the questions on the exam, then you obviously know the material--you had to show your work anyway.In high school, my also-rude-and-ineffective trig teacher made everyone go home and list something like 15 Pythagorean triples.
I wrote a program in QBASIC and handed in a printout of 15 Pythagorean triples along with the source code of the program.
Needless to say, she got pissed off, even though it was pretty obvious I learned the subject matter.It boils down to learning the subject matter vs. brain-dumping your way through, whether it's a Master's degree or your MCSE.
Ultimately, you'll have a job requiring said skill, and you'll be screwed.Of course, if your parents bought your way through college, you just wind up President.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319415</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a math professor, and I don't care about Al</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1244903820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You won't learn much from an easy professor, and three years after you graduate that easy "A" will be meaningless.</i></p><p>Kind of like the rest of your college education.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  It is only needed to get through the interview screening process.</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I don't really believe that college doesn't teach anybody anything.  However, for the most part college is designed to prepare you to teach college courses the way that you learned it.  If you don't plan on teaching college courses for the rest of your life about 75\% of everything you do there will be a waste of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't learn much from an easy professor , and three years after you graduate that easy " A " will be meaningless.Kind of like the rest of your college education .
: ) It is only needed to get through the interview screening process.Do n't get me wrong - I do n't really believe that college does n't teach anybody anything .
However , for the most part college is designed to prepare you to teach college courses the way that you learned it .
If you do n't plan on teaching college courses for the rest of your life about 75 \ % of everything you do there will be a waste of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't learn much from an easy professor, and three years after you graduate that easy "A" will be meaningless.Kind of like the rest of your college education.
:)  It is only needed to get through the interview screening process.Don't get me wrong - I don't really believe that college doesn't teach anybody anything.
However, for the most part college is designed to prepare you to teach college courses the way that you learned it.
If you don't plan on teaching college courses for the rest of your life about 75\% of everything you do there will be a waste of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315263</id>
	<title>Using the book is cheating!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244807640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using math books is cheating.  The only <em>REAL</em> way to learn algebra or calculus is to re-invent it like people did hundreds of years ago!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using math books is cheating .
The only REAL way to learn algebra or calculus is to re-invent it like people did hundreds of years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using math books is cheating.
The only REAL way to learn algebra or calculus is to re-invent it like people did hundreds of years ago!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315141</id>
	<title>The thing works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an esoteric question?</p><p><a href="http://www24.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+distance+between+89N+1W+and+89N+2W\%3F" title="wolframalpha.com">what is the distance between 89N 1W and 89N 2W ?</a> [wolframalpha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an esoteric question ? what is the distance between 89N 1W and 89N 2W ?
[ wolframalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an esoteric question?what is the distance between 89N 1W and 89N 2W ?
[wolframalpha.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315341</id>
	<title>How about proofs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they'd start moving the focus onto proofs in math classes instead of just memorizing algorithms for solving certain problems, students wouldn't be able to use Wolfram Alpha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 'd start moving the focus onto proofs in math classes instead of just memorizing algorithms for solving certain problems , students would n't be able to use Wolfram Alpha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they'd start moving the focus onto proofs in math classes instead of just memorizing algorithms for solving certain problems, students wouldn't be able to use Wolfram Alpha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316903</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason to allow graphing calculators for at least part of a course's work is because they will be used in a working environment and thus the student should be aware of their use and proficient.</p><p>That said, the same students also need to learn the basic principals underlying their classwork that using a graphing calculator often glosses over.  Thus it isn't a matter of to use or not to use, it is a matter of HOW to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason to allow graphing calculators for at least part of a course 's work is because they will be used in a working environment and thus the student should be aware of their use and proficient.That said , the same students also need to learn the basic principals underlying their classwork that using a graphing calculator often glosses over .
Thus it is n't a matter of to use or not to use , it is a matter of HOW to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason to allow graphing calculators for at least part of a course's work is because they will be used in a working environment and thus the student should be aware of their use and proficient.That said, the same students also need to learn the basic principals underlying their classwork that using a graphing calculator often glosses over.
Thus it isn't a matter of to use or not to use, it is a matter of HOW to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316755</id>
	<title>Re:Instant Results?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process,</p></div><p>Just you wait.  Once you get into the corporate world with Six Sigma and ISO9000, etc you will have more process than you ever thought possible.  You'll have so much process that you'll be puking up process on weekends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as I 'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math , the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on " results " and so little attention to process,Just you wait .
Once you get into the corporate world with Six Sigma and ISO9000 , etc you will have more process than you ever thought possible .
You 'll have so much process that you 'll be puking up process on weekends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process,Just you wait.
Once you get into the corporate world with Six Sigma and ISO9000, etc you will have more process than you ever thought possible.
You'll have so much process that you'll be puking up process on weekends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315913</id>
	<title>Re:Protestant Work Ethic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244812500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You use that phrase "Protestant Work Ethic"  I don't think you know what that means.</p><p>Seeking perfection through diligence to bring one closer to being divine rather, as it is both a theological philosophy and theory on the materialism in what are considered Protestant nations.</p><p>As opposed to a more relaxed or less productive (per man-hour) culture very common in what were Catholic countries along the Mediterranean coast.</p><p>If you had read The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic, rather than flipping through 1 or 2 paragraphs in the cliffs notes version, and arguing that because you were poor you deserved a passing grade rather than working for it, you might have understood what you are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You use that phrase " Protestant Work Ethic " I do n't think you know what that means.Seeking perfection through diligence to bring one closer to being divine rather , as it is both a theological philosophy and theory on the materialism in what are considered Protestant nations.As opposed to a more relaxed or less productive ( per man-hour ) culture very common in what were Catholic countries along the Mediterranean coast.If you had read The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic , rather than flipping through 1 or 2 paragraphs in the cliffs notes version , and arguing that because you were poor you deserved a passing grade rather than working for it , you might have understood what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You use that phrase "Protestant Work Ethic"  I don't think you know what that means.Seeking perfection through diligence to bring one closer to being divine rather, as it is both a theological philosophy and theory on the materialism in what are considered Protestant nations.As opposed to a more relaxed or less productive (per man-hour) culture very common in what were Catholic countries along the Mediterranean coast.If you had read The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic, rather than flipping through 1 or 2 paragraphs in the cliffs notes version, and arguing that because you were poor you deserved a passing grade rather than working for it, you might have understood what you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317235</id>
	<title>Isn't all that useful...</title>
	<author>hundredrabh</author>
	<datestamp>1244825760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Input: Do my homework

Result:
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Input : Do my homework Result : Wolfram | Alpha is n't sure what to do with your input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Input: Do my homework

Result:
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309</id>
	<title>The ability to check your work is crucial!</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1244807940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.</p><p>This is why I am a firm believer that all math texts should offer the solutions to ALL the problems in the back of the book.</p><p>The way I learn to do math problems is by doing LOTS of math problems.  Finally, after I have done enough of them, I see the pattern, and I have learned the mathematic principles behind the problems.</p><p>This, of course, is precisely backwards of how math is taught.  They try to teach the mathematic principles, and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems.  This has never worked for me.</p><p>I have to lots of problems, and finally I see the pattern.</p><p>In order for the lots of problems to be useful, however, I have to have the answers to the problems so that I can tell whether I did the problem right or not.  There are not enough problems in textbooks now as it is.  If I can only do the even ones (because that is all answers are available for) then that has cut my available problems to do in half.  To me, there is no point in doing the problems that have no answers because I have no way to know if I did it right or not.</p><p>And the real problem is, if you spend your time "learning" how to do a bunch of math problems incorrectly (though you didn't know it), you have to "deprogram" yourself once you are shown how to do it correctly.  I would rather know right away (by having the solution available) whether I made a mistake or not, so I can figure out what I did wrong and move forward.</p><p>Of course teachers don't want to give all the answers to the texts because they want easy homework assignments to hand out and grade.</p><p>I think this is crap for two reasons:</p><p>First, and most importantly, if you cheat on your homework, YOU ARE FUCKED ON EXAMS.  Period.</p><p>Secondly, for many texts nowadays you can find a torrent for the teachers solution manual.  I've done this for texts when I can, but not all are available.</p><p>Wolfram Alpha has the ability for me to possibly plug in difficult math problems and find the answer, and then I can figure out how to get that answer myself, WHICH IS WHAT LEARNING MATHEMATICS IS ALL ABOUT.</p><p>This whole cheating thing in Mathematics is just way overblown.  Let students cheat on their homework.  They will, absolutely and without question, fail their exams, and thus, the course.  End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.This is why I am a firm believer that all math texts should offer the solutions to ALL the problems in the back of the book.The way I learn to do math problems is by doing LOTS of math problems .
Finally , after I have done enough of them , I see the pattern , and I have learned the mathematic principles behind the problems.This , of course , is precisely backwards of how math is taught .
They try to teach the mathematic principles , and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems .
This has never worked for me.I have to lots of problems , and finally I see the pattern.In order for the lots of problems to be useful , however , I have to have the answers to the problems so that I can tell whether I did the problem right or not .
There are not enough problems in textbooks now as it is .
If I can only do the even ones ( because that is all answers are available for ) then that has cut my available problems to do in half .
To me , there is no point in doing the problems that have no answers because I have no way to know if I did it right or not.And the real problem is , if you spend your time " learning " how to do a bunch of math problems incorrectly ( though you did n't know it ) , you have to " deprogram " yourself once you are shown how to do it correctly .
I would rather know right away ( by having the solution available ) whether I made a mistake or not , so I can figure out what I did wrong and move forward.Of course teachers do n't want to give all the answers to the texts because they want easy homework assignments to hand out and grade.I think this is crap for two reasons : First , and most importantly , if you cheat on your homework , YOU ARE FUCKED ON EXAMS .
Period.Secondly , for many texts nowadays you can find a torrent for the teachers solution manual .
I 've done this for texts when I can , but not all are available.Wolfram Alpha has the ability for me to possibly plug in difficult math problems and find the answer , and then I can figure out how to get that answer myself , WHICH IS WHAT LEARNING MATHEMATICS IS ALL ABOUT.This whole cheating thing in Mathematics is just way overblown .
Let students cheat on their homework .
They will , absolutely and without question , fail their exams , and thus , the course .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the ability to check your work is crucial.This is why I am a firm believer that all math texts should offer the solutions to ALL the problems in the back of the book.The way I learn to do math problems is by doing LOTS of math problems.
Finally, after I have done enough of them, I see the pattern, and I have learned the mathematic principles behind the problems.This, of course, is precisely backwards of how math is taught.
They try to teach the mathematic principles, and then from that you are supposed to deduce how to do the problems.
This has never worked for me.I have to lots of problems, and finally I see the pattern.In order for the lots of problems to be useful, however, I have to have the answers to the problems so that I can tell whether I did the problem right or not.
There are not enough problems in textbooks now as it is.
If I can only do the even ones (because that is all answers are available for) then that has cut my available problems to do in half.
To me, there is no point in doing the problems that have no answers because I have no way to know if I did it right or not.And the real problem is, if you spend your time "learning" how to do a bunch of math problems incorrectly (though you didn't know it), you have to "deprogram" yourself once you are shown how to do it correctly.
I would rather know right away (by having the solution available) whether I made a mistake or not, so I can figure out what I did wrong and move forward.Of course teachers don't want to give all the answers to the texts because they want easy homework assignments to hand out and grade.I think this is crap for two reasons:First, and most importantly, if you cheat on your homework, YOU ARE FUCKED ON EXAMS.
Period.Secondly, for many texts nowadays you can find a torrent for the teachers solution manual.
I've done this for texts when I can, but not all are available.Wolfram Alpha has the ability for me to possibly plug in difficult math problems and find the answer, and then I can figure out how to get that answer myself, WHICH IS WHAT LEARNING MATHEMATICS IS ALL ABOUT.This whole cheating thing in Mathematics is just way overblown.
Let students cheat on their homework.
They will, absolutely and without question, fail their exams, and thus, the course.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316953</id>
	<title>It worked for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prove P = NP</p><p>Result: (Wait)...(Wait)......(Wait).........(WAIT)<br>Answer: Probably not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove P = NPResult : ( Wait ) ... ( Wait ) ...... ( Wait ) ......... ( WAIT ) Answer : Probably not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove P = NPResult: (Wait)...(Wait)......(Wait).........(WAIT)Answer: Probably not</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316233</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Lord Efnar</author>
	<datestamp>1244815140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I don't have a strong opinion, but I have seen people use calculators as a brain crutch.  The point of the homework and test questions is to encourage thought, not to encourage mad calculator skills.</p><blockquote><div><p>I enjoyed learning it, but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This comment makes me wonder at your notion of a math prof's day.  Is it anything like this?<br>
9am: Get to work.  Hard integral<br>
10am: teach class<br>
11am: hard integral (using integration by parts)<br>
noon: light lunch (don't want to get cramps in the integration muscle!)<br>
1pm: teach class<br>
2pm: office hours<br>
3pm: hard integral (stupid trig substitutions!)<br>
4pm: hard integral (using partial fraction decomposition)<br>
5pm: go home</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the people not in engineering/math/science , I do n't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class .
I do n't have a strong opinion , but I have seen people use calculators as a brain crutch .
The point of the homework and test questions is to encourage thought , not to encourage mad calculator skills.I enjoyed learning it , but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand .
This comment makes me wonder at your notion of a math prof 's day .
Is it anything like this ?
9am : Get to work .
Hard integral 10am : teach class 11am : hard integral ( using integration by parts ) noon : light lunch ( do n't want to get cramps in the integration muscle !
) 1pm : teach class 2pm : office hours 3pm : hard integral ( stupid trig substitutions !
) 4pm : hard integral ( using partial fraction decomposition ) 5pm : go home</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the people not in engineering/math/science, I don't see why they need to be deprived a calculator or similar for a calculus class.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I have seen people use calculators as a brain crutch.
The point of the homework and test questions is to encourage thought, not to encourage mad calculator skills.I enjoyed learning it, but only a math professor has to know how to perform integration by parts by hand.
This comment makes me wonder at your notion of a math prof's day.
Is it anything like this?
9am: Get to work.
Hard integral
10am: teach class
11am: hard integral (using integration by parts)
noon: light lunch (don't want to get cramps in the integration muscle!
)
1pm: teach class
2pm: office hours
3pm: hard integral (stupid trig substitutions!
)
4pm: hard integral (using partial fraction decomposition)
5pm: go home
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316929</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1244822040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator."</i>
<br> <br>
IIRC when I started HS there was no such thing as a calculator. Now get of my lawn or I will make you listen to another story about slide rules and log tables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" IIRC , in regular college level calculus I was n't allowed to use a graphing calculator .
" IIRC when I started HS there was no such thing as a calculator .
Now get of my lawn or I will make you listen to another story about slide rules and log tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator.
"
 
IIRC when I started HS there was no such thing as a calculator.
Now get of my lawn or I will make you listen to another story about slide rules and log tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317329</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a math professor, and I don't care about Al</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Likewise, if a student magically produces the correct answer without showing any work (or if the work is clearly B.S.) then I give them no credit."</p><p>Wolfram Alpha goes through the steps of deriving and integrating, including substitutions. The answers for a lot of fundamental calculus concepts are step-by-step what's taught to be correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Likewise , if a student magically produces the correct answer without showing any work ( or if the work is clearly B.S .
) then I give them no credit .
" Wolfram Alpha goes through the steps of deriving and integrating , including substitutions .
The answers for a lot of fundamental calculus concepts are step-by-step what 's taught to be correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Likewise, if a student magically produces the correct answer without showing any work (or if the work is clearly B.S.
) then I give them no credit.
"Wolfram Alpha goes through the steps of deriving and integrating, including substitutions.
The answers for a lot of fundamental calculus concepts are step-by-step what's taught to be correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033</id>
	<title>I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just do what my school does and make assignments worth 10 - 15\% and expect some noise. For a lot of professors, assignments are really only meant to keep the student up to date on the material.

The students that rely on WolframAlpha will only end up screwing themselves over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do what my school does and make assignments worth 10 - 15 \ % and expect some noise .
For a lot of professors , assignments are really only meant to keep the student up to date on the material .
The students that rely on WolframAlpha will only end up screwing themselves over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just do what my school does and make assignments worth 10 - 15\% and expect some noise.
For a lot of professors, assignments are really only meant to keep the student up to date on the material.
The students that rely on WolframAlpha will only end up screwing themselves over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315857</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Pseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1244811960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the real world you can use any software you wish.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, you poor, naive person.</p><p>Let me introduce myself.  I'm from the real world.  Let me explain how things happen here.</p><p>We have to deal with tricky problems.  Sometimes, a function has more than one formal integral, and some forms are more appropriate than others in different situations.  Good luck coaxing your CAS into giving you exactly what you want.</p><p>We have to deal with deadlines.  If you can solve a problem in two minutes on paper, that's usually quicker than loading up most software packages and trying to get your equation into the syntax of the system.  (Naturally, no two systems use the same syntax.)</p><p>Even worse, we have to deal with software licensing.  Mathematica and Matlab ain't cheap.  Software vendors try to argue that you're a commercial institution, not a research institution, so they can gouge you for licence fees.  Cross your fingers and hope that there is a small enough number of people using the software concurrently so that you can get in.  Otherwise, you're screwed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the real world you can use any software you wish.Oh , you poor , naive person.Let me introduce myself .
I 'm from the real world .
Let me explain how things happen here.We have to deal with tricky problems .
Sometimes , a function has more than one formal integral , and some forms are more appropriate than others in different situations .
Good luck coaxing your CAS into giving you exactly what you want.We have to deal with deadlines .
If you can solve a problem in two minutes on paper , that 's usually quicker than loading up most software packages and trying to get your equation into the syntax of the system .
( Naturally , no two systems use the same syntax .
) Even worse , we have to deal with software licensing .
Mathematica and Matlab ai n't cheap .
Software vendors try to argue that you 're a commercial institution , not a research institution , so they can gouge you for licence fees .
Cross your fingers and hope that there is a small enough number of people using the software concurrently so that you can get in .
Otherwise , you 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the real world you can use any software you wish.Oh, you poor, naive person.Let me introduce myself.
I'm from the real world.
Let me explain how things happen here.We have to deal with tricky problems.
Sometimes, a function has more than one formal integral, and some forms are more appropriate than others in different situations.
Good luck coaxing your CAS into giving you exactly what you want.We have to deal with deadlines.
If you can solve a problem in two minutes on paper, that's usually quicker than loading up most software packages and trying to get your equation into the syntax of the system.
(Naturally, no two systems use the same syntax.
)Even worse, we have to deal with software licensing.
Mathematica and Matlab ain't cheap.
Software vendors try to argue that you're a commercial institution, not a research institution, so they can gouge you for licence fees.
Cross your fingers and hope that there is a small enough number of people using the software concurrently so that you can get in.
Otherwise, you're screwed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315491</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This. A full 6 years after graduation and this is what I have realized.</p><p>Knowing *when* to integrate is far more important than knowing how. If you dont know when you have to, its fairly useless to know how.</p><p>Once you have been exposed to the underlying theory, unless you are going into more theoretical work, there is no reason to not use MATLAB to solve that system of Diffy Q's. In the real world, when your on somewhat of a schedule, and other peoples money is on the line who do you think is going to get the contract? The guy who just solved the circuit equations by hand, and now knows the values for R, C, L etc? Or the guy who used Spice and has a working prototype of the design to show?</p><p>For most of us we simply need to get work done. We learned the theoretical underpinnings once upon a time, and if need be we can spend a couple hours (or weekend) and brush up on a specific topic. But, even that weekend pales in comparison to the time spent solving *everything* by hand. So there is no good reason to make students believe that upon graduation and employment, they will be sitting in an office working everything out by hand.</p><p>Slightly off topic, but food for thought nonetheless: If you want to talk about reasons why engineering and science enrollment are down, or why many leave those fields of study, this may be a good place to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
A full 6 years after graduation and this is what I have realized.Knowing * when * to integrate is far more important than knowing how .
If you dont know when you have to , its fairly useless to know how.Once you have been exposed to the underlying theory , unless you are going into more theoretical work , there is no reason to not use MATLAB to solve that system of Diffy Q 's .
In the real world , when your on somewhat of a schedule , and other peoples money is on the line who do you think is going to get the contract ?
The guy who just solved the circuit equations by hand , and now knows the values for R , C , L etc ?
Or the guy who used Spice and has a working prototype of the design to show ? For most of us we simply need to get work done .
We learned the theoretical underpinnings once upon a time , and if need be we can spend a couple hours ( or weekend ) and brush up on a specific topic .
But , even that weekend pales in comparison to the time spent solving * everything * by hand .
So there is no good reason to make students believe that upon graduation and employment , they will be sitting in an office working everything out by hand.Slightly off topic , but food for thought nonetheless : If you want to talk about reasons why engineering and science enrollment are down , or why many leave those fields of study , this may be a good place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
A full 6 years after graduation and this is what I have realized.Knowing *when* to integrate is far more important than knowing how.
If you dont know when you have to, its fairly useless to know how.Once you have been exposed to the underlying theory, unless you are going into more theoretical work, there is no reason to not use MATLAB to solve that system of Diffy Q's.
In the real world, when your on somewhat of a schedule, and other peoples money is on the line who do you think is going to get the contract?
The guy who just solved the circuit equations by hand, and now knows the values for R, C, L etc?
Or the guy who used Spice and has a working prototype of the design to show?For most of us we simply need to get work done.
We learned the theoretical underpinnings once upon a time, and if need be we can spend a couple hours (or weekend) and brush up on a specific topic.
But, even that weekend pales in comparison to the time spent solving *everything* by hand.
So there is no good reason to make students believe that upon graduation and employment, they will be sitting in an office working everything out by hand.Slightly off topic, but food for thought nonetheless: If you want to talk about reasons why engineering and science enrollment are down, or why many leave those fields of study, this may be a good place to start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28321403</id>
	<title>Re:Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>tutori</author>
	<datestamp>1244920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just move to <a href="http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+erect+penis+length+turkey" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">Turkey</a> [wolframalpha.com].  Only 5 inches there.  <br> <br>Of course, you're probably in America, which will make you feel <a href="http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+erect+penis+length+america" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">even worse</a> [wolframalpha.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just move to Turkey [ wolframalpha.com ] .
Only 5 inches there .
Of course , you 're probably in America , which will make you feel even worse [ wolframalpha.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just move to Turkey [wolframalpha.com].
Only 5 inches there.
Of course, you're probably in America, which will make you feel even worse [wolframalpha.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315833</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New wi-fi enabled calculators a big hit with college and high school students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New wi-fi enabled calculators a big hit with college and high school students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New wi-fi enabled calculators a big hit with college and high school students.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316695</id>
	<title>Re:Protestant Work Ethic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244819700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A well written software program cannot ignore you, no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.</p></div><p>I'll have to call you out on that one. My Mac refuses to turn on if I am dressed in baggy jeans and a ripped shirt. My Windows machine blue screens at a higher frequency if it sees my Mac on the network, and my Linux machine won't let me login if I have my girlfriend in the same room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A well written software program can not ignore you , no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.I 'll have to call you out on that one .
My Mac refuses to turn on if I am dressed in baggy jeans and a ripped shirt .
My Windows machine blue screens at a higher frequency if it sees my Mac on the network , and my Linux machine wo n't let me login if I have my girlfriend in the same room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well written software program cannot ignore you, no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.I'll have to call you out on that one.
My Mac refuses to turn on if I am dressed in baggy jeans and a ripped shirt.
My Windows machine blue screens at a higher frequency if it sees my Mac on the network, and my Linux machine won't let me login if I have my girlfriend in the same room.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</id>
	<title>Protestant Work Ethic</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1244806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Protestant Work Ethic that if it is easy (or easier to do) then it is somehow bad. Like all learning tools, this may be used for cheating, just like a butcher knife can be used to murder somebody. If I could have had feedback that was quick and easy when I was in school then I probably would have excelled at Mathematics instead of dropping it as soon as possible. Tools like this are great for people who can't afford tutors and who don't have family members who are educated enough to help them with their homework.</p><p>Math, I have heard it said, is the great (social/economic) equalizer, but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel. A well written software program cannot ignore you, no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.</p><p>Teachers who worry about cheating obviously don't have the skills to assess their students abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Protestant Work Ethic that if it is easy ( or easier to do ) then it is somehow bad .
Like all learning tools , this may be used for cheating , just like a butcher knife can be used to murder somebody .
If I could have had feedback that was quick and easy when I was in school then I probably would have excelled at Mathematics instead of dropping it as soon as possible .
Tools like this are great for people who ca n't afford tutors and who do n't have family members who are educated enough to help them with their homework.Math , I have heard it said , is the great ( social/economic ) equalizer , but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel .
A well written software program can not ignore you , no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.Teachers who worry about cheating obviously do n't have the skills to assess their students abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Protestant Work Ethic that if it is easy (or easier to do) then it is somehow bad.
Like all learning tools, this may be used for cheating, just like a butcher knife can be used to murder somebody.
If I could have had feedback that was quick and easy when I was in school then I probably would have excelled at Mathematics instead of dropping it as soon as possible.
Tools like this are great for people who can't afford tutors and who don't have family members who are educated enough to help them with their homework.Math, I have heard it said, is the great (social/economic) equalizer, but experience has demonstrated that only people who are lucky enough to have exceptional teachers or middle class families will have the environment to excel.
A well written software program cannot ignore you, no matter how poorly you are dressed or who your friends and enemies are.Teachers who worry about cheating obviously don't have the skills to assess their students abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322957</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244892600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I also don't think it would have helped...</i><br>I always found the ability to see several calculations worth of history on screen hugely helpfull for keeping mistakes down, far more usefull than the actual graphing functionality.</p><p>It was rather a pain when I went to uni (to do electronic systems engineering) and was forced to drop down to a far more basic calculator for my exams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't think it would have helped...I always found the ability to see several calculations worth of history on screen hugely helpfull for keeping mistakes down , far more usefull than the actual graphing functionality.It was rather a pain when I went to uni ( to do electronic systems engineering ) and was forced to drop down to a far more basic calculator for my exams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't think it would have helped...I always found the ability to see several calculations worth of history on screen hugely helpfull for keeping mistakes down, far more usefull than the actual graphing functionality.It was rather a pain when I went to uni (to do electronic systems engineering) and was forced to drop down to a far more basic calculator for my exams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316107</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1244814120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For whatever reason, even when my school allowed graphing calculators in the calculus series, I've \_never\_ used them once (okay, here's a probable reason: I had a huge ego about being a mathematics tough guy, or something.)  I ended up acing all the exams because I've never allowed myself to rely on them for anything.</p><p>I think there's some merit in not allowing any sort of tool in the classroom...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For whatever reason , even when my school allowed graphing calculators in the calculus series , I 've \ _never \ _ used them once ( okay , here 's a probable reason : I had a huge ego about being a mathematics tough guy , or something .
) I ended up acing all the exams because I 've never allowed myself to rely on them for anything.I think there 's some merit in not allowing any sort of tool in the classroom.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For whatever reason, even when my school allowed graphing calculators in the calculus series, I've \_never\_ used them once (okay, here's a probable reason: I had a huge ego about being a mathematics tough guy, or something.
)  I ended up acing all the exams because I've never allowed myself to rely on them for anything.I think there's some merit in not allowing any sort of tool in the classroom...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315599</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the real world you can use any software you wish.</p> </div><p>You obviously haven't spent any time in the corporate world and dealt with a typical IT department.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the real world you can use any software you wish .
You obviously have n't spent any time in the corporate world and dealt with a typical IT department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the real world you can use any software you wish.
You obviously haven't spent any time in the corporate world and dealt with a typical IT department.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316777</id>
	<title>Re:Instant Results?</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1244820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Group those issues with the fact that some textbooks just plain suck (and aren't properly vetted by some lazy or overworked instructors), and you have a real problem. There were some semesters when I was taking three concurrent math courses for my major, and didn't fully grasp the concepts until *after* I graduated, through my own readings. The emphasis at many institutions is on getting the work done and churning out graduates, not on fostering learning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Group those issues with the fact that some textbooks just plain suck ( and are n't properly vetted by some lazy or overworked instructors ) , and you have a real problem .
There were some semesters when I was taking three concurrent math courses for my major , and did n't fully grasp the concepts until * after * I graduated , through my own readings .
The emphasis at many institutions is on getting the work done and churning out graduates , not on fostering learning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Group those issues with the fact that some textbooks just plain suck (and aren't properly vetted by some lazy or overworked instructors), and you have a real problem.
There were some semesters when I was taking three concurrent math courses for my major, and didn't fully grasp the concepts until *after* I graduated, through my own readings.
The emphasis at many institutions is on getting the work done and churning out graduates, not on fostering learning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315607</id>
	<title>When I was a college student...</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1244810040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solving an equation is work for math geeks and computers.  Writing the equation is work for engineers.  I solved damn near every equation in calculus class by hand, but I'll be damned if I understood where they came from, so I learned nothing.  Luckily, I was a computer engineer, so only I really only had to understand and, or, and not.</p><p>We rarely got graded on take-home work in engineering or math classes.  Too many grad students who'd work for beer - or just so someone would pretend to be their friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solving an equation is work for math geeks and computers .
Writing the equation is work for engineers .
I solved damn near every equation in calculus class by hand , but I 'll be damned if I understood where they came from , so I learned nothing .
Luckily , I was a computer engineer , so only I really only had to understand and , or , and not.We rarely got graded on take-home work in engineering or math classes .
Too many grad students who 'd work for beer - or just so someone would pretend to be their friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solving an equation is work for math geeks and computers.
Writing the equation is work for engineers.
I solved damn near every equation in calculus class by hand, but I'll be damned if I understood where they came from, so I learned nothing.
Luckily, I was a computer engineer, so only I really only had to understand and, or, and not.We rarely got graded on take-home work in engineering or math classes.
Too many grad students who'd work for beer - or just so someone would pretend to be their friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318863</id>
	<title>Discussion about Mathematica in teaching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244896500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking about Wolfram products and math education, I think it is a good moment to remind this<br><a href="http://www.theodoregray.com/BrainRot/index.html" title="theodoregray.com" rel="nofollow">discussion</a> [theodoregray.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking about Wolfram products and math education , I think it is a good moment to remind thisdiscussion [ theodoregray.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking about Wolfram products and math education, I think it is a good moment to remind thisdiscussion [theodoregray.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316901</id>
	<title>Re:The ability to check your work is crucial!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The process of developing mathematics works along these lines - find patterns, conjecture their cause, prove that a given operation/theorem holds.</p><p>For instance, the concept of the derivative comes from the idea that a slope is a rather useful property of a line, and wouldn't it be great if most functions/curves had a similar property?  Can we approximate the curve by a line?  In many 'real world' cases, (Calc I audience, not Real Analysis audience) the answer is yes, we can try taking a line between points that are close to each other, and the closer they get, the better the line approximates the function.  If this is the case, what happens if we take the limit of the slopes of these lines?  We then get a line that goes through the point and has the same 'slope' as the curve.  Let's call that 'slope' the derivative.  Now you can find derivatives of many functions by using this definition, or you can use one of the many shortcuts, but it is important to understand that those rules deep down rely on the same underlying method.</p><p>If I don't say where the idea comes from, you are not doing anything more than paint by numbers in working problems.</p><p>As to homework, I have been torn on this issue.  I currently have been giving graded and ungraded homework on the theory that my students are unlikely to do the homework without direct consequences.  By the time they bomb the first test, due to the linear structure of the course, they are likely too far behind to realistically catch up while absorbing the new material that assumes familiarity with existing material.  It also allows those who don't test well, but still know the material to improve their grades.</p><p>As to having enough problems, the text I use generally has 50-70 problems per section, odd answers in the back and odd solutions available in a supplementary book.  25-35 problems per section isn't enough practice problems?</p><p>Being able to quickly grade correct answers allows instructors to focus in and leave more feedback for those struggling.  If instead we had to carefully review all work to ensure that the work and answer agree for each student, we can leave less feedback for those who really need it.  I see homework's role as a way for students and instructors to know what is understood and what needs more work.  True, those cheating will reap what they sow, but it is to give a reality check to those who 'know it' enough not to practice, but really do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The process of developing mathematics works along these lines - find patterns , conjecture their cause , prove that a given operation/theorem holds.For instance , the concept of the derivative comes from the idea that a slope is a rather useful property of a line , and would n't it be great if most functions/curves had a similar property ?
Can we approximate the curve by a line ?
In many 'real world ' cases , ( Calc I audience , not Real Analysis audience ) the answer is yes , we can try taking a line between points that are close to each other , and the closer they get , the better the line approximates the function .
If this is the case , what happens if we take the limit of the slopes of these lines ?
We then get a line that goes through the point and has the same 'slope ' as the curve .
Let 's call that 'slope ' the derivative .
Now you can find derivatives of many functions by using this definition , or you can use one of the many shortcuts , but it is important to understand that those rules deep down rely on the same underlying method.If I do n't say where the idea comes from , you are not doing anything more than paint by numbers in working problems.As to homework , I have been torn on this issue .
I currently have been giving graded and ungraded homework on the theory that my students are unlikely to do the homework without direct consequences .
By the time they bomb the first test , due to the linear structure of the course , they are likely too far behind to realistically catch up while absorbing the new material that assumes familiarity with existing material .
It also allows those who do n't test well , but still know the material to improve their grades.As to having enough problems , the text I use generally has 50-70 problems per section , odd answers in the back and odd solutions available in a supplementary book .
25-35 problems per section is n't enough practice problems ? Being able to quickly grade correct answers allows instructors to focus in and leave more feedback for those struggling .
If instead we had to carefully review all work to ensure that the work and answer agree for each student , we can leave less feedback for those who really need it .
I see homework 's role as a way for students and instructors to know what is understood and what needs more work .
True , those cheating will reap what they sow , but it is to give a reality check to those who 'know it ' enough not to practice , but really do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The process of developing mathematics works along these lines - find patterns, conjecture their cause, prove that a given operation/theorem holds.For instance, the concept of the derivative comes from the idea that a slope is a rather useful property of a line, and wouldn't it be great if most functions/curves had a similar property?
Can we approximate the curve by a line?
In many 'real world' cases, (Calc I audience, not Real Analysis audience) the answer is yes, we can try taking a line between points that are close to each other, and the closer they get, the better the line approximates the function.
If this is the case, what happens if we take the limit of the slopes of these lines?
We then get a line that goes through the point and has the same 'slope' as the curve.
Let's call that 'slope' the derivative.
Now you can find derivatives of many functions by using this definition, or you can use one of the many shortcuts, but it is important to understand that those rules deep down rely on the same underlying method.If I don't say where the idea comes from, you are not doing anything more than paint by numbers in working problems.As to homework, I have been torn on this issue.
I currently have been giving graded and ungraded homework on the theory that my students are unlikely to do the homework without direct consequences.
By the time they bomb the first test, due to the linear structure of the course, they are likely too far behind to realistically catch up while absorbing the new material that assumes familiarity with existing material.
It also allows those who don't test well, but still know the material to improve their grades.As to having enough problems, the text I use generally has 50-70 problems per section, odd answers in the back and odd solutions available in a supplementary book.
25-35 problems per section isn't enough practice problems?Being able to quickly grade correct answers allows instructors to focus in and leave more feedback for those struggling.
If instead we had to carefully review all work to ensure that the work and answer agree for each student, we can leave less feedback for those who really need it.
I see homework's role as a way for students and instructors to know what is understood and what needs more work.
True, those cheating will reap what they sow, but it is to give a reality check to those who 'know it' enough not to practice, but really do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28323227</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244895480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Integration by parts isn't... tricky?</i><br>What I found very tricky (I kinda got it in the end but then forgot most of it again since when I went on to do EE at uni integrals that required substituion seemd to mostly dissapear) was figuring out how you were supposed to do an integration question. Parts or substitution, if the former how to split the equation, which half to integrate and which to differentiation, if the latter which of the loads of possible substitutions to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Integration by parts is n't... tricky ? What I found very tricky ( I kinda got it in the end but then forgot most of it again since when I went on to do EE at uni integrals that required substituion seemd to mostly dissapear ) was figuring out how you were supposed to do an integration question .
Parts or substitution , if the former how to split the equation , which half to integrate and which to differentiation , if the latter which of the loads of possible substitutions to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integration by parts isn't... tricky?What I found very tricky (I kinda got it in the end but then forgot most of it again since when I went on to do EE at uni integrals that required substituion seemd to mostly dissapear) was figuring out how you were supposed to do an integration question.
Parts or substitution, if the former how to split the equation, which half to integrate and which to differentiation, if the latter which of the loads of possible substitutions to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28328545</id>
	<title>It's the instructor's fault</title>
	<author>jonnat</author>
	<datestamp>1245012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a computer can solve the problem, students shouldn't have to exhaustively memorize the mechanics of the method. What's the excuse? That later on the students won't have the computer available as an aid? Still today the world is filled with highly educated old people who would not be able to grasp the functioning of a system like W|A, and who still prides themselves of how, in their time, they really learned math because they did not have calculators and had to solve their fancy arithmetic by hand. </p><p>Instructors should stop being lazy and ask questions that require some thinking, questions that a computer would not be able to answer unassisted by a human who fully understands the problem. Within the questions, make the students show that they understand the concepts behind the method, rather than asking for endless repetition of an algorithm with pencil and paper, and later complaining that they found a more efficient way of doing it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a computer can solve the problem , students should n't have to exhaustively memorize the mechanics of the method .
What 's the excuse ?
That later on the students wo n't have the computer available as an aid ?
Still today the world is filled with highly educated old people who would not be able to grasp the functioning of a system like W | A , and who still prides themselves of how , in their time , they really learned math because they did not have calculators and had to solve their fancy arithmetic by hand .
Instructors should stop being lazy and ask questions that require some thinking , questions that a computer would not be able to answer unassisted by a human who fully understands the problem .
Within the questions , make the students show that they understand the concepts behind the method , rather than asking for endless repetition of an algorithm with pencil and paper , and later complaining that they found a more efficient way of doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a computer can solve the problem, students shouldn't have to exhaustively memorize the mechanics of the method.
What's the excuse?
That later on the students won't have the computer available as an aid?
Still today the world is filled with highly educated old people who would not be able to grasp the functioning of a system like W|A, and who still prides themselves of how, in their time, they really learned math because they did not have calculators and had to solve their fancy arithmetic by hand.
Instructors should stop being lazy and ask questions that require some thinking, questions that a computer would not be able to answer unassisted by a human who fully understands the problem.
Within the questions, make the students show that they understand the concepts behind the method, rather than asking for endless repetition of an algorithm with pencil and paper, and later complaining that they found a more efficient way of doing it. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317233</id>
	<title>re: Cheating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uhm.. yes, using "the internet" to get the answer that *you* were supposed to solve *is* cheating.. duh.</p><p>That's like saying I shouldn't be charged with cheating if I outsource all my CS homework to India.  Sure, in the real world, we can outsource work, but it doesn't mean that *I* know CS because I can pay someone else to do it, and the point of a CS degree is to prove that *I* understand the concepts and that *I* have the technical skills.</p><p>Likewise, the point of a math class is that *you* are supposed to know multiplication, addition, whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uhm.. yes , using " the internet " to get the answer that * you * were supposed to solve * is * cheating.. duh.That 's like saying I should n't be charged with cheating if I outsource all my CS homework to India .
Sure , in the real world , we can outsource work , but it does n't mean that * I * know CS because I can pay someone else to do it , and the point of a CS degree is to prove that * I * understand the concepts and that * I * have the technical skills.Likewise , the point of a math class is that * you * are supposed to know multiplication , addition , whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhm.. yes, using "the internet" to get the answer that *you* were supposed to solve *is* cheating.. duh.That's like saying I shouldn't be charged with cheating if I outsource all my CS homework to India.
Sure, in the real world, we can outsource work, but it doesn't mean that *I* know CS because I can pay someone else to do it, and the point of a CS degree is to prove that *I* understand the concepts and that *I* have the technical skills.Likewise, the point of a math class is that *you* are supposed to know multiplication, addition, whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315307</id>
	<title>Can't force a student to leanr</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244807940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And at the college level, I would rather see professors teaching and measuring learning than trying to force a person not to cheat.  Not cheating should be learned in high school.  In college a student is paying to learn, and any not learning should be asked to leave.
<p>
So to me the issue is original work.  This is not a new problem.  In Engligh one might copy a term paper, but not be able to write in class.  That should be a big indication that a student should fail, if they are never able to write a paper in class.  The same goes for other classes.  Outside work is practice, the grade that counts is supervised class work.  A student might cheat on all outside classwork, and it won't matter.  A good test will show that nothing was learned.
</p><p>
On the issue on calculators, that needs to be a decision that is made on a individual basis.  Some students are being trained at a level where calculators will not help them.  Others are being trained at a level where calculators will help them.  One really cannot make a broad statement that calculators are bad.  What one can say is that calculators often require different assignments.  For instance, I can write an assignment that a student  who knows the math can finish quickly.  A student with a calculator who can use the machine can finish, but it will take much longer.  A student who does not know the calculator will invariably not be able to complete the assignment successfully.  Such things can often be done to encourage proper behaviour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And at the college level , I would rather see professors teaching and measuring learning than trying to force a person not to cheat .
Not cheating should be learned in high school .
In college a student is paying to learn , and any not learning should be asked to leave .
So to me the issue is original work .
This is not a new problem .
In Engligh one might copy a term paper , but not be able to write in class .
That should be a big indication that a student should fail , if they are never able to write a paper in class .
The same goes for other classes .
Outside work is practice , the grade that counts is supervised class work .
A student might cheat on all outside classwork , and it wo n't matter .
A good test will show that nothing was learned .
On the issue on calculators , that needs to be a decision that is made on a individual basis .
Some students are being trained at a level where calculators will not help them .
Others are being trained at a level where calculators will help them .
One really can not make a broad statement that calculators are bad .
What one can say is that calculators often require different assignments .
For instance , I can write an assignment that a student who knows the math can finish quickly .
A student with a calculator who can use the machine can finish , but it will take much longer .
A student who does not know the calculator will invariably not be able to complete the assignment successfully .
Such things can often be done to encourage proper behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at the college level, I would rather see professors teaching and measuring learning than trying to force a person not to cheat.
Not cheating should be learned in high school.
In college a student is paying to learn, and any not learning should be asked to leave.
So to me the issue is original work.
This is not a new problem.
In Engligh one might copy a term paper, but not be able to write in class.
That should be a big indication that a student should fail, if they are never able to write a paper in class.
The same goes for other classes.
Outside work is practice, the grade that counts is supervised class work.
A student might cheat on all outside classwork, and it won't matter.
A good test will show that nothing was learned.
On the issue on calculators, that needs to be a decision that is made on a individual basis.
Some students are being trained at a level where calculators will not help them.
Others are being trained at a level where calculators will help them.
One really cannot make a broad statement that calculators are bad.
What one can say is that calculators often require different assignments.
For instance, I can write an assignment that a student  who knows the math can finish quickly.
A student with a calculator who can use the machine can finish, but it will take much longer.
A student who does not know the calculator will invariably not be able to complete the assignment successfully.
Such things can often be done to encourage proper behaviour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317827</id>
	<title>Re:Damn you Wolfram!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>true story.</p><p>i especially like how it automatically converts that to 504 picoseconds * speed of light.</p><p>stephen wolfram must be a fucking animal in the sack.</p><p>then again, if it needs to be in a perfect vacuum for him to get it up....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>true story.i especially like how it automatically converts that to 504 picoseconds * speed of light.stephen wolfram must be a fucking animal in the sack.then again , if it needs to be in a perfect vacuum for him to get it up... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>true story.i especially like how it automatically converts that to 504 picoseconds * speed of light.stephen wolfram must be a fucking animal in the sack.then again, if it needs to be in a perfect vacuum for him to get it up....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315645</id>
	<title>Math war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244810280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say 2^aleph = alpeh\_666</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say 2 ^ aleph = alpeh \ _666</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say 2^aleph = alpeh\_666</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315879</id>
	<title>Are they letting students use laptops during exams</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1244812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If not, who cares?  Even if all of their homework is correct, they will still fail the exam...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If not , who cares ?
Even if all of their homework is correct , they will still fail the exam.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not, who cares?
Even if all of their homework is correct, they will still fail the exam...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209</id>
	<title>Sweet, let's try it out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244807160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let X\_n and Y\_n be positive integrable and adapted to F\_n. Suppose E(X\_{n+1}|F\_n) \leq X\_n + Y\_n, with \sum Y\_n \lt \infty a.s.  Prove that X\_n converges a.s. to a finite limit.</p><p><tt><br>Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.<br>.<br></tt></p><p>Useless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let X \ _n and Y \ _n be positive integrable and adapted to F \ _n .
Suppose E ( X \ _ { n + 1 } | F \ _n ) \ leq X \ _n + Y \ _n , with \ sum Y \ _n \ lt \ infty a.s. Prove that X \ _n converges a.s. to a finite limit.Wolfram | Alpha is n't sure what to do with your input..Useless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let X\_n and Y\_n be positive integrable and adapted to F\_n.
Suppose E(X\_{n+1}|F\_n) \leq X\_n + Y\_n, with \sum Y\_n \lt \infty a.s.  Prove that X\_n converges a.s. to a finite limit.Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input..Useless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315855</id>
	<title>How to solve a problem.</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1244811960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can solve the problem, you can solve the problem.  Who cares what tools you use?  Whether you do the work with a pencil and paper, use the internet or read the answer off the next student over's test is your own prerogative.  What, exactly, are Profs concerned about?  That someone is going to cheat their way into some position of authority (or wealth -- hah!) without actually understanding the material?  Doesn't seem likely.  There are people who want to know a given subject and people who need to know a few things to achieve some other goal.  The people who want to know will do it the hard way because they care.  The people who just need to know should be allowed to use whatever tools are available.  What matters is that they can understand a problem and select the correct tools to solve it.</p><p>I have no problem with people self-selecting the degree of intimacy they have with math (or any other subject) and using the most appropriate methods to achieve it.  I have every faith that they are also self-selecting how far they can get in that particular field, and am not particularly concerned that people will cheat their way through and expect to be rewarded.</p><p>Education should be about learning how to think your own way through problems.  It may tweak specialists when you gloss of their field on your way to some other objective.  Too bad.  I had to take calculus in the dark ages before Wolfram Alpha (before the mainstream internet!) because it was a requirement for all liberal arts degrees.  I hate math.  I barely passed.  It was something to get out of the way.  Perhaps with better tools I might have been able to develop some appreciation for it (long shot).  But the point is,  I passed it and now I couldn't tell you a single thing I learned doing things the "right" way.  I could have used that time studying something I cared enough about to actually learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can solve the problem , you can solve the problem .
Who cares what tools you use ?
Whether you do the work with a pencil and paper , use the internet or read the answer off the next student over 's test is your own prerogative .
What , exactly , are Profs concerned about ?
That someone is going to cheat their way into some position of authority ( or wealth -- hah !
) without actually understanding the material ?
Does n't seem likely .
There are people who want to know a given subject and people who need to know a few things to achieve some other goal .
The people who want to know will do it the hard way because they care .
The people who just need to know should be allowed to use whatever tools are available .
What matters is that they can understand a problem and select the correct tools to solve it.I have no problem with people self-selecting the degree of intimacy they have with math ( or any other subject ) and using the most appropriate methods to achieve it .
I have every faith that they are also self-selecting how far they can get in that particular field , and am not particularly concerned that people will cheat their way through and expect to be rewarded.Education should be about learning how to think your own way through problems .
It may tweak specialists when you gloss of their field on your way to some other objective .
Too bad .
I had to take calculus in the dark ages before Wolfram Alpha ( before the mainstream internet !
) because it was a requirement for all liberal arts degrees .
I hate math .
I barely passed .
It was something to get out of the way .
Perhaps with better tools I might have been able to develop some appreciation for it ( long shot ) .
But the point is , I passed it and now I could n't tell you a single thing I learned doing things the " right " way .
I could have used that time studying something I cared enough about to actually learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can solve the problem, you can solve the problem.
Who cares what tools you use?
Whether you do the work with a pencil and paper, use the internet or read the answer off the next student over's test is your own prerogative.
What, exactly, are Profs concerned about?
That someone is going to cheat their way into some position of authority (or wealth -- hah!
) without actually understanding the material?
Doesn't seem likely.
There are people who want to know a given subject and people who need to know a few things to achieve some other goal.
The people who want to know will do it the hard way because they care.
The people who just need to know should be allowed to use whatever tools are available.
What matters is that they can understand a problem and select the correct tools to solve it.I have no problem with people self-selecting the degree of intimacy they have with math (or any other subject) and using the most appropriate methods to achieve it.
I have every faith that they are also self-selecting how far they can get in that particular field, and am not particularly concerned that people will cheat their way through and expect to be rewarded.Education should be about learning how to think your own way through problems.
It may tweak specialists when you gloss of their field on your way to some other objective.
Too bad.
I had to take calculus in the dark ages before Wolfram Alpha (before the mainstream internet!
) because it was a requirement for all liberal arts degrees.
I hate math.
I barely passed.
It was something to get out of the way.
Perhaps with better tools I might have been able to develop some appreciation for it (long shot).
But the point is,  I passed it and now I couldn't tell you a single thing I learned doing things the "right" way.
I could have used that time studying something I cared enough about to actually learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316749</id>
	<title>Re:The thing works</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They even model Earth as an ellipsoid, rather than a sphere (several online calculators I looked at used a sphere).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They even model Earth as an ellipsoid , rather than a sphere ( several online calculators I looked at used a sphere ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They even model Earth as an ellipsoid, rather than a sphere (several online calculators I looked at used a sphere).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317451</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a TA and applied mathematician, I have quite a bit of experience on this matter.</p><p>The issue is that students want it both ways.  They want a high chance of getting a high grade, which means that they want the course to be straightforward: show me what to do, and then ask me to do that.  If they do it well, they get an A, nothing fantastic required other than what is asked.</p><p>Such a demand puts the focus on techniques: do this integral, compute this derivative, etc.  If this is the focus of a course, then it's pretty reasonable to be upset that there exist programs that can do exactly that, or rather, to want to guard against using such tools.  A professor of mine once said, "If I ask you to find a determinant, and I let you use a program that does it for you, I'm an idiot.  Let's put it this way: you don't WANT to take an exam where I let you use Maple."  What he meant was that if we really wanted to use Maple on our exams, we shouldn't expect to be asked things that can be done with one line of Maple code.  That would be stupid.</p><p>The course can certainly be made more conceptual, but I can guarantee that students really wouldn't like it, even though it would be more useful to them in the end.  I tell my students that I want them to develop a logical thought process and hone rational thinking.  Unfortunately, the course isn't really made to do that.  Virtually every student I've had, for instance, loathes and has done terribly with word problems.  However, the idea of relating mathematics to the real world is far more useful to all of them than "Solve this polynomial equation."  However, if you based your course on this, most would struggle to pass, or, at the very least, would really have to apply themselves in the course.  They'd resent that even more: working hard at something they don't like is the last thing students generally want to do.</p><p>The issue there is what you can see plainly if you read the comments on this page: "Oh, I don't need this stuff!"  This sort of thing always amuses me.  Apparently people know so much of what they'll experience at 19-21 years old.  If they really know what they do and don't need already, why are they even in school to begin with?</p><p>They would learn a lot more of use, but wouldn't enjoy the experience much.  You thus give them the choice: a harder, more concept-based course, or a straightforward one based on what amounts to regurgitation of techniques.  Most would prefer the latter, but then such a course needs to attempt to prohibit software that can do what is asked of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a TA and applied mathematician , I have quite a bit of experience on this matter.The issue is that students want it both ways .
They want a high chance of getting a high grade , which means that they want the course to be straightforward : show me what to do , and then ask me to do that .
If they do it well , they get an A , nothing fantastic required other than what is asked.Such a demand puts the focus on techniques : do this integral , compute this derivative , etc .
If this is the focus of a course , then it 's pretty reasonable to be upset that there exist programs that can do exactly that , or rather , to want to guard against using such tools .
A professor of mine once said , " If I ask you to find a determinant , and I let you use a program that does it for you , I 'm an idiot .
Let 's put it this way : you do n't WANT to take an exam where I let you use Maple .
" What he meant was that if we really wanted to use Maple on our exams , we should n't expect to be asked things that can be done with one line of Maple code .
That would be stupid.The course can certainly be made more conceptual , but I can guarantee that students really would n't like it , even though it would be more useful to them in the end .
I tell my students that I want them to develop a logical thought process and hone rational thinking .
Unfortunately , the course is n't really made to do that .
Virtually every student I 've had , for instance , loathes and has done terribly with word problems .
However , the idea of relating mathematics to the real world is far more useful to all of them than " Solve this polynomial equation .
" However , if you based your course on this , most would struggle to pass , or , at the very least , would really have to apply themselves in the course .
They 'd resent that even more : working hard at something they do n't like is the last thing students generally want to do.The issue there is what you can see plainly if you read the comments on this page : " Oh , I do n't need this stuff !
" This sort of thing always amuses me .
Apparently people know so much of what they 'll experience at 19-21 years old .
If they really know what they do and do n't need already , why are they even in school to begin with ? They would learn a lot more of use , but would n't enjoy the experience much .
You thus give them the choice : a harder , more concept-based course , or a straightforward one based on what amounts to regurgitation of techniques .
Most would prefer the latter , but then such a course needs to attempt to prohibit software that can do what is asked of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a TA and applied mathematician, I have quite a bit of experience on this matter.The issue is that students want it both ways.
They want a high chance of getting a high grade, which means that they want the course to be straightforward: show me what to do, and then ask me to do that.
If they do it well, they get an A, nothing fantastic required other than what is asked.Such a demand puts the focus on techniques: do this integral, compute this derivative, etc.
If this is the focus of a course, then it's pretty reasonable to be upset that there exist programs that can do exactly that, or rather, to want to guard against using such tools.
A professor of mine once said, "If I ask you to find a determinant, and I let you use a program that does it for you, I'm an idiot.
Let's put it this way: you don't WANT to take an exam where I let you use Maple.
"  What he meant was that if we really wanted to use Maple on our exams, we shouldn't expect to be asked things that can be done with one line of Maple code.
That would be stupid.The course can certainly be made more conceptual, but I can guarantee that students really wouldn't like it, even though it would be more useful to them in the end.
I tell my students that I want them to develop a logical thought process and hone rational thinking.
Unfortunately, the course isn't really made to do that.
Virtually every student I've had, for instance, loathes and has done terribly with word problems.
However, the idea of relating mathematics to the real world is far more useful to all of them than "Solve this polynomial equation.
"  However, if you based your course on this, most would struggle to pass, or, at the very least, would really have to apply themselves in the course.
They'd resent that even more: working hard at something they don't like is the last thing students generally want to do.The issue there is what you can see plainly if you read the comments on this page: "Oh, I don't need this stuff!
"  This sort of thing always amuses me.
Apparently people know so much of what they'll experience at 19-21 years old.
If they really know what they do and don't need already, why are they even in school to begin with?They would learn a lot more of use, but wouldn't enjoy the experience much.
You thus give them the choice: a harder, more concept-based course, or a straightforward one based on what amounts to regurgitation of techniques.
Most would prefer the latter, but then such a course needs to attempt to prohibit software that can do what is asked of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316621</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>p!ngu</author>
	<datestamp>1244819040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Integration by parts isn't... tricky? If that is the level which you are declaring, "Beyond this point, only perverse pederasts shall go" you've set the bar quite low.

Why are we teaching mathematics, when clearly certain parts will never be used by certain people? Why do we teach history, biology, etc. to students at all? No one in the real world will ever ask you, "Who was the first pope?" in the real world.

Hint: Consider athletics. Being able to throw a shotput in a certain way is more or less useless for everyone. Maybe the putter is doing so to show prowess and physical capability?

Second hint: The first hint wasn't there for fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Integration by parts is n't... tricky ? If that is the level which you are declaring , " Beyond this point , only perverse pederasts shall go " you 've set the bar quite low .
Why are we teaching mathematics , when clearly certain parts will never be used by certain people ?
Why do we teach history , biology , etc .
to students at all ?
No one in the real world will ever ask you , " Who was the first pope ?
" in the real world .
Hint : Consider athletics .
Being able to throw a shotput in a certain way is more or less useless for everyone .
Maybe the putter is doing so to show prowess and physical capability ?
Second hint : The first hint was n't there for fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integration by parts isn't... tricky? If that is the level which you are declaring, "Beyond this point, only perverse pederasts shall go" you've set the bar quite low.
Why are we teaching mathematics, when clearly certain parts will never be used by certain people?
Why do we teach history, biology, etc.
to students at all?
No one in the real world will ever ask you, "Who was the first pope?
" in the real world.
Hint: Consider athletics.
Being able to throw a shotput in a certain way is more or less useless for everyone.
Maybe the putter is doing so to show prowess and physical capability?
Second hint: The first hint wasn't there for fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315111</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. This thing isn't going to help you pass an exam. As it is, you can use an engineering calculator to solve equations the same as using WolframAlpha. Neither are going to be allowed on exams and I never had any homework in my engineering courses where it was okay to omit each step used to reach the solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This thing is n't going to help you pass an exam .
As it is , you can use an engineering calculator to solve equations the same as using WolframAlpha .
Neither are going to be allowed on exams and I never had any homework in my engineering courses where it was okay to omit each step used to reach the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This thing isn't going to help you pass an exam.
As it is, you can use an engineering calculator to solve equations the same as using WolframAlpha.
Neither are going to be allowed on exams and I never had any homework in my engineering courses where it was okay to omit each step used to reach the solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315397</id>
	<title>Um, Muskegon who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No offense, but is there any particular reason we had to cite such a leading authority as Muskegon Community College?  My raccoons say that Google Maps is the instantiation of the all-seeing eye of god and the definitive sign of the judgement day - can we get some front page coverage of that too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but is there any particular reason we had to cite such a leading authority as Muskegon Community College ?
My raccoons say that Google Maps is the instantiation of the all-seeing eye of god and the definitive sign of the judgement day - can we get some front page coverage of that too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but is there any particular reason we had to cite such a leading authority as Muskegon Community College?
My raccoons say that Google Maps is the instantiation of the all-seeing eye of god and the definitive sign of the judgement day - can we get some front page coverage of that too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this matters</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1244807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screwing themselves over? How?  In the real world you can use any software you wish.  The only people screwing themselves over are those who waste their time learning how to do the things that wolfram alpha can do instantly for you. Knowing how to do very large sums is just as useless as knowing how to integrate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screwing themselves over ?
How ? In the real world you can use any software you wish .
The only people screwing themselves over are those who waste their time learning how to do the things that wolfram alpha can do instantly for you .
Knowing how to do very large sums is just as useless as knowing how to integrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screwing themselves over?
How?  In the real world you can use any software you wish.
The only people screwing themselves over are those who waste their time learning how to do the things that wolfram alpha can do instantly for you.
Knowing how to do very large sums is just as useless as knowing how to integrate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315297</id>
	<title>a physics teacher's perspective</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1244807880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I teach physics at a community college. Based on my own experiences, some of this speculation seems overblown to me.
</p><blockquote><div><p>His concern is that professors may need to adapt their assignments or test questions.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I don't understand the part about test questions. Students aren't normally allowed at access the internet during an exam, and WA is a web-based service, so this seems like a total non-issue.
</p><p>
When it comes to homework, I can see slightly more reason for concern, but only slightly. Any math or science teacher who's collected homework papers knows that some students will always try to copy the answers from each other. Whatever way you have of handling that, I would think it would still work if they were getting their answers from WA. (Possible ways of handling it include not allowing students to turn in identical papers, or not counting homework for very much compared to exams.)
</p><p>
I don't see why it's a big deal that WA can show the steps it took to get the answer. That just makes it easier to tell whether the student is using WA. If 5 students in a class of 20 are using WA on their homework, it'll be pretty obvious that they all wrote down exactly the same steps in exactly the same order. This is very much like the situation where you hand out homework solutions every semester, and a student starts turning in homework papers that are verbatim copies of the homework solutions.
</p><p>
One thing that I really haven't liked in the past was that for a lot of the math classes at my school, they required students to buy a specific brand of graphing calculator, for about $300. That's a heck of a lot of money for a lot of broke community college students, and I don't see why a student who wants to learn calculus without a graphing calculator should have to buy one. There's actually quite a bit of FOSS symbolic math out there, e.g., sage, maxima, wxmaxima, yacas, and axiom. If the student has access to a computer, they can use one of those. If the student doesn't have access to a computer, then a web-based service like WA isn't going to make any difference. When it comes to web-based apps, integrals.com has been around for years now, so this isn't a new issue.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I teach physics at a community college .
Based on my own experiences , some of this speculation seems overblown to me .
His concern is that professors may need to adapt their assignments or test questions .
I do n't understand the part about test questions .
Students are n't normally allowed at access the internet during an exam , and WA is a web-based service , so this seems like a total non-issue .
When it comes to homework , I can see slightly more reason for concern , but only slightly .
Any math or science teacher who 's collected homework papers knows that some students will always try to copy the answers from each other .
Whatever way you have of handling that , I would think it would still work if they were getting their answers from WA .
( Possible ways of handling it include not allowing students to turn in identical papers , or not counting homework for very much compared to exams .
) I do n't see why it 's a big deal that WA can show the steps it took to get the answer .
That just makes it easier to tell whether the student is using WA .
If 5 students in a class of 20 are using WA on their homework , it 'll be pretty obvious that they all wrote down exactly the same steps in exactly the same order .
This is very much like the situation where you hand out homework solutions every semester , and a student starts turning in homework papers that are verbatim copies of the homework solutions .
One thing that I really have n't liked in the past was that for a lot of the math classes at my school , they required students to buy a specific brand of graphing calculator , for about $ 300 .
That 's a heck of a lot of money for a lot of broke community college students , and I do n't see why a student who wants to learn calculus without a graphing calculator should have to buy one .
There 's actually quite a bit of FOSS symbolic math out there , e.g. , sage , maxima , wxmaxima , yacas , and axiom .
If the student has access to a computer , they can use one of those .
If the student does n't have access to a computer , then a web-based service like WA is n't going to make any difference .
When it comes to web-based apps , integrals.com has been around for years now , so this is n't a new issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I teach physics at a community college.
Based on my own experiences, some of this speculation seems overblown to me.
His concern is that professors may need to adapt their assignments or test questions.
I don't understand the part about test questions.
Students aren't normally allowed at access the internet during an exam, and WA is a web-based service, so this seems like a total non-issue.
When it comes to homework, I can see slightly more reason for concern, but only slightly.
Any math or science teacher who's collected homework papers knows that some students will always try to copy the answers from each other.
Whatever way you have of handling that, I would think it would still work if they were getting their answers from WA.
(Possible ways of handling it include not allowing students to turn in identical papers, or not counting homework for very much compared to exams.
)

I don't see why it's a big deal that WA can show the steps it took to get the answer.
That just makes it easier to tell whether the student is using WA.
If 5 students in a class of 20 are using WA on their homework, it'll be pretty obvious that they all wrote down exactly the same steps in exactly the same order.
This is very much like the situation where you hand out homework solutions every semester, and a student starts turning in homework papers that are verbatim copies of the homework solutions.
One thing that I really haven't liked in the past was that for a lot of the math classes at my school, they required students to buy a specific brand of graphing calculator, for about $300.
That's a heck of a lot of money for a lot of broke community college students, and I don't see why a student who wants to learn calculus without a graphing calculator should have to buy one.
There's actually quite a bit of FOSS symbolic math out there, e.g., sage, maxima, wxmaxima, yacas, and axiom.
If the student has access to a computer, they can use one of those.
If the student doesn't have access to a computer, then a web-based service like WA isn't going to make any difference.
When it comes to web-based apps, integrals.com has been around for years now, so this isn't a new issue.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</id>
	<title>iirc</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1244806140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator. This was at a large public research university. I also don't think it would have helped...</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , in regular college level calculus I was n't allowed to use a graphing calculator .
This was at a large public research university .
I also do n't think it would have helped.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, in regular college level calculus I wasn't allowed to use a graphing calculator.
This was at a large public research university.
I also don't think it would have helped...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316913</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I got hooked on Maple, not for its ability to do my homework, which it could have done, but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better.</p></div><p>Deja vu here; I used Wolfram Alpha to study calculus and I had a final exam on it this morning. </p><p>In terms of a study tool, it was invaluable. I always try to do a question by myself first, but instead of writing MATLAB/python to sum a series to infinity, I can check my answer quickly in Wolfram. Same goes for limits, sequences, integrals, differential equations, etc. Knowing that lim n-&gt; inf. ((n+1)/n)^n = e is not much use unless you actually understand what is going on; that is where the marks come from.</p><p>Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators (this is the top university in the state).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got hooked on Maple , not for its ability to do my homework , which it could have done , but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better.Deja vu here ; I used Wolfram Alpha to study calculus and I had a final exam on it this morning .
In terms of a study tool , it was invaluable .
I always try to do a question by myself first , but instead of writing MATLAB/python to sum a series to infinity , I can check my answer quickly in Wolfram .
Same goes for limits , sequences , integrals , differential equations , etc .
Knowing that lim n- &gt; inf .
( ( n + 1 ) /n ) ^ n = e is not much use unless you actually understand what is going on ; that is where the marks come from.Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators ( this is the top university in the state ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got hooked on Maple, not for its ability to do my homework, which it could have done, but for its ability to graph and illustrate and help me understand the problems better.Deja vu here; I used Wolfram Alpha to study calculus and I had a final exam on it this morning.
In terms of a study tool, it was invaluable.
I always try to do a question by myself first, but instead of writing MATLAB/python to sum a series to infinity, I can check my answer quickly in Wolfram.
Same goes for limits, sequences, integrals, differential equations, etc.
Knowing that lim n-&gt; inf.
((n+1)/n)^n = e is not much use unless you actually understand what is going on; that is where the marks come from.Oh and we were not allowed to use calculators (this is the top university in the state).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317095</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I had in my calculus class was a solar powered scientific calculator that did basic trig functions.  I found calculus really easy because there were far less opportunities to get something slightly wrong.  You either knew the answer or it was pretty obvious you didn't.  It was the first math class I got an A in since I was in 6th grade.</p><p>Graphing calcs weren't banned I just wasn't a math major so I didn't feel like dropping a few hundred bucks for one class.</p><p>On the final test I borrowed another student's calculator to check my answers.   He wasn't doing very well in the class which was sort of rediculous in my mind since I was an art student and he was a computer engineering major.</p><p>Well long story short after about 3 minutes of mucking around in the calculator I figured out how to enter in every question on the test verbatim and get the answer with the work (which wasn't necessary in the class. "If you get the answer why do I care how you got it." was the teacher's philosophy.  Greatest teacher ever.).</p><p>If graphing calcs are allowed in Calculus classes there is absolutely no reason what so ever that any student should get less than 100\%.  I wish I had known about that before having finished the final.  Oh well I was able to double check every question in about 10 minutes.  Peace of mind is worth $200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I had in my calculus class was a solar powered scientific calculator that did basic trig functions .
I found calculus really easy because there were far less opportunities to get something slightly wrong .
You either knew the answer or it was pretty obvious you did n't .
It was the first math class I got an A in since I was in 6th grade.Graphing calcs were n't banned I just was n't a math major so I did n't feel like dropping a few hundred bucks for one class.On the final test I borrowed another student 's calculator to check my answers .
He was n't doing very well in the class which was sort of rediculous in my mind since I was an art student and he was a computer engineering major.Well long story short after about 3 minutes of mucking around in the calculator I figured out how to enter in every question on the test verbatim and get the answer with the work ( which was n't necessary in the class .
" If you get the answer why do I care how you got it .
" was the teacher 's philosophy .
Greatest teacher ever .
) .If graphing calcs are allowed in Calculus classes there is absolutely no reason what so ever that any student should get less than 100 \ % .
I wish I had known about that before having finished the final .
Oh well I was able to double check every question in about 10 minutes .
Peace of mind is worth $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I had in my calculus class was a solar powered scientific calculator that did basic trig functions.
I found calculus really easy because there were far less opportunities to get something slightly wrong.
You either knew the answer or it was pretty obvious you didn't.
It was the first math class I got an A in since I was in 6th grade.Graphing calcs weren't banned I just wasn't a math major so I didn't feel like dropping a few hundred bucks for one class.On the final test I borrowed another student's calculator to check my answers.
He wasn't doing very well in the class which was sort of rediculous in my mind since I was an art student and he was a computer engineering major.Well long story short after about 3 minutes of mucking around in the calculator I figured out how to enter in every question on the test verbatim and get the answer with the work (which wasn't necessary in the class.
"If you get the answer why do I care how you got it.
" was the teacher's philosophy.
Greatest teacher ever.
).If graphing calcs are allowed in Calculus classes there is absolutely no reason what so ever that any student should get less than 100\%.
I wish I had known about that before having finished the final.
Oh well I was able to double check every question in about 10 minutes.
Peace of mind is worth $200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319133</id>
	<title>Math Work Ethic</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1244900460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the spirit of mathematics, here is a counterexample that disproves your "protestant work ethic" concept:  angle trisection.  The ancient Greeks, who were most certainly not protestants (as they lived before Christianity itself), were unable to figure out how to trisect an angle using a compass and straightedge properly.  By improperly using a straightedge (that is, by marking it), it is possible to trisect any given angle, but mathematicians were still interested in the proper way to solve this seemingly simple problem.<br> <br>

Several centuries later, it was proved that the proper way is actually impossible (as was the case for all the "great problems of antiquity").<br> <br>

Mathematics is not about getting the answer, it is about understanding the answer.  If a student uses WA to help learn how problems are solved and to explore more advanced concepts (I personally used Mathworld to do this when I was in high school), that is a good thing and should be encouraged.  However, judging by my classmates in middle school, high school, and college, I doubt that the majority will do this.  More likely, it will just become a new way for students to cheat on their homework and force their professors to give easier curves on tests (since they can say, "look at how well I am doing on my homework, clearly the test was just too hard!").</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the spirit of mathematics , here is a counterexample that disproves your " protestant work ethic " concept : angle trisection .
The ancient Greeks , who were most certainly not protestants ( as they lived before Christianity itself ) , were unable to figure out how to trisect an angle using a compass and straightedge properly .
By improperly using a straightedge ( that is , by marking it ) , it is possible to trisect any given angle , but mathematicians were still interested in the proper way to solve this seemingly simple problem .
Several centuries later , it was proved that the proper way is actually impossible ( as was the case for all the " great problems of antiquity " ) .
Mathematics is not about getting the answer , it is about understanding the answer .
If a student uses WA to help learn how problems are solved and to explore more advanced concepts ( I personally used Mathworld to do this when I was in high school ) , that is a good thing and should be encouraged .
However , judging by my classmates in middle school , high school , and college , I doubt that the majority will do this .
More likely , it will just become a new way for students to cheat on their homework and force their professors to give easier curves on tests ( since they can say , " look at how well I am doing on my homework , clearly the test was just too hard !
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the spirit of mathematics, here is a counterexample that disproves your "protestant work ethic" concept:  angle trisection.
The ancient Greeks, who were most certainly not protestants (as they lived before Christianity itself), were unable to figure out how to trisect an angle using a compass and straightedge properly.
By improperly using a straightedge (that is, by marking it), it is possible to trisect any given angle, but mathematicians were still interested in the proper way to solve this seemingly simple problem.
Several centuries later, it was proved that the proper way is actually impossible (as was the case for all the "great problems of antiquity").
Mathematics is not about getting the answer, it is about understanding the answer.
If a student uses WA to help learn how problems are solved and to explore more advanced concepts (I personally used Mathworld to do this when I was in high school), that is a good thing and should be encouraged.
However, judging by my classmates in middle school, high school, and college, I doubt that the majority will do this.
More likely, it will just become a new way for students to cheat on their homework and force their professors to give easier curves on tests (since they can say, "look at how well I am doing on my homework, clearly the test was just too hard!
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318479</id>
	<title>Re:iirc</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1244889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a pharmacist.<p>
I'm never going to use it.</p><p>
Why am I required to study it</p><p>

Because of the same reasons trig, geometry,algebra, ancient history, lit etc., etc. are required</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a pharmacist .
I 'm never going to use it .
Why am I required to study it Because of the same reasons trig , geometry,algebra , ancient history , lit etc. , etc .
are required</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a pharmacist.
I'm never going to use it.
Why am I required to study it

Because of the same reasons trig, geometry,algebra, ancient history, lit etc., etc.
are required</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318969</id>
	<title>I like this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244897940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+x+*+sin+(1\%2Fx)+x+from+-0.1+to+0.1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www01.wolframalpha.com/input/ ? i = derivative + x + * + sin + ( 1 \ % 2Fx ) + x + from + -0.1 + to + 0.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+x+*+sin+(1\%2Fx)+x+from+-0.1+to+0.1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315217</id>
	<title>Students will adapt.</title>
	<author>Dragonshed</author>
	<datestamp>1244807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another rule for the higher-ed equivalent of the rat maze.  If they already have understanding, will students still be forbidden from using the tool to make life easier?</p><p>I wrote for the TI-82 that would show various equation solutions as well as their stages of reduction.  Not surprisingly I had alot more fun writing the program than copying the complete answers of ~60 problems to paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another rule for the higher-ed equivalent of the rat maze .
If they already have understanding , will students still be forbidden from using the tool to make life easier ? I wrote for the TI-82 that would show various equation solutions as well as their stages of reduction .
Not surprisingly I had alot more fun writing the program than copying the complete answers of ~ 60 problems to paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another rule for the higher-ed equivalent of the rat maze.
If they already have understanding, will students still be forbidden from using the tool to make life easier?I wrote for the TI-82 that would show various equation solutions as well as their stages of reduction.
Not surprisingly I had alot more fun writing the program than copying the complete answers of ~60 problems to paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315877</id>
	<title>Re:What's new?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's going to check to see that the steps are correct?  The TA?  Dude barely speaks English!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's going to check to see that the steps are correct ?
The TA ?
Dude barely speaks English !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's going to check to see that the steps are correct?
The TA?
Dude barely speaks English!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28320507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28321403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28323227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2058215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28320507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316913
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28319039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28323227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28322773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28321403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28317827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315857
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28318695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2058215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28315141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2058215.28316749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
