CronoDAS comments on Proofs, Implications, and Models - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2012 01:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (209)
Tags: seq_epistemology logic models proof proofs

Comments (209)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: CronoDAS 29 October 2012 07:16:43PM 3 points [-]

I will remark, in some horror and exasperation with the modern educational system, that I do not recall any math-book of my youth ever once explaining that the reason why you are always allowed to add 1 to both sides of an equation is that it is a kind of step which always produces true equations from true equations.

Would the average 9-year old be able to understand such a math book? (For that matter, would the average teacher of 9-year-olds?)

Comment author: handoflixue 30 October 2012 07:34:23PM 7 points [-]

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/06/dragonbox/all/ Well, Dragon Box suggests that a five year old can get at least the basic idea, so I'd deeply hope a 9 year old could grasp it more explicitly.

Comment author: Bobertron 31 October 2012 11:27:25PM 1 point [-]

As I understand the article, the game primarily teaches how the rules can be used to solve for something and secondarily it teaches the rules. It doesn't seem to teach at all why the rules are the way they are. That's actually, IMHO, the biggest issue with the game.

Comment author: thomblake 01 November 2012 06:39:57PM 2 points [-]

Yes and no, respectively.

Comment author: Ritalin 30 October 2012 12:32:21PM 2 points [-]

It seems like a fairly simple notion. So my prediction is yes.

Comment author: DaFranker 30 October 2012 07:38:57PM *  0 points [-]

My prediction to the first one is yes, if they are also taught the right prerequisites. My prediction to the latter is strongly no. They have too much at stake to change their ways that much.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit