Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(96):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
96 comments displayed.
Reply
+90
#3 - anon (12/05/2015) [-]
system in a nutshell

when you can brainwash adults into a stupid new idea... force it on their kids

like that new ******** math system usa is trying to use now
Reply
+6
User avatar #46 to #3 - newepic ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
This is retarded,
like just do 32-12
take away 30 and 10
now you got 2 -2 = 0
then do 30 - 10 = 20
So much simpler
Reply
+7
#55 to #3 - sunfire (12/06/2015) [-]
So I sent this to my Asian friend telling him to help me figure this **** out.
By God, I didn't actually expect him to be able to explain it
Basically the kid starts at 12, adds 3 to get to 15, then 5 to 15, 10 to 20, etc then counts up to get to 32
Then add up the addends to get 20.
What the ****
Holy **** , are we screwed yet?
Reply
+56
#11 to #3 - jjholt (12/06/2015) [-]
what in the actual **** is that math
Reply
-2
#83 to #3 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**

what i find truly ridiculous is how teachers try to teach kids redundant info. for instance, i saw a pic a few months ago of a kid that lost a mark because of a question like this:

question: show 3x5 in individual groups (*i forgot the exact wording)
kids answer: 3x3x3x3x3
teachers response: -1. it should be 5x5x5.

like, the kid isn't retarded. eventually hes going to grow up and realize both versions are the same thing. they work out both ways. this type of teaching just makes the kid question his/her own abilities of comprehension. there's just no need for it.
Reply
0
User avatar #96 to #83 - mistercookie ONLINE (12/07/2015) [-]
I think you mean 3+3+3+3+3 and 5+5+5 is the same thing, because 3^5 is not the same as 5^3.
Reply
+1
#65 to #3 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
Performing calculations != math.
Reply
+1
#82 to #3 - guitarassassin (12/06/2015) [-]
It makes no sense.
Reply
+2
#58 to #3 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
It's called common core math. And teacher's aren't doing away with doing it in columns, they teach common core first. Eventually, kids get taught columns as the shortcut for doing it.

But why do you subtract in columns? Do you really understand what's happening? That when you subtract too much from the one's position, you're in reality reducing the value of the 10's position as well?

Knowing how to do arithmetic is useless. Gone are the days when teacher's can say "You won't always have a calculator with you" because you do now. So now, instead of teaching a process, an algorithm, that we have programmed machines to do, they're trying to make sure kids understand the actual concept behind what's occurring with the arithmetic. Common core isn't wrong, it's a different perspective. Yes, it takes longer.

For those who have taken calculus, the limit definition of a derivative takes forever to write out, so you learn tricks to get there faster.

Common core is the "limit definition" if you will of arithmetic. It takes forever, but you will eventually learn tricks to get there faster.
Reply
0
#93 to #58 - anon (12/07/2015) [-]
Maybe they should just stick to the methodology that came before that didn't take as long to begin with and still have tricks to do it faster.

Instead of trying to re-invent something that wasn't even broken.
Reply
0
User avatar #84 to #58 - mistercookie ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
But knowing basic arithmetic is the foundation for nearly all more advanced math, so wouldn't you still need to teach arithmetic for future math?
Reply
+10
User avatar #21 to #3 - lordalpha (12/06/2015) [-]
For those that don't understand...

you take the smaller value(12). add numbers to it that are 'easier' to deal with til the summation is the larger number(32). Add all the number you used to get to the final number, and you get the difference between the larger and smaller number (20)
Reply
+3
User avatar #32 to #21 - rheago ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
I'm absolutely **** at math and i still don't get it
And i probably never will
Reply
+1
User avatar #86 to #32 - mistercookie ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
Say you have 96 - 34, your goal is to add numbers to 34 to get to 96 (which would be the difference between the two).

Start with 34 and add 6 to get to 40 (easy number to deal with)
Add another 50 and you are at 90
Add another 6 and you get 96
Now sum the numbers you added to 34 which is 6 + 50 = 56 + 6 = 62. Difference between 34 and 96 = 62.

Still a really stupid way of doing it and the regular way would be a lot faster imo...
Reply
0
User avatar #95 to #86 - rheago ONLINE (12/07/2015) [-]
Oh I get it now!
It's a bit like how I do it in my head tbh

Thanks for explaining
Reply
+3
User avatar #31 to #21 - kirkbot (12/06/2015) [-]
wow I actually get it now. It's still ******* stupid but I can imagine it might help those that have trouble understanding how substactions work
Reply
+1
User avatar #33 to #31 - emiyashirou ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
I don't understand at all. Is he literally just adding random amounts until he reaches 32 from 12? Where do the 3, 5, 10 and 2 come from? Or is he made to go to the closest multiple of 5 first and then continue in 10's?
Reply
+2
#38 to #33 - micekill (12/06/2015) [-]
you could think of just adding the smalles easiest numbers you can use, like just add five to 12 until you reach 32 then add the fives together and get 20
pretty much just fragmentating and complicating an already easy problem
Reply
0
User avatar #40 to #33 - kirkbot (12/06/2015) [-]
not exactly random amounts, but amounts to make numbers that are easier to add. Like you said 5s, 10s, etc
Reply
+3
User avatar #34 to #21 - MrMustacho (12/06/2015) [-]
i get that might be slightly easier for small children but it is completely useless in the long run
Reply
+1
#45 to #34 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
Which is these kinds of things are used to teach the concept to small children so that they understand it, instead of just knowing how to do it.

I could teach you that the derivative of x^5 is 5x^4, but that doesn't mean you understand what just went on or how to use it.
Reply
+3
User avatar #49 to #45 - MrMustacho (12/06/2015) [-]
except you're teaching kids to break problems down into smaller parts
which means they need to keep track of more numbers

they just broke a two digit problem into four parts

that's not how you teach someone to solve problems in their head because most people can only keep track of about five steps
Reply
+16
User avatar #14 to #3 - numbertwozeldafan ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
This hurts my brain. Kill it.
Reply
+22
User avatar #7 to #3 - phantomcancer ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
What the hell even is that? How the **** does that work, and won't it be ludicrously tedious with multiple or large numbers? And how the **** are you ever going to correlate a basic function of mathematics to more advanced parts like differentials and integrals if that is your understanding of addition?
Reply
+23
User avatar #29 to #3 - dehumanizer ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
12-3=15
SEEMS LEGIT
Reply
0
User avatar #85 to #29 - hwaraam (12/06/2015) [-]
shut up you're a grammar nazi not a math nazi
Reply
+1
#94 to #85 - dehumanizer ONLINE (12/07/2015) [-]
im just a plain old nazi
Reply
+23
#39 to #3 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
12 - 3 = 15... wat

Not even the stock image does it's math right.
Reply
+21
#63 to #3 - dreamcore (12/06/2015) [-]
12-3=15?
huh... gues that's why my grades weren't that high.
Reply
+2
#52 to #3 - kanedam ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
wtf is that?
Reply
+2
User avatar #26 to #3 - klowserpok ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
...why make such a convoluted way of teaching mental math?
Reply
+2
User avatar #54 to #26 - Silver Quantum ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
if someone has a 2 digit IQ, then learning alternate ways to do basic math with 2 digit numbers isn't the real problem
Reply
+8
#22 to #3 - cktan (12/06/2015) [-]
Is there any practical application to this? I mean it's too tedious for it to work on larger numbers, and too insignificant to work on small numbers
Reply
-2
#71 to #22 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
345643-248324
248324+9=248333
248333+10=248343
248343+300=248643
248643+7000=255643
255643+90000=345643

9+10+300+7000+90000=97319
Not horribly tedious.
Reply
+3
#76 to #71 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
I don't know why you did what you did and I don't want to because I prefer Simple and Easy solutions to SIMPLE AND EASY PROBLEMS
Reply
+1
User avatar #89 to #3 - ninesundev (12/06/2015) [-]
You must get this right:
Kids and almost ALL adults haven't had seen mathematics and will never use it either.
They know and use calculus.

Go to a university and participate a lesson of ie analysis. Rule of thumb: If you have numbers you are not doing math
Reply
0
#91 to #89 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
>calculous
ummm, that's math bro, think you ment arithmatic, which is mathematics aswell. By gaining and applying a tacit understanding of the behavior of operators (x, /, +, -, =, etc) abstractly, you are utilizing and learning mathematics. Just because you use concrete operations to attain and confirm said understanding, doesn't mean it's not conceptually abstract. In order to do 321 x 42 without having previously seen the answer, you need to grasp the concept of multiplication. Just because your understanding isn't formalized with variables, doesn't mean it is dependant on specific numbers.
Reply
0
User avatar #92 to #91 - ninesundev (12/06/2015) [-]
These are different things.

There are people who are invent new things to use, which I would consider mathematicians, and the majority of people which are just using the given tools for their purpose.

Like the guy who uses a computer the ones that build/invented it. Two different people. Two different types of work.
Reply
+7
User avatar #60 to #3 - berengar (12/06/2015) [-]
Tom Lehrer - New Math (Animated)
Reply
+1
User avatar #25 to #3 - ilovehitler (12/06/2015) [-]
I've never even heard of anything like that being used in the US, and my state has one of the worst education systems in the country.
Reply
-13
#18 to #3 - angelclass (12/06/2015) [-]
this is ******* simple, it's called absolute value. are you guys ******* kidding me?
Reply
+17
User avatar #24 to #18 - bagguhsleep (12/06/2015) [-]
kid in the picture is portrayed to be unable to process 32-12 in his head
the **** makes you think he can handle negative numbers, famwich?
Reply
+25
#23 to #18 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
That's not the issue or the concept at hand here. Look more closely you mongoloid. The boy had to perform 4 different operations in order to solve "32-12."
Reply
+1
User avatar #53 to #23 - rapterjesus (12/06/2015) [-]
He isn't being made to do that because that is how he should always solve it, he is made to do it that way to gain a better understanding of how/why it works.
Reply
+5
#56 to #53 - Silver Quantum ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
if he is supposed to understand a way that's longer and requires him to keep track of many more operations that include many more numbers than his initial operation, then he should be able to do the initial operation without any problems or alternate ways to solve it. and don't give me that ******** that that's an easier way to give him a better understanding of how it works

if he doesn't understand the way you need to subtract single digit numbers like in the picture, then his problem goes way deeper than basic math
Reply
-1
User avatar #57 to #56 - rapterjesus (12/06/2015) [-]
It isn't that anyone has a problem with subtracting the normal way, but being taught that completely forgoes any conceptual understanding of mathematics.

I am a conceptual learner myself, show me how to do a problem, and I can handle it, teach me the concepts behind it and how all the parts of the operation mesh with each other and the other things I am learning, and I am far better off.

Nobody is being taught to do operations like these with the intent that they will always do it exactly like this, it is taught as an exercise in understanding during one small part of a long career in learning.

Teaching this way was something that I did not encounter growing up, but I have encountered such methods being used in college courses to teach more complex topics, and it is far from stupid or wasteful.
Reply
+1
User avatar #59 to #57 - Silver Quantum ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
slow down there steven hawking. we're dealing with BASIC math here and with kids' ability to process single digit operations. i get that in college you can learn ways to break down a problem into larger but simpler parts to get a more in-depth understanding of how or why it works, but in no way can you apply that concept to 7 year old kids dealing with basic math. you can teach them alternate ways to do math when their ability to process information is a little more developed
Reply
-1
User avatar #62 to #59 - rapterjesus (12/06/2015) [-]
While I appreciate being called Steven Hawkings, I don't think that what is demonstrated above is too difficult for a 7 year old.

Compared to the way college mathematics are broken down, this is very basic and easy. Just because hard things are broken down, does not mean every broken down method is hard to understand. This comes through here in the fact that all the kids are asked to do, is analyze subtraction, using addition, something they have likely already been taught.

"Hey kids, you are gonna learn something new, but don't worry, we will learn it in terms of something you already know!"
Reply
+1
User avatar #66 to #62 - Silver Quantum ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
you don't need to teach them something as basic as subtraction using another form of basic math. it's BASIC MATH. give a kid two apples. now take them away. there, now they know subtraction. there is really no need to overcomplicate things any further. that's how it has been done since the dawn of time because it works and it really doesn't get any easier than that. sure, you can teach them the method above as an alternate way to do it if they WANT to gain a different perspective of how else it could work, but don't use it as an alternate way because the kid didn't understand the first one. like i said, if the kid doesn't get how to do subtraction using the method i showed in the picture above (using apples as well if you really need to), then learning math is the least of that kid's problems. the last thing a 1st grader who doesn't get it wants is even more numbers and operations to deal with
Reply
0
User avatar #67 to #66 - rapterjesus (12/06/2015) [-]
I have yet to see any evidence that the old ways of teaching are completely gone. From what I know, these methods are supplementing the old ways, not replacing
Reply
0
User avatar #68 to #67 - Silver Quantum ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
and it better stay that way
Reply
+7
#9 to #3 - autoxx ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
I dun get it...
Reply
-1
#81 to #3 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
It does help, but really just takes away most of the thinking in math... Isn't math supposed to like exorcize your brain cells?
Reply
+6
User avatar #70 to #3 - albeit (12/06/2015) [-]
32 - 10 = 22; 22 - 2 = 20. Done.
Reply
+79
User avatar #5 to #3 - mkoala (12/06/2015) [-]
12-3=15
Reply
+8
User avatar #27 to #5 - Sterski ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
Putting a minus instead of a plus is the least of that kid's problems right now.
Reply
+145
#2 - tarabostes (12/05/2015) [-]
Comment Picture
Reply
+36
User avatar #8 to #2 - wyrddarcnyzz (12/06/2015) [-]
I hate it when stuff doesn't load. It makes me feel like I'm missing out on something.
Reply
+7
User avatar #12 to #8 - honkan (12/06/2015) [-]
It's not an animated gif, smbc-comics just makes their comic with the .gif format, which FJ doesn't like when it's not animated. If you can read the text, you're not missing anything.
Reply
+60
#4 to #2 - thepizzadevourer (12/06/2015) [-]
As a chemist, I laughed heartily at this.

Mostly because we probably made the materials that they built their fusion reactor out of.
Reply
+51
#6 to #4 - Lilstow ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
As a physicist I laughed heartily at this.

Mostly because we probably made the materials that you used to make the materials that they built their fusion reactor out of.

run recursively, return physicists and or mathematicians on top.
Reply
+2
#13 to #6 - panzerfront (12/06/2015) [-]
Not scientist here, why are some fields less pure than others?
At Least biology, chemistry and physics. Is it due to how much they interact with the physical world or something?
Reply
+20
User avatar #16 to #13 - trollmobile ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
basically.
chemistry, physics, and mathemathics are very "pure" sciences, because they rely on cold hard facts. everything is measurable and calculatable.
almost everything can be calculated before even doing a single experiment.

biology, psychology, and sociology are so called "inaccurate sciences"
because they rely on interperation, surveys, and generally have the issue of being reliant on humans and animals, both of which are flawed and never 100% predictable.
chemistry is less "pure" than physics, because the chance of human flaw is increased, due to humans handeling the chemicals. there can be contamination, wrong dosage, etc etc.
physics are pretty much the most pure science. as it's almost entierly mathemathical calculations of what will happen. mathemathics is the most pure field, because it's literally just the study of the tool, rather than the application of the tool, in order to study other things.

all of this said as someone that plans of studying biology, psychology, sociology, and history.

a field being "pure" does not mean it is more important, or in any way better than another, it simply means it does not vary based on the people involved.
Reply
+8
#20 to #16 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
chemistry is just a subfield of physics and the only reason it is not regarded as such is the way it developed historically. Physics is submitted to the same amount of error when measuring as chemistry, eg. impurities in the wires you use to measure electricity and so forth.

Chemistry do then to make a lot of approximations when deriving formulas but so do many other subfields of physics.

TLDR chemistry is just a subfield of physics

Reply
0
User avatar #51 to #20 - rapterjesus (12/06/2015) [-]
Any impurities in measuring instruments would have the same probability in both fields, as they both require measurements. Therefore such a potential flaw cannot really be levied against physics alone.
Reply
+1
#17 to #16 - panzerfront (12/06/2015) [-]
thanks man
Reply
+10
User avatar #19 to #17 - trollmobile ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
a metaphor for you:
mathemathics makes the tools and materials to build a shed.
physics plan the construction of the shed
chemistry assembles the shed
biology places the shed where it's supposed to be
psychology finds out what the shed should be used for.
sociology fills the shed with tools.
Reply
+11
#28 to #19 - panzerfront (12/06/2015) [-]
alright, thanks trollmobile, both of your posts made a lot of sense and cleared that up
Reply
0
User avatar #88 to #19 - alarubra ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
I'd switch mathematics and physics, but essentially yes.
Reply
0
#30 to #19 - nerfhead (12/06/2015) [-]
i like fudge
Reply
+1
User avatar #41 to #17 - truemecid (12/06/2015) [-]
I would describe it more as the following structure:

- Sociology needs psychology and by extension it therefore needs: Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Math.
- Psychology needs Biology and by extension it therefore needs: Chemistry, Physics and Math.
- Biology needs Chemistry and by extension it therefore needs: Physics and Math.
- Chemistry needs Physics and by extension it therefore needs Math.
- Physics needs Math.
- Math is logic.

Therefore Math is the most pure because it doesn't need anything else and sociology is the least pure as it needs the most help.

I know this is sorta the same, I just didn't like how the former dude divided the different sciences in: "Pure/factual" and "inaccurate" because I feel like that simplification wasn't in the spirit of the comic. I feel like it is supposed to be like a staircase with each science representing their own step towards purity.

This is of course a gross over simplification in general when you view the natural sciences and I wouldn't really compare Math to other natural sciences as much as I would compare it to Philosophy (Considering Math has nothing to do with experiments, it is just a tool to used by other sciences to express a phenomena. Whereas Math is a way to view the world with absolute logic).
Reply
0
User avatar #69 to #41 - factual (12/06/2015) [-]
it's a fact
Reply
0
User avatar #87 to #69 - truemecid (12/06/2015) [-]
What is?
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #87 - factual (12/06/2015) [-]
idk you mentioned me
Reply
0
#75 to #16 - aizeinstein (12/06/2015) [-]
**aizeinstein used "*roll picture*"**
**aizeinstein rolled image** You ******* pureblood Asari. Get out of muh science. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Reply
0
#48 to #16 - aranthusick ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
Adding to that, chemistry is considered less ''pure'' than physics because all the laws and methods we use in chemistry are based on physics. Its literally what it says in the picture as well. Chemistry is laws of physics applied.

I think your wrong on the contamination etc. front. All sciences are based on testing theories and so on. Thus mistakes can happen, even in physics, because were only human. Testing how the conductivity of a semiconductor changes base on temperature can have multiple errors for example.
The best result is thus achieved by doing the test multiple times and so on. Humans ******* up tests is not the reason chemistry is less pure, its less pure because its based on physics.
Reply
0
#15 to #13 - hurzg ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
There is nothing pure, every scientist is a whore. Undergrads just like to **** on other fields being the little ***** they are.
Reply
0
User avatar #44 to #13 - durkadurka (12/06/2015) [-]
In the picture, the field of study on the left is essentially an applied version of the one preceding it (to the right). For example, psychology is driven by biology, so it's just applied biology. But biology is basically just the result of chemical reactions, so it's just applied chemistry. But then chemical reactions are basically just particles interacting via the laws of physics so chemistry is basically just applied physics.

And everything at a fundamental is just mathematics, which is why it's considered so much more "pure" than the others.
Reply
0
User avatar #64 to #6 - Sethorein (12/06/2015) [-]
I'm not the worst! #psychlife
Reply
0
User avatar #61 to #4 - philopsychological (12/06/2015) [-]
Hey chemist guy, can you teach me how to extract dmt and find lsd materials plx
Reply
+41
User avatar #10 - theluppijackal ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck
Reply
+2
User avatar #72 to #10 - nidhugg (12/06/2015) [-]
I take it you play space engineers
Reply
0
User avatar #73 to #72 - theluppijackal ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
wah?
Reply
+8
User avatar #35 to #10 - emiyashirou ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
So if we lose our limited natural lifespans (robotic bodies or genetic engineering and **** ), that basically means the halt of scientific progress?
Reply
+2
User avatar #74 to #35 - aizeinstein (12/06/2015) [-]
Why would you need science when you achieved immortality.
We'll call it magic.
Reply
0
User avatar #78 to #74 - blackmageewizardt (12/06/2015) [-]
"Why would you need science when you achieved immortality."

How about absorbing the entire energy in an System to become it´s very ruler in every aspect? Ripping apart room to gain Access to practicle infinite amount of resources? Raping the very rules of energy and just let energy come from nowhere with nothing but an though?

Once we have that we could start to call it Magic, because it´s pretty much raping the laws of the universe.
Reply
0
#79 to #78 - aizeinstein (12/06/2015) [-]
**aizeinstein used "*roll picture*"**
**aizeinstein rolled image** Meh. Maybe if immortality is too boring. Otherwise I don't agree with your point.
Reply
0
User avatar #80 to #79 - blackmageewizardt (12/06/2015) [-]
Well what Kind of immortality do you mean?

Immortality in the Kind of: "Age as well as sickness may never kill me"

Then it´s not that complicait, it´s pretty much just aquires an way to clean the Body of it´s entire smut and beeing able to clean every System of itself, while also making sure that genetical copy Errors do not happen.

If you mean the "You could erase me to the supatomatic Level, i would still exist"

Then it get´s far more complicaiter and would Need some form of backup you to Keep existing.

Also sooner or later you would have to get out of this universe anyway, the Moment it will fall apart, restart, or freeze to death to ensure your further existence (which would be in roughly maybe 20~25 Billion years)

Also god damn epic roll you got there
Reply
+1
User avatar #36 to #35 - theluppijackal ONLINE (12/06/2015) [-]
Probably tbqh
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #35 - blackmageewizardt (12/06/2015) [-]
I just looked through... Mate have ya seen how ******* fast scientific Progress went? For 300 years no one had an ******* glue how to use electricity, now? From todays perspectiv, the scientific process fastens almost quadratic!
Reply
0
#50 to #1 - anon (12/06/2015) [-]
Just upload it via URL next time instead of posting a direct link.
Reply
-3
#42 - alpako (12/06/2015) [-]
**alpako used "*roll picture*"**
**alpako rolled image** i dont entirely agree
Reply
+5
#43 to #42 - alpako (12/06/2015) [-]
Click to show spoiler
**alpako used "*roll picture*"**
**alpako rolled image** re-do
 
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)