On 05/08/2024 11.09, James Nicoll wrote:
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or >wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since >inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through
the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important >to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
On 05/08/2024 13.51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
On 05/08/2024 11.09, James Nicoll wrote:
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or >>> wrong, is important to the story. Thus, the Lensmen novels are hard SF, since
inertialess travel, the sunbeam, and passage of Lundmark's Nebula through >>> the Milky Way having formed the planets of said galaxies, are all important >>> to the stories. This is so even though we know that none of those are
valid.
Smith just got the name of the nebula incorrect, it was really the
Sagittarious galaxy.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Five_fascinating_Gaia_revelations_about_the_Milky_Way
Interesting article, but if it says that the formation of planets in the >Milky Way was caused by the Sagittarius Galaxy passing through, I can't
find it.
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
"deliberately fudges the science...my least favorite flavor"
I don't mind some of these, as they are literally fictions about science,
but they have to be in the right spirit. One example I can think of
is when the Autarch in tCotA explains how a mass of antimatter iron
negates the weight of the flyer, [...]
As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying >that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction >film [...]". See: ><http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:42:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying >that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction >film [...]". See: ><http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>
So by that definition would Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder"
(which many say created the term "the butterfly effect") be considered
"Hard SF"?
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the >technology to do something is different from the science behind it being >significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult >edge cases.
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" ><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the >>technology to do something is different from the science behind it being >>significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult >>edge cases.
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:43:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" >><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the >>>technology to do something is different from the science behind it being >>>significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....
Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A >resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:28:50 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:43:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being >>>> significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....
Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.
Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me.
I'd consider
Scudder Jimmy Swaggert's wet dream maybe but certainly not Trump who
likes to run beauty contests and grab women by their ****ies. More
like a televangelist on steroids.
Though I do wish Heinlein could have written that story.
And no question the villain in A Sound of Thunder WAS much more like
Trump than Joe McCarthy.
On 05/08/2024 11.09, James Nicoll wrote:
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
When I say "Hard SF", I mean "a story in which the science, be it right or wrong, is important to the story.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:28:50 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:43:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" >>><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being >>>>significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.
(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or >>>simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....
Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?
All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A >>resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.
Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.
And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.
[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.
Nehemiah Scudder was a religious demagogue who on the strength of his >politically tinged faith gained power and ended the US republic.
How the heck you equate that to Trump is beyond me. I'd consider
Scudder Jimmy Swaggert's wet dream maybe but certainly not Trump who
likes to run beauty contests and grab women by their ****ies. More
like a televangelist on steroids.
Though I do wish Heinlein could have written that story.--
And no question the villain in A Sound of Thunder WAS much more like
Trump than Joe McCarthy.
Where do you think the bulk of his support comes from? Who do you
think the Republican Party has been pandering to since Roe v Wade?
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the >Trump administration and expect to be there again.
In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
On 8/15/2024 8:51 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the >>> Trump administration and expect to be there again.
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33
On 2024-08-16, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/15/2024 8:51 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the >>>> Trump administration and expect to be there again.
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33
No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trumps agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: Instill fear in the American people.
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and >wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a >coherent collection!
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Where do you think the bulk of his support comes from? Who do you
think the Republican Party has been pandering to since Roe v Wade?
Not since Roe vs. Wade at all. For a long time, the whole anti-abortion >thing was seen as a Catholic issue and most protestants weren't against >abortion because they saw it as a Catholic thing. In 1976, the Southern >Baptist Convention issued a policy statement about abortion being a
right.
It was not until Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority discovered that
they could use the abortion issue to divide people and to make money
that it became a mainstream Protestant issue.
And it was not until Ronald Reagan embraced the Moral Majority and the >Christian Right that it became a mainstream political issue.
The pandering of the republican party to the Evangelical Movement
dates only back to Reagan. This is a relatively recent thing.
On 16 Aug 2024 13:12:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2024-08-16, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/15/2024 8:51 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the >>>>> Trump administration and expect to be there again.
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33
No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!
I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.
Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?
On 8/16/2024 8:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 16 Aug 2024 13:12:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2024-08-16, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/15/2024 8:51 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the >>>>>> Trump administration and expect to be there again.
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago. (2019, I think?) Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33
No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists. A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is. That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions. Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
A tight focus on Trumps agenda is all the more necessary, some
Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
effectively: Instill fear in the American people.
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable. There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups. As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there. It is not a
coherent collection!
I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump
appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.
Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?
I believe it was in that article I posted a link to but one of the heads
of the Heritage Foundation flat out says it is them getting ready to
handle Trump's transition if he wins because they know he won't prepare
and they can just move in and set everything up themselves.
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:40:26 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus >>Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?
All sorts of people since the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth >century...
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:09:31 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Hard SF has never been a unified subgenre. Here are five overlapping
varieties of story to which the label applies...
https://reactormag.com/defining-our-terms-what-do-we-mean-by-hard-sf/
One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.
One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely >separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:54:58 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
One of the commenters mentioned that he never got the hang of
calculus.
I got first-semester calculus fine, and I got second-semester calculus
fine (both faded away during the intervening six decades), but
calculus itself I never got.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only >>didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.
Oy veh! I got that in 2nd year though back in elementary school we got
a glimmer of that trying to "prove" the area of a circle was pi * r
squared by counting progressively small squares (mostly where the
circle went through including those where the line went through versus
those where the squares were outside the circle vs inside which
demonstrated the area of the circle had to be between those two limits
- and having to do it 2 or 3 times with progressively smaller squares
- we had to do 3 or 4 iterations of this)
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely >>separate.
Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely >separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.
On 8/21/24 5:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely
separate.
I've read that the proof is childishly simple.
There are three kinds of calculus class.
There is a calculus for math majors class, which is all about proofs and
all about how the calculus works inside. Every procedure that is shown
is proved and students will be expected to explain the proofs.
There is a calculus for engineering students class, in which you won't
see any proofs at all but where you will be expected to memorize a huge
number of procedures and drilled in order to be able to do
differentiation
and integration as quickly as possible. There is no emphasis on how
anything works, just on how to make it work fast.
And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive
calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.
Some universities teach all three kinds, some only one. Which one is
appropriate depends on your personal relationship with the calculus.
--scott
In broad strokes, I think your three types are pretty accurate.
At my Enormous State University, we have seven flavors of calculus.[1] Possibly less for those who don't think the Calculus for the Biological Sciences and/or Calculus for Business are distinct enough from one of
the differently-numbered other courses.[2]
The additional flavors are largely because we have a lot of students who
fall into exactly one of these three buckets:
- their HS transcript says they should be ready for calculus, but their placement exam (taken before enrolling) says they shouldn't (hence,
Calculus with Review, that does calc a little slower while reviewing necessary pre-calc skills)
- are aiming to teach in middle school[3] (there are some state-imposed requirements)
- are strong enough to accelerate, but don't want to major in math (they
end up doing 3 semesters of calc in 2 semesters)
Tony
[1] We used to have 10, which is apparently more upsetting to
administrators than 7.
[2] I have taught both the Bio and the Business - they're different, esp
the Bio flavor, but it's not worth arguing with people about.
[3] For those students who want to teach math in high school, they are required to get a math degree in addition to whatever educational
training they need. Many (all?) of them do a 5 year program where they
also end up with a masters (in education).
In article <ss0ccj5l4ahkrl1c0hh4h73guccqtus89o@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:13:12 -0400, Joy Beeson >><jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:My calculus tragedy involved a parallel physics course in which
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
They never even once mentioned that integration and differentiation
are inverses of each other? With various caveats and details, to be
sure.
It was asserted, but never explained. The two courses were entirely >>>separate.
Ah, that would explain it. Neither course felt any obligation to
mention the other.
everything we learned in calculus would have been of great
utility to the physics class of the week before.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.
I was aware that there were different levels of Statistics at Stage 1,
for example, the Arts department had their own course for Economics
students but a pass would not qualify you for entry into Stage 2
Statistics in the Science department.
And having not considered such things for decades, found this thread >diversion fascinating.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <va6gqd$9366$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and >>> its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.
Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and >> memorized the 143 required integrals,
Memorizing integrals? I can see where it might be useful, but I've
never heard of such a requirement.
I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have >> not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about >> runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).
I deeply wish I'd been taught the same.
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental
drift created a new Pangea.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <va6gqd$9366$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Fascinating.
There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and >>>> its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.
Gatech was the same way. Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and >>> memorized the 143 required integrals,
Memorizing integrals? I can see where it might be useful, but I've
never heard of such a requirement.
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for >engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to >solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to derive >anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.
--I am still recovering from my experience. Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages. Wish someone had taught about >>> runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).
I deeply wish I'd been taught the same.
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental >>drift created a new Pangea.
Plot it on graph paper and count the squares...
On 22 Aug 2024 23:12:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
derive
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for >>engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to >>solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll >>never get through a fraction of the exams in time.
Ah.
Teaching to the test.
And there is a calculus for poets class, sometimes called an intuitive >calculus class, in which the proofs are handwaved and you get to see some
of the easier mechanisms so that students get a basic understanding of
what integration and differentiation is and how it can be used.
Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg! I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to
get RKF4 or RKF8 to deal with my equations some time before continental >>drift created a new Pangea.
Plot it on graph paper and count the squares...
--scott
On 24/08/2024 10.30, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2024 23:12:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
derive
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes. The whole point of the class is to be able to >>>> solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =
anything that you can memorize. If you try to derive everything you'll >>>> never get through a fraction of the exams in time.
Ah.
Teaching to the test.
No, not at all. The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
That is, it's skills training and not education.
Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced >with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than >try to apply integration by parts or something.
Many years later, I learned that this was because my teachers not only
didn't explain the fundamental thereom to me, they didn't even tell me
that calculus *had* a fundamental thereom.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:32:07 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,878 |
| Posted today: | 1 |