Is it just me or did the author screw up during their lattice multiplcation process?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
http://oilf.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-real-reason-i-fear-common-core.html

lattice.png


Explanation about Lattice Multiplication:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ar...ttice_multiplication/v/lattice-multiplication

Seems to me its just like doing it the "traditional" method without having to shift the numbers as you multiply.

:hmm:
 
Last edited:
Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
Dec 10, 2005
27,480
11,811
136
disappoint said:
lol common core

Traditional > Common Coreporate scam
Click to expand...

You got them. It's a corporate scam.
tinfoil-hat-2.jpg


Teaching people to actually understand what their doing >>> rote memorization. Unfortunately, there is a learning curve for both teachers to learn to teach this way and it's alien to parents, who learned it in more traditional ways, and so people just dismiss it outright.

An interesting article on how improvements in math education, developed in the US, were never widely adopted here, but have been fairly successfully adopted in other places like Japan: NYTimes Link
 
Last edited:
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Fayd said:
i don't understand... what the fuck is going on here?
Click to expand...

This is the way multiplication is now taught in schools. I had to learn it just to teach my children and it hurts my damn head. The regular (old) way is so much better.
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Engineer said:
Screw this crap. The 'common core' stuff is bull.
Click to expand...

OMG! Its the same thing!

The bottom row is what you'd write down when you take "5" and multiply it through the different digits of "345". The top row is what you'd write down then you take "1" and multiply it through the different digits of "345". Then you'd add the columns, but in the LM method, you're just added them diagonally because that's how they're aligned.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
her209 said:
OMG! Its the same thing!

The bottom row is what you'd write down when you take "5" and multiply it through the different digits of "345". The top row is what you'd write down then you take "1" and multiply it through the different digits of "345". Then you'd add the columns, but in the LM method, you're just added them diagonally because that's how they're aligned.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing with lots of extra boxes and shit drawn in as well as the diagonals splitting the boxes. It's easier just to shift the stuff down the line (old way) and then add it.
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Engineer said:
It's the same thing with lots of extra boxes and shit drawn in as well as the diagonals splitting the boxes. It's easier just to shift the stuff down the line (old way) and then add it.
Click to expand...

Its actually quite better when you think about it. Less space is required, plus you're not prone to shifting errors which you're more prone to with the "traditional" method unless you draw vertical lines to help with proper shifting.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
her209 said:
Its actually quite better when you think about it. Less space is required, plus you're not prone to shifting errors which you're more prone to with the "traditional" method unless you draw vertical lines to help with proper shifting.
Click to expand...

I have thought about it and no, it's not better.
 
M

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
I remember that when I was in school, it was used in the first and maybe second year multiplication was used but never after that. It has more to do with helping keep stuff aligned with bad handwriting then anything. It was not used after that due to wasting space and time.
 
Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
Dec 10, 2005
27,480
11,811
136
Just imagine the indignation a people here would feel if they developed a better way of doing something that was far superior in the long run to the old ways, then have all the people not in their field come along and say it is crap, the old ways are best, etc...
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Brainonska511 said:
Just imagine the indignation a people here would feel if they developed a better way of doing something that was far superior in the long run to the old ways, then have all the people not in their field come along and say it is crap, the old ways are best, etc...
Click to expand...

That's probably the same reason why the duodecimal system (base-12) never took off.

We have 60 seconds a minute, 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards a mile, etc.

Guy explains why base-12 is better for everyday counting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xJfP7-HCc
 
MrDudeMan

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Brainonska511 said:
Just imagine the indignation a people here would feel if they developed a better way of doing something that was far superior in the long run to the old ways, then have all the people not in their field come along and say it is crap, the old ways are best, etc...
Click to expand...

My only argument against the new method would be the possibility that it isn't as easy to do in your head. Maybe that isn't true, but I'm having trouble doing this in my head whereas I can multiple similar sized numbers in my head with no issues using the old method. The new method scales better with bigger numbers, but needing to do that in every day life is certainly less common. It's possible that the new method would be faster after the initial adjustment period, but I don't know for sure yet.
 
Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
Dec 10, 2005
27,480
11,811
136
MrDudeMan said:
My only argument against the new method would be the possibility that it isn't as easy to do in your head. Maybe that isn't true, but I'm having trouble doing this in my head whereas I can multiple similar sized numbers in my head with no issues using the old method. The new method scales better with bigger numbers, but needing to do that in every day life is certainly less common. It's possible that the new method would be faster after the initial adjustment period, but I don't know for sure yet.
Click to expand...

I don't quite know all the details myself, but I speculate that some of these methods are merely teaching tools. Teach the same thing in multiple ways and actually get children to understand the mechanics of what they are doing instead of simply memorizing some technique and attempting to apply it to everything. Then, in the end, let children adopt the methods that work best for themselves.
 
disappoint

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
her209 said:
Its actually quite better when you think about it. Less space is required, plus you're not prone to shifting errors which you're more prone to with the "traditional" method unless you draw vertical lines to help with proper shifting.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I've never had to draw vertical lines and never had any shifting errors.

The new method takes longer. You have to draw all those boxes and lines in addition to the numbers. Why would they want to make learning harder for kids? Why get rid of the old, faster method for the newer slower method? To sell the curriculum to a bunch of gullible fools like Brainonska up there.
 
M

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
The "new" method may be slightly simpler to perform, and from a pure mechanical arithmetic perspective, that is a reasonable goal.

The problem is that it hides the actual work, that the traditional long-multiplication technique exposes. In the "old" method, the shifts and individual multiplies are obvious to see, so it is easy to understand how it works, and the actual mathematics can be appreciated.

The new method uses a short-hand trick to hide the internal workings. It's quicker and easier, but gives less understanding.
 
disappoint

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Brainonska511 said:
You got them. It's a corporate scam.
tinfoil-hat-2.jpg


Teaching people to actually understand what their doing >>> rote memorization. Unfortunately, there is a learning curve for both teachers to learn to teach this way and it's alien to parents, who learned it in more traditional ways, and so people just dismiss it outright.
Click to expand...

We dismiss it because it's not better in any way, not because we don't understand it. I understand what I'm doing just fine.

Brainonska511 said:
Just imagine the indignation a people here would feel if they developed a better way of doing something that was far superior in the long run to the old ways, then have all the people not in their field come along and say it is crap, the old ways are best, etc...
Click to expand...

How is it better?

Brainonska511 said:
I don't quite know all the details myself...
Click to expand...

Oh so you're just here arguing for the sake of argument and not because you know any better. I see. That's hilarious. You amuse me. Like a clown.
 
Hacp

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
WTF is this. As an engineer, I can give my full disapproval. Only the Obama administration can come up with this stupid bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom