Slashdot Mirror
Are Graphical Calculators Pointless?
An anonymous reader writes "Texas Instruments and Casio have recently released new flagship graphical calculators but what, exactly, is the point of using them? They are slow, with limited memory and a 'high-resolution' display that is no such thing. For $100 more than the NSpire CX CAS you could buy a netbook and fill it with cutting edge mathematical software such as Octave, Scilab, SAGE and so on. You could also use it for web browsing, email and a thousand other things. One argument heard for using these calculators is: 'They are limited enough to use in exams.' Sounds sensible, but it raises the question: 'Why are we teaching a generation of students to use crippled technology?'"
Because writing a fairly complicated program with the described functionality requires all of the skills, and more, involved in the proof of the quadratic formula (which is an especially trivial proof if you already know the formula). It's objectively more useful to learn, because it requires the same skills and other skills as well, not just differently useful (requiring different skills of unrelated application).
No it doesn't. It requires none of the knowledge to understand the actual Proof of the Quadratic Formula. It proves you are capable of referencing the formula and iterating it through technology that required the folks who created the tools you take for granted to learn an actual Proof for the Quadratic Formula. The Quadratic Formula required the prior knowledge of the Pythagorean Algorithm to stand upon before it was discovered and it's negative proof to verify it was sound. It was Descartes who discovered and proved the relationship and the distance in time between Pythagoras and Descartes is vast. You writing a program about it as if you proved it ala it's actual proof is a sad joke.
Perhaps your educator was not historically versed in the history of mathematics and therefore wasn't able to convey the true purpose of truly proving it, as if you were Descartes himself. One purpose was to open that creative spark of imagination to think in a manner to look at Mathematics as a language to describe the Universe and not to be a formulaic mass memorization exercise it appears most people believe it to be. Ironically, most mathematicians are failed Mechanical or Electrical Engineers who were great at proofs but sucked at application. To possess [to open up the ability to juggle both proofs and applications] both and harness them tends to lend oneself into advancing fields of study and the world as we know it.
Any hack can learn to program, just like any person can learn multiple languages. It doesn't mean you know the power of the language(s) as is clearly evident by the cock sure answer you gave, which seemed to impress at least one hack on here who found your answer warranting the karma points to give you a fiver.
I found your comment not only that of a typical person who went to community college to become a Java programmer or an MCSE certified whatever but also someone who barely has the artistry of the English language itself.