ITT: Times common core got it right.

>>8958427
Need to keep working on those bait skills, champ.

>>8958431
It's elegant, concise, takes up only one line of the paper, and it's easy to catch any mistakes you made. Not to mention it makes you consciously think about order of operations, which is the biggest problem most people have with equations like this.

>>8958427
That's actually kind of a clever analogy for teaching that shit.

Of course, the user will run into trouble with stuff that isn't really invertible like even exponents and roots but that's okay if they're warned about it.

>>8958427
I'm retarded. How am I supposed to read this?

>>8958427
What's going on here? Why not just divide the 4 on both sides and use log/exponent rules to solve?

>>8958427
Arrows going right = Operations applied to the x in order for the left side to equal 12
Operations going left = inverse operations applied to the 12 in order for the right side to equal x

I'm not OP but my guess is that as an exploratory exercise (or to find problems in the students undersanding of order of operations) the student would be instructed to form the chain of arrows going to the right. Then to find the inverse operations (in red) going left and compute the values at each step (also in red). Until finally obtaining the value of x.

>>8958508
That's exactly what's happening.

what's so common core about this?
the arrows?

>>8958517
That it's a teaching technique used alongside standard teaching techniques in order to build actual mathematical intuition in students as opposed to earlier methods that focused solely on rote learning.

>>8958512
But it looks like they were already given the answer, at least that's how they wrote down the numbers they had along with the arrows. How would they solve this without being told already that x=-32? Is this just for checking to see if the answer is correct?

>>8958542
Ah nvm, I didn't see the numbers at the bottom. Still, it seems like an odd way to organize work.

>>8958503
>>8958508
Given the equation, you write out the top set of arrows based on order of operations. Since the first thing you do to x is take a fifth root, that comes first. Then adding 7, etc. The last arrow ends at 12, because that's what it's supposed to equal.

You solve for x by filling in all the red stuff. The lower arrows are the inverse operations of the upper arrows, which you always do when solving an equation anyway. This helps you visualize it better.

>>8958517
This is how it was taught at my high school around 8 years ago in multiple classes. I just assumed this was a fad in education back then.

File: file.png (25KB, 533x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 533x300px

>>8958533
this is better desu

>>8958555
This method can be better, but unfortunately it is rarely taught using logical inferences as it ought to be. Either way, just because one method is good and another one better doesn't mean there is no benefit in using both as teaching tools. Afterall, the first method gives the reader a more intuitive introduction into invertible functions.

>>8958427
Isn't this solving it with some fancy arrows added? I could solve it without the arrows and I'd still be using the same steps.

>>8958589
It's a teaching method that emphasizes how you solve it in a visually intuitive way. Obviously if you already understand what's going on, you can solve it without writing anything.

>>8958555
>:12
what did they mean by this?

>>8958614
Division obviously

>>8958631
Give me 1 (one) (a single) other instance of that notation being used (ONE)

>>8958777
Not that guy but : is typically used for ratio.

like
>3:4
is the ratio of 3 to 4, so you can say for instance
>3:4 = 6:8

It is very much like division where the differences only matter from a very formal perspective. I've seen ratio used everywhere from constructive geometry to axiomatic set theory to complex analysis.

Still the use in that picture is weird and I would never use it that way because it reads fucking weird when spoken out loud.

>>8958804
I meant the notation being used in the way it were in that there picture you hecking dingus

>>8958777
In post-commie countries. We used the : for division, and used the exact same system OP posted.

>>8958847
I meant this system:
>>8958555
not OP's.

>>8958427
That's a very concise way of showing work. I may start doing this

>>8958427
holy shit this is slick

>>8958847
Literally why

Many took this bait, many more will take it still
I want the reddit nu-/sci/ phase to end

>>8958973
>nu-/board/ forced meme
Kill yourself /pol/nigger

>>8958982
>when you try to fit in this hard but don't realise you're unironically who he's talking about
Don't you have some calc 1 homework to do?

File: sci pill.jpg (132KB, 640x376px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 640x376px

>>8958991
>implying
I've been on 4chan since 2004 and on /sci/ since it was created. Moreover I'm a pure mathfag.

/pol/ users are the true nu-4chan cancer.

>>8959026
Trying much too hard kid, you'll get the hang of it when you grow up, don't worry

>>8958777
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336408-poll-public-opposes-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-deal-by-21-margin

File: long cat flag.jpg (76KB, 600x489px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x489px

>>8959063
>Shadow the hedgehog fandom tier insults
top zoz

>>8959077
see
>>8958811

>>8958427
>>8958441
This is neat. I might actually use this when I need to teach people struggling with basic algebra.
>>8958503
The red text is the stuff you're supposed to figure out and fill in. The black text is setting up the problem.

>>8959063
>nothin personnel kid

>>8958973
>>8958991
>>8959063
i have never wanted more honestly than now for someone to neck themselves

That's fucking brilliant

Also common core hate is a literal meme

The problem lies with the teachers and how it's an underpaid profession that we're reserving for brainlets

>>8958545
It's literally going in and out of PEMDAS via inverse operation