On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:39:14 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:30:23 -0000, wrote:

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 22:50:09 UTC, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:47:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Not with the worst of the diyers who can't find or don't have anything
to do the exact measurements with and who just do a crude estimate.


FFS you can get a tape measure for £1.99.

Only if you're in a town

Or have access to the internet, using Ebay.

Most wont wait for that, just estimate instead when its never
going to be an exact fit wherever you put it.

Things need measured so often that everyone has a ruler or measure around the house. It's as common as a torch.

--
How come abbreviated is such a long word?

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:52:34 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:47:28 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:38:53 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:09:20 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:44:59 -0000, Cursitor Doom

wrote:

Say the floor of my living room were 18 foot longer and 12 foot
narrower,
it would take 16 square yards less carpet; but if it were 12
foot
shorter
and 12 foot wider, it would not change its area. What are its
dimensions,
please?

Why would that ever come up in real life?

Most obviously when reusing carpet
because SWMBO didn't like it etc.

But the above involved the actual room being three different
sizes.
That
could only happen if his SWMBO was unsure whether to go open plan
or
put
up a new wall.

But not when considering where the unwanted carpet could be best
used
to
minimise the wastage.

You'd have exact measurements, not "that room's a bit less than this
one".

Not with the worst of the diyers who can't find or don't have
anything
to do the exact measurements with and who just do a crude estimate.


FFS you can get a tape measure for £1.99.

Doesn't mean everyone does in that situation.

I use a span to mean 1.5 metres, or a hand to shoulder for 1m.

Most don't do it like that. They just guess instead.

I've never met anyone who can guess anything like accurately.

You don't need to be accurate to decide which of the two alternative
places the spare carpet will fit with the minimum of waste.

I can count seconds in my head very accurately, but not assess a distance.

Plenty can accurately enough to decide which of the two alternative
places the spare carpet will fit with the minimum of waste.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:56:16 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:52:34 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:47:28 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:38:53 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:09:20 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:44:59 -0000, Cursitor Doom

wrote:

Say the floor of my living room were 18 foot longer and 12 foot
narrower,
it would take 16 square yards less carpet; but if it were 12
foot
shorter
and 12 foot wider, it would not change its area. What are its
dimensions,
please?

Why would that ever come up in real life?

Most obviously when reusing carpet
because SWMBO didn't like it etc.

But the above involved the actual room being three different
sizes.
That
could only happen if his SWMBO was unsure whether to go open plan
or
put
up a new wall.

But not when considering where the unwanted carpet could be best
used
to
minimise the wastage.

You'd have exact measurements, not "that room's a bit less than this
one".

Not with the worst of the diyers who can't find or don't have
anything
to do the exact measurements with and who just do a crude estimate.


FFS you can get a tape measure for £1.99.

Doesn't mean everyone does in that situation.

I use a span to mean 1.5 metres, or a hand to shoulder for 1m.

Most don't do it like that. They just guess instead.

I've never met anyone who can guess anything like accurately.

You don't need to be accurate to decide which of the two alternative
places the spare carpet will fit with the minimum of waste.

But you'd have approximate numbers for the sizes, not this room is a bit less than that one and this room is a bit more. You only get that **** in puzzles.

--
Love conquers all, except in tennis.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:39:14 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:30:23 -0000, wrote:

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 22:50:09 UTC, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:47:28 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

Not with the worst of the diyers who can't find or don't have
anything
to do the exact measurements with and who just do a crude estimate.


FFS you can get a tape measure for £1.99.

Only if you're in a town

Or have access to the internet, using Ebay.

Most wont wait for that, just estimate instead when its never
going to be an exact fit wherever you put it.

Things need measured so often that everyone has a ruler or measure around
the house.

Plenty don't that is any real use for measuring a room.

And plenty have enough of a clue to realise that when
deciding where to put the spare carpet to minimise the
wasted carpet, that all you need is a rough estimate even
if you have a ruler you can put your hand on.

It's as common as a torch.

Bull****.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:56:16 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:52:34 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:47:28 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:38:53 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:09:20 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:44:59 -0000, Cursitor Doom

wrote:

Say the floor of my living room were 18 foot longer and 12
foot
narrower,
it would take 16 square yards less carpet; but if it were 12
foot
shorter
and 12 foot wider, it would not change its area. What are its
dimensions,
please?

Why would that ever come up in real life?

Most obviously when reusing carpet
because SWMBO didn't like it etc.

But the above involved the actual room being three different
sizes.
That
could only happen if his SWMBO was unsure whether to go open
plan
or
put
up a new wall.

But not when considering where the unwanted carpet could be best
used
to
minimise the wastage.

You'd have exact measurements, not "that room's a bit less than
this
one".

Not with the worst of the diyers who can't find or don't have
anything
to do the exact measurements with and who just do a crude estimate.


FFS you can get a tape measure for £1.99.

Doesn't mean everyone does in that situation.

I use a span to mean 1.5 metres, or a hand to shoulder for 1m.

Most don't do it like that. They just guess instead.

I've never met anyone who can guess anything like accurately.

You don't need to be accurate to decide which of the two alternative
places the spare carpet will fit with the minimum of waste.

But you'd have approximate numbers for the sizes,

Not if you are working out which use for the spare carpet wastes less
carpet.

not this room is a bit less than that one and this room is a bit more.

That is what determines whether the carpet will need to be
cut to fit or whether there will be a gap down one or two sides.

You only get that **** in puzzles.

And also when deciding what to do with spare carpet.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:37:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And there would be stops. for fuel and urination.

Not necessarily. I knew a civil engineer who boasted he could drive from
Aberdeen to Brighton without a single **** stop. And that was in the
1970s, so pre-M25!

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 20:00:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/12/15 16:36, charles wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 18 December 2015 23:34:56 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:26:33 +0000, pamela wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more. What's the title of the book you
have and I'll start by doing a search for that?

Your timing is impeccably bad. I just arrived with my family today for
the holidays and the book is now 196 miles away. Still, if I set off
for home at 9.30am in the morning travelling at 50mph... Seriously,
remind me on or after the 4th Jan and I'll dig it out.

That sounds more 60s. In the 1930s you'd probably average 20mph

In the 1930s my mother drove from London to Edinburgh non-stop. I doubt if
she took 20 hours!

She might well have done. It was rare to exceed 50mph in those days and
the roads were not great - a typical average with stops was around 30mph

And there would be stops. for fuel and urination.

The issue with historic cars isn't just top speed reached. When you've got 8hp, 2 or 3 speed gears, nightmare brakes, hairy handling, no interior heater and so on journeys become surprisingly slow affairs. I've driven several miles before now without managing to get above 19mph.


NT

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:18:53 +0000, pamela wrote:

I asked my 16 year old relative, who's a good but not brilliant at
maths, to try the carpet laying problem. A WEEK later he is still
trying to solve it. The algebra is entirely within his ability but he
can't solve it.

A suggestion: try putting the problem into its initial algebraic form for
him. If he then zips through it in a flash, you'll know his problem is
not the maths but the process of translating a physical world problem
into the pure math realm. Been there; done that.

On 21/12/2015 10:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

I asked my 16 year old relative, who's a good but not brilliant at
maths, to try the carpet laying problem. A WEEK later he is still
trying to solve it. The algebra is entirely within his ability but he
can't solve it. I don't have to tell you, it's the sort of thing taught
to bright 13 or 14 year olds in the past and a single one of their exam
papers may have had several questions like it.

Doesn't he understand about the notion of having N equations with N
unknowns, and that you can in that situation easily calculate what each
of the unknowns is? That you can use one equation to substitute for an
unknown in all the others?


I would not expect the general case of n equations to be taught until
A-Level. I doubt it ever was. The general case for n equations, if I
recall correctly, requires them to be linear and linearly independent.

This problem was slightly difficult in that it was naturally non linear
only becoming linear after algebraic manipulation.

The maths kids are taught today is much the same as it always was. The
difference is the teaching targets specific formats of exam question
which kids are specifically trained to answer. This is the best way to
get kids to pass exams.

In the past most of us were taught the theory and were expected to be
able to apply it to general cases. I'm not convinced our teachers
couldn't have trained us to pass exams, just as they do today, it is
just that they didn't. Hence the kids who passed the same types of exam
back then tended to be generally cleverer with a better understanding.

The only thing I think that has changed is that teachers have become
better at teaching stupid kids how to pass exams.

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:28:29 +0000, Nick wrote:

The only thing I think that has changed is that teachers have become
better at teaching stupid kids how to pass exams.

Yes, it magically raises exam standards and produces brighter pupils. A
bit like re-labelling a sink school an "Academy" in fact.