Is this a "common core" problem?

[Gravekeeper]

And for the umpteenth time, I've said, that alternative method is WRONG.

But. Its. Not. Different, yes. Wrong? No.

Jesus.

Help your kid with his homework, get the questions right, and have the worksheet come home marked with red because you wrote a correct answer, but it wasn't "Common Core" friendly, and then we'll see how you feel.

If *I* wrote the answer my kid didn't do his homework. If *you* don't understand your child's homework, ask his fucking teacher.

Hardly what I said. It's not "I don't like it so it's wrong".

Its exactly what you're saying.

Then why didn't he sign off on the final product?

He did sign off on it. Christ, man. Your only source for this myth is "its mentioned in a Youtube video somewhere". How gullible are you?

Knew that, just didn't think it was relevant.

I'm sure you did. That's why you just listed the authors exactly as they appear on Wikipedia. -.-

I know exactly what I'm arguing, and I've articulated it quite well. Why the anger?

Ah, here we go. Now that you have once again successfully shit disturbed, its time to project onto us.

You seem to be the same way. It was set up to look like it was "state led" when in fact it was not.

That entire shitstorm is just another argument of semantics.

Tell me where the "grouping" thing falls in here.

Common Core
Grade 3 standards section 3.0A: Operations and Algebraic Thinking:

1. Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total
number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each.

-.-

[AmbrosiaWriter]

If you were to solve 5 x 3 with repeated addition, you could read that as "five, three times", so you would write 5 + 5 + 5, which is apparently not what the question actually means.

First Post.

What I'm saying is that calling 5 x 3 "three groups of five" is wrong, no matter how hard people want to make it right.

Again: 5 x 3 is 5 + 5 + 5.

If you want 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3, you need to write 3 x 5. (Ambroisa's Note: Pay attention to this, it is important later.)

Wait. You just said that calling 5 x 3 "three groups of five" is wrong, and then proceed to follow it by saying that 5 x 3 is "5 + 5 +5"... which is three groups... each one containing five. So... 5 x 3 is three groups of five?

I'm arguing the semantics of the question.

This:

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

is five groups of three.

Okay.

This:

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

is three groups of five.

Still following...

The first one is 5 x 3.

The second is 3 x 5.

You flipped.

You said if I wanted 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3, I needed to write it 3 x 5. So it should look like;

XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3

BUT by your example, 3 x 5 is

XXXXX 5+
XXXXX 5+
XXXXX 5

Did you confuse yourself or are your purposefully pancaking? Because pulling all these posts together, you didn't articulate anything all that well... and you obviously do not know what you are arguing.

To TL;DR - you ADAMANTLY DECLARED that 5 x 3 = 5 +5 +5 (5, taken 3 times - or three groups of five), then later laid out an example that shows that 5 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 (5 groups of 3.)

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Common Core
Grade 3 standards section 3.0A: Operations and Algebraic Thinking:

1. Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total
number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each.

-.-

Just in case;

5 x 7 being 5 groups each containing 7;

7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7.

Which means that 5 x 3 should be;

3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3

(But according to someone, if you want 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3, you have to write it as 3 x 5 - I think. I dunno. There was some flip flopping there. Might have to go read the thread again. )

[Aragarthiel]

How do we read? We read left to right, top to bottom.

Exactly. Horizontal first, then vertical.

[Kheldarson]

Can I also note that math is the only area that we're seeing the shit storm about CC? It's rolling out across all disciplines, yet no one has a problem with, say, the emphasis on being able to read and comprehend historical texts that's the focus of CC in that area.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Really, in the end;

If you are brought up as a child being taught that while reading multiplication, you can substitute the numbers into the phrase "_____ groups of _____ objects each" you aren't going to be confused by it.

It's only when parents - who do things their own way and don't bother to learn what the lesson is trying to teach (how many parents actually read their students notes before trying to "assist" with homework?) - try to strong arm in that there becomes a problem.

If you told the parent that this lesson is teaching to substitute the multiplication into the phrase "_____ groups of ______ objects each" , they'd HOPEFULLY be able to understand that is the lesson, and adjust accordingly - or they just be dumb.


5 x 3

____Five____ groups of _____Three____ objects each


(111) + (111) + (111) + (111) + (111)

(3) + (3) + (3) + (3) + (3)

Which means that in the context of the question saying that 5 x 3 is 5 + 5 + 5 is technically incorrect, as the lesson tells you to read it another way.

But rolling back - parents need to learn the lesson before they start trying to say the lesson is wrong.

[Gravekeeper]

How do we read? We read left to right, top to bottom.

Exactly. Horizontal first, then vertical.

In European languages, yes. We're taught to read left to right. But that's just us. If you were say, Korean, Japanese or Chinese for example you may read right to left. Ditto if you were reading say, Hebrew or Arabic characters as well. Left to right is probably the minority all things considered.

So, yeah. Much like you were taught to read 5 x 3 as five 3's, you were also taught to read left to right. Neither one is a definitive fact of the universe. >.>

[mjr]

But. Its. Not. Different, yes. Wrong? No.

Jesus.

It's wrong because it's mislabeled. How many times do I have to say that?

If *I* wrote the answer my kid didn't do his homework. If *you* don't understand your child's homework, ask his fucking teacher.

You know what I mean here. You're deflecting.

He did sign off on it. Christ, man. Your only source for this myth is "its mentioned in a Youtube video somewhere". How gullible are you?

Then why do his own words say otherwise?

Ah, here we go. Now that you have once again successfully shit disturbed, its time to project onto us.

I've done no such thing. I can't help it if you're coming off as angry in your posts.

Common Core
Grade 3 standards section 3.0A: Operations and Algebraic Thinking:

1. Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total
number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each.

-.-

What part of seven, five times, is unclear? That's what 5 x 7 means.

I'm telling you, "3 groups of five" is what 5 x 3 should be.

[Gravekeeper]

Can I also note that math is the only area that we're seeing the shit storm about CC? It's rolling out across all disciplines, yet no one has a problem with, say, the emphasis on being able to read and comprehend historical texts that's the focus of CC in that area.

Funny that, isn't it? Mathematics is America's worst subject and its students lag behind even the global average while continuing to trend downwards for a few years now. Yet the products of said system are arguing with the people who, you know, have devoted their entire careers to the subject that are trying to introduce more international standards. >.>

[mjr]

First Post.



Wait. You just said that calling 5 x 3 "three groups of five" is wrong, and then proceed to follow it by saying that 5 x 3 is "5 + 5 +5"... which is three groups... each one containing five. So... 5 x 3 is three groups of five?

Not what I said.

5 x 3 is three groups of five. Or 5 + 5 + 5.

I can't be more clear than that.

5 groups of 3 is 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Ergo, 5, three times, or 5 x 3, is 5 + 5 + 5. Which is what the kid wrote, and should get credit for.

You flipped.

You said if I wanted 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3, I needed to write it 3 x 5. So it should look like;

XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3+
XXX 3

Nope. See below.

BUT by your example, 3 x 5 is

XXXXX 5+
XXXXX 5+
XXXXX 5

That's correct. It's not a matter of confusion. It's a matter of my computer programming background.

if I set up a 3 x 5 array, I have three rows of five columns.

If I set up a 5 x 3 array, I have five rows of three columns..

Clear?

To TL;DR - you ADAMANTLY DECLARED that 5 x 3 = 5 +5 +5 (5, taken 3 times - or three groups of five), then later laid out an example that shows that 5 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 (5 groups of 3.)

I think I was quite clear.

And it makes logical sense, seeing as that in the United States we read left to right, top to bottom, that 5 x 3 means five rows, three columns.

You read across the first row, then across the second row, then across the third row.

[mjr]

Funny that, isn't it? Mathematics is America's worst subject and its students lag behind even the global average while continuing to trend downwards for a few years now. Yet the products of said system are arguing with the people who, you know, have devoted their entire careers to the subject that are trying to introduce more international standards. >.>

ONE

of the five people involved with CC was a mathematician, as far as I know.

[mjr]

So, yeah. Much like you were taught to read 5 x 3 as five 3's, you were also taught to read left to right. Neither one is a definitive fact of the universe. >.>

I wasn't. I was taught to read 5 x 3 as five, three times.

[mjr]

Can I also note that math is the only area that we're seeing the shit storm about CC? It's rolling out across all disciplines, yet no one has a problem with, say, the emphasis on being able to read and comprehend historical texts that's the focus of CC in that area.

Look it up. It's happening with English and Literature, too. Not at the same level, but it is happening.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

No.

What I'm saying is that calling 5 x 3 "three groups of five" is wrong, no matter how hard people want to make it right.

^ 5 x 3 = three groups of five is WRONG NO MATTER HOW HARD PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IT RIGHT ^

I'm telling you, "3 groups of five" is what 5 x 3 should be.

^ 5 x 3 = THREE GROUPS OF FIVE! ^

...wait...

<_<

[wolfie]

Do you know what THEY do??

12 + 3 = 15
15 + 5 = 20
20 + 10 = 30
30 + 2 = 32

3 + 5 = 8 + 10 = 18 + 2 = 20.

So, how exactly is that better? Or even a good method, at ALL?

It's not better, it's just plain WRONG. Why? The last line, where they add everything up. You NEVER put multiple terms, separated by equals signs, on the same line unless ALL the terms are equal to each other. According to the last line, 3 + 5, 8 + 10, 18 + 2, and 20 are all equal to each other. In reality, only the last 2 terms are equal to each other. For multiple additions, where the result of one becomes a term in the next, each addition needs to be on its own line. If you want to show that they're "chained", adjust the indent on subsequent lines so that the first number is under the sum from the line above.

In fact, here are the [s]eight[s]NINE "standards":

Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Model with mathematics.
Use appropriate tools strategically.
Attend to precision.
Look for and make use of structure.
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
If an authority figure tells you something, that is the ONLY correct answer

Tell me where the "grouping" thing falls in here.

Simple - it falls under the ninth standard.

As for "3+3+3+3+3 is right, 5+5+5 is wrong", here's a "live" question I saw in a quiz on U.S. geography. See if you can answer it:

What is the only state whose name consists of two words, neither of which is "North", "South", or "New"?