Talk:Algebra

Pre-Algebra
I've searched around and I've found no book on pre-algebra, but I've found 4 book on 'algebra I'. Many of these (in my opinion) definitely belong in pre-algebra, especially a lot of the chapters in this book. Cactusbin (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Logarithms
This book needs a section on logarithms.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/logs.htm might be a good place to learn about them.

I've put up a basic (and I mean basic) page on logarithms. It probably needs a bit of proofing, as I have a hard time trying to explain things to other people. Regre7 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic
I looked at the logic page and even though I've had introductory logic (Euclidean Geometry), I found the information difficult to understand. I wrote another section, entitled "Statements" that I believe contains the same information as the original page, but in an easier-to-understand format (to me). Before I add more information, I would like to know if anyone likes my style of writing over what was on the logic page. Regre7 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

radicals in a calculator
How you do radicals in a calculator will depend on the model you have. A scientific (or business or statistics) calculator (something other than a graphing calculator) will frequently have a "square root" key and, close by, a "x-th root of y" key. The "square root" key will often be the same as the "squared" key (one of these will be a "second" function for the key); the "x-th root of y" key will often be the same as the "y to the power x" key. The specific key-sequence will vary from model to model, but is often something along the lines of "[intended root] [x-th root of y key] [value you're taking the root of]". So, for instance, "the fifth root of thirty-two" would be entered as "[5][x-th root key][3][2][=]", with the calculator returning a value of "2".

Graphing calculators usually have menu option (rather than a key) that does the same thing, and the key-sequence is similar. But check your owners manual for specifics.

Note: "Radical" may be listed in the manual index under "root".

Links from deleted "College Algebra" book
Someone had started a "College Algebra" book but didn't really do anything with it, which is good because the material belongs in this one. Anyway, here are the entire contents of that page, just in case someone wants them:


 * Website with lectures and quizzes.


 * Website with College Algebra introduction and lessons.


 * The C.L.E.P. College algebra test information.

Audience?
The supercategory for this book is "primary school mathematics". After browsing these pages, I can see that the explanations are all over the map in terms of understanding the audience. Should the discussion in a primary school algebra text be significantly different from a college algebra text? I think so, and I think it increases the difficulty of success, since the explanations must be much more than just technically correct - they must also be accessible. Thoughts?
 * This book should not be in the "Primary" category. It definitely covers way too much stuff.  We're talking about Junior college and up. --MathMan64 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When describing the level of the audience it would help if everyone explained their terms a little more. We all of us tend to think first of our own educational experience and terminology but very often this can be either incomprehensible or, worse, misleading to others.  I think I understand what is meant by primary here but I really don't know what junior college means.  I think that most of this book was covered in my junior high school years (1966..1969) but whether my junior high school corresponds with anyone else's I have no idea, even with England there were wide differences in terminology and organization of schools.  For the sake of comparison here are the types of educational establishments that I attended (ages in brackets): infants school (5..6), primary school (7..10), junior high school (11..13, that is first to third form), senior high school (14..18, fourth form to upper sixth), university (19..21, bachelor's degree).  My children however are attending schools described like this: grunnskole (6..12), ungdom skole (13..15), videregående skole (16..18) and might go on to any of a wide variety of further education establishments.  Grunnskole can be translated roughly as primary but note that the age range is not the same as the English one, ungdom (literally youth) as junior high school (but note that most UK schools are not divided into junior and senior high schools) and videregående (literally further going) as senior high school.  Perhaps WikiBooks needs a glossary that describes the target audiences.  --kwhitefoot 11:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The US system looks like this: preschool (optional, usually 2 days a week part day)  3-4, Kindergarden:age 5 (sometimes all day, sometimes not), grade school (grades 1-8): 6-14 (sometimes 12-14 is called junior high), high school 14-18 (grades 9-12).  After that is college/university.  A junior college is a 2 year college that does not give out bachellor degrees (sometimes they give out associates).  They tend to offer a lot of adult education courses and tend to be very, very cheap.  People who go there usually are there to save money and finish off at a 4 year college.


 * Side note: Most of this book looks like its on a late grade school/high school level.  The only real exception is the linear algebra portion.  Perhaps it ought to be spun off to its own book?--Gabe Sechan 17:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I added my comments to Staff_lounge because I think that the issue of terminology is important for all books not just this one. By the way, the description I gave of the UK system was of the system as it was when I attended it in the sixties and early seventies not as it is now. And before anyone berates me for that let me point out that very few people outside of education know the current system but many can remember the terminology of the one they attended so agreed and documented terminology is even more essential for the avoidance of confusion than one might think. --kwhitefoot 09:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Things this wikibook needs:

 * Multiplication of radicals. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/radicals.htm would be a good place to learn about them.

I added a section for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing radicals. Regre7 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How to use a calculator for the radicals in this wikibook. I didn't even know about those types of radicals I only know about the plain square root.


 * Perhaps we need a separate "How To" book on the fancier operations on fancier calculators, such as the one I'm working on: TI-Lists. We could put appropriate links to those from this Algebra book. --MathMan64 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

--Matt.minuti 18:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It should ideally be written for the youngest audience possible, with links to proofs of the fundamental or important concepts. My reasoning behind this is that maybe motivated students in middle school or homeschooled children can read and learn the concepts, while college-level students needing to study algebra can see the level of detail necessary for their study. Also, sometimes a proof can give insight about how or why a particular math concept works.

PDF Version
Just to let everyone know, I'm currently compiling the Algebra book into a printable pdf format. I'm not sure why you might need to know, but there we are. Odd bloke 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change
I'd like to change the pages in thi book so that they all start with "Algebra/" rather than "Algebra:". This would make this book consistent with the wikibook naming policy. I trust such a change would be uncontroversial, but note it here in advance to allow a short time for comments, Jguk 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding lecture notes
I'm linking to some lecture notes for a class that I taught at University of Phoenix which I'm making available for inclusion into the text.

See Talk:Algebra/ToInclude Roadrunner 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing
Some of these sections are beautiful, but some of this is just so oddly order, and they lack rational functions. There doesn't seem to be a logical order, so as soon as I recover from my surgery I plan to re-order and re-do a few/most of the articles, if that is fine with everyone. --Jaden Mathos 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Algebra I - A Verbose Approach was an attempt to create a book with a more coherent organization. We should not have multiple books teaching the same subject the same way, so I recommend that you merge that book with the Algebra I content in this book into one Elementary Algebra book, then move the leftover content to an Intermediate Algebra book. --hagindaz 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I'm going to merge it together into this one book as "Algebra" but split it up into Elementary and Intermediate. Then Advanced if we have any leftover topics.--Jaden Mathos 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Elementary", "Intermediate", and "Advanced" sections are too arbitary. You are better off arranging things in terms of individual subjects: "Elementary Algebra", "Linear Algebra", "Abstract Algebra", "Discrete Algebra", etc. For that matter, I would like to separate out these topics into separate books, instead of all the cross-linked half-books that we have now. Pages about sets, groups, rings, etc should be in "Abstract Algebra", pages about matrices, determinents, eigenvalues should be in "Linear Algebra", etc. There is no reason why pages should be in such a bad order, and why pages from one subject should be located in a different book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Whiteknight on most of the restructuring issues. It's a good idea for anything beyond a highschool level to be broken down by subject. A number of these subjects can be treated independently of each other, though they require a lot of internal cohesion. However, I'd like to think that the elementary algebra and highschool algebra follow a natural linear progression and would be well suited to fit in the same book. However, there is a question of reading level; early work on arithmetic should be done in a basic english tone while I think it's too tedious to keep such a tone for teaching highschool math. For that reason, perhaps there should be a difference between elementary algebra and intermediate algebra. I think the basic english introduction to algebra --- which is a part of the one laptop for every child program --- should be sufficient for the elementary algebra. I think the rest should be reworked into a single algebra book as Whiteknight proposes: that means role intermediate algebra and the verbose algebra into one algebra book. Also, I'm of the impression that all wikibooks should be verbose to distinguish them from wikipedia articles; they should be linear, provide motivation and assume background. Thus, any articles that don't meet this standard should be assumed broken, as opposed to being the model (this is my argument against the verbose book as a separate book). I'm going to post this comment and more on WhiteKnight's talk page. These are just my opinions --- I hope he'll take the lead. Ahhoefel 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ahhoefel and Whiteknight. They both are correct. If you split them into Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced sections, those sections are too vague. As for Whiteknight's idea about the restructing issues, I agree too. They do not need to see what's inside to give them an idea that they should see. Instead, if you have a subsection saying "Abstract Algebra", the people will know what they are seeing, and so click on that link.

Authors
The authors of Algebra include:


 * Daniel Ehrenberg
 * many anonymous Wikibook contributers.
 * some content from Wikipedia was used.
 * H Padleckas has written Algebra/Function Graphing and made contributions to other chapters. Plans to work on other chapters in Algebra about graphics.
 * Jaden Mathos

Mass Reorganization
I'm starting my project to completely reorganize this book. I had tried to start this project last semester when I had no time to do it, and now I have the time. Some other authors have expressed some support for this movement, so anybody who wants to help is very welcome to do so. i have created a new template Algebra Page to be used at the top of every page in this book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

algebra I vs algebra II
I think there should be two TOCs, one for algebra I and another for algebra II, since that's the way it's usually taught. Any comments? Hoogli 15:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree

Any recent activity??
I was wondering if anyone is still working on making progress on this book consistently? I would also like to pose a question to those that are concerned with it currently and that is how do you feel about some merges that were suggested probably over a year ago? I like to simplify and condense things and I was wondering if anyone would have a problem with me trying to do that with any of the mathematics books. For example all the different books on Algebra that cover the same topics. It doesn't make sense to me to have multiple somewhat started books on topics instead of one complete book that expands on every topic or will eventually with our work and cooperation. I'd appreciate any comments or feedback you may have. I've read over this discussion and I couldn't really follow any concensus. Please correct me if I overlooked something or inform me! Thanks! Jfrederick (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question, as it is not 4 years later and there seems to be little progress. As far as merging and splitting, the facts are that Algebra is an abstract subject in its own right, so abstracting even more, particularly what would be called "Beginners" Algebra is not necessarily a good idea. What topics should go where is meaningless if you do not have the essential referants to be able to cope with the more advanced topics and techniques. --Henry Tallboys (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)