Talk:Basic Math for Adults

= Naming =

Shouldn't this be named as something else? I tend to think of applied math as mathematical models of physical systems and their solutions (numerical or closed-form).

''I agree. From the table of contents, it only seems to cover the sort of math I expect everyone adult to be able to do. Elementary school math ? pre-algebra ? Primary school math ? I think of "applied math" as also including all other kinds of specialized math that can be applied to the real world (trig in carpentry and surveying; boolean algebra in digital electronics and programming; tensor calc in mechanical engineering; probability in medicine; etc). I call the leftover bits of math (outside of applied math) (various kinds of infinity; surreal numbers; etc.) "pure math" or "theoretical math". -- DavidCary 19:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)''

-Well, is this Book meant to make an electronic device that can calculate? So that it has a mathematical 'intelligence'? Or should it clear up some logic in really calculating things for humanbeings? I guess both.

From the outline of the text, it would seem that this is a textbook aimed at developing basic math skills for people who are training for an entry-level job. (In my opinion this is a wholly legitimate use of Wikibooks, and I can envision such a text being used in job training programs for adults.) As such, perhaps the title should be something along those lines; perhaps something like "Applied Basic Math Skills" or something similar.

Also, the outline needs to be rethought, as each skill needs to build on skills previously acquired and mastered. For example, multiplication of fractions builds on the previous knowledge of both multiplication and fractions. As it stands, the outline of the book seems to be a document plagarized from elsewhere on the Web listing merely the competencies expected of a student. --Chuck Hoffmann 12:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with you there (the last person before me). I also think that more text is required to give people indept insight so the problem is covered from a wide angle. Yet, I think that this wikibook shouldn't be underestimated. How many of you use (and found) efficient methods for calculations? Unless you do head-calculating as a hobby, I think most of us need some shaving of the edges to become more competent. And if we add some more text maybe it'll show a more scientific look. By the way, I found a nasy mediawiki error I think. I'm currently working on whole number multiplications. Look a the code yourself, I can assure you that there are no errors or incompleteness in the code itself. Well, edit it (I wiki-dare you ;-)).

I know nobody is actually looking at this, but is there a way to strike using any numbers inside the TeX markup? I'm trying to use this for reducing numbers. WB 08:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This Wikibook gets a [face_plain]. --Mga 04:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. This book discusses elementary level math concepts, but is written at an 11th grade reading level. Something is not quite right there. - w:User:KeithTyler
 * true... easy concepts for grade 11s... hard terminology for elemetary school... - WB 06:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should divide this into several pages? WB 06:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This book indicates that a number ending in 5 should be rounded up, and that a number ending in 0 should be rounded down. I realize that this is the way that it is often taught(inaccurately), and accepted on tests, but it is not completely accurate. In fact, any last digit from >0 to <5 should be rounded down, and any last digit from >5 to <0(.95 is greater than .9) should be rounded down. A number ending in exactly 5 can go either way: 15 is equally far from 10 and 20(-5 and +5 away). I think it would be better if this book was more accurate on rounding. CatastrophicToad 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To skip back to the last topic: I agree that the name needs to be changed. I think that the title in the table of contents should be more descriptive. "Basic Math for Adults", for example, or "Adult Math Basics". I think there should be another textbook for kids, too. Maybe "Math for Kids". The "Primary School Mathematics" text is for parents and teachers, which doesn't help precocious children much, who will be growing up with the Internet. This solves the 'reading level' problem. Just target your diction for kids or adults, depending on the text. (Of course, then you have the problem of deciding on the reading level for the kids or the adults, but at least you can narrow the gap somewhat.) Dave Finch 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

= Multiplying Whole Numbers =

My math aint that good, but is Multiplying Whole Numbers Single number times Single number producing a Single number

Take the first number as 'n1' Take the second number as 'n2' Repeat 'n1' 'n2' times and add the 'n1 's together

n_1 = 3 \times 10^0 n_2 = 2 \times 10^0 (n_1)\times(n_2)= 2(3 \times 10^0) = 6 \times 10^0 = 6 ai'nt the answer 5?

ufoolme


 * I fixed the confusing text and removed the exponentials. No reason to have them if they were never discussed.  For future reference. 10^0 is equivalent to 1.--Retropunk (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

= There is a long history of books on this topic =

This is quite an important subject for a Wikibook, and it will be a good exercise in clear writing to extensively update this book. There are many good public-domain books on mathematics for adult readers (readily found via Google Books) that will help with the revision process here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

= Should we add exercises? =

I'd like to add some exercises like this:

Should I make a top-level section for all exercises? Melikamp (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)