Re: [MATHEDCC] Why simplify fractions?

Phil Mahler (mahlerp@admin.middlesex.cc.ma.us)
Tue, 07 Oct 1997 20:31:18 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: CoolMath2@AOL.COM: "Re: [MATHEDCC] Divisibility rules"
Previous message: Phil Mahler: "RE: [MATHEDCC] algo for gcd"
Maybe in reply to: Kathy Burgis: "[MATHEDCC] Why simplify fractions?"

>Knowing that there are an infinite number of equivalent forms is a much
>deeper understanding than thinking there is only one "correct" answer.
>Denying a student credit, when they have used a mathematically
>equivalent, but not "simplified" form, distorts the student's
>understanding of mathematics.
>
>Cheers,
>Kathy Burgis
>Lansing Community College
>Lansing, Michigan

I don't think the list is going to change Kathy's mind on this one!
(simplifying)

I certainly agree about accepting multiple answers. But also like the
idea of canonical form.

Phil Mahler
Middlesex CC
Bedford, MA
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************

Next message: CoolMath2@AOL.COM: "Re: [MATHEDCC] Divisibility rules"
Previous message: Phil Mahler: "RE: [MATHEDCC] algo for gcd"
Maybe in reply to: Kathy Burgis: "[MATHEDCC] Why simplify fractions?"