10 Jun
2010
10 Jun
'10
11:36 a.m.
On 10 Jun 2010 at 18:48, Tony Duell wrote:
Indeed it is. And I don't feel there's any understanding from just
regurgitating a text book. There is considerably more in explaining how a
bridge circuit actually works.
If the original teacher had asked for a method of measuring capacitance
with only standards of current, length, time, etc being available then
that would be a different question with a diffeent answer. But to simply
ask for a method of measuring capacitance and then claiming a comparison
is not a measurement simply reinforced my view that _every_ maths and
physcis teahcer I ever had was clueless.
However, which is the better student? The person
who goes and reads
several extra books, finds out an accurate method of measuring
something that is actually used in the real world, and who ecplains
how it works (which iw what I did), or the person who regurgitates the
section from the recomended text book describing a method which is
totally useless?
You oversimplify, I think. The object of education (I hope) is to
create a depth of understanding. Anybody can use superposition, mesh currents, Thevenin and Norton equivalents and any
other of the "bag
of tricks" for circuit analysis, but how many can take the same
circuit and solve using Maxwell's equations? Who has the deeper
understanding?
I don't beelive you can analyse most circuits using Maxwell's equations
alone. For one thing, I don't see how to handle resistance without some
other assumptions.
Suppose you asked me to explain how a PDP11/45 CPU worked. I would take
as my 'building blocks' things like AND gates, flip-flops, etc, and
describe, in terms of those the data path, the microcode sequencer, the
fork logic, and so on, And then explain the microprogram.
But if you asked me how a 7400 worked, I would expalin the components in
the schematic in the TTL data book, I would assumea transistor is a
transistor, and explain the circuit based on that
And if youy asked me how a transiotor worked, I would have to do some
serious reading of solid state physics.
But I don't think anyone, at any level, would try to explain the
operation of a PDP11/45 in terms of solid state physics.
Mathematics is usually taught to engineers on a
"cookbook" basis for
the very good reason that there simply is not enough time to cover a
particular topic in depth. A mathematics major in school can spend
When I was at school doing A levels, the subject I really hated was
applied maths' (motion of bodies under various forces, projectile
motion, etc). The reason is that it was so _fake_. There wrre so many
unjustified approximations that it is useless in the real world. It was
just a game to get you to solve equations.
an entire semester covering the same topic that's
taught in two weeks
in an engineering math course. The answers obtained when a problem
is solved will be identical, but the math major hopefully will have a
deeper understanding of the solution and be able to build on it.
Sure, but the mathematician may not see how it applies to the real world.
That is not necessareily a bad thing, we need all types of approach in
the world.
There's something to be said for the necessity of
both approaches.
True
How many people who use a computer actually understand what's going
on internally? Very few, I'm sure. Does that mean that all the
Probably an above-average proportion on this list :-)
training that's required is how to work Excel or
Word and a browser
and that computer science education is a waste of time?
Alas computer education in schools now does seem to be just how to use M$
products. Which is not IMHO education at all. FWIW, but the current UK
standards I am classed as computer-illiterate, amazingly (I do not know
how to use Word, I do know how to use LaTeX, but that doesn't count/ I
don't know how to use Excel, I dod understnad (to a limited extent)
things like covergance rates, rounding errors etc. That doesn't count
either).
-tony