[Forum changed to chat, since this is no longer about programming] You had claimed that this issue -- notation -- is not a subject of discussion. I have documented cases where it is clearly being discussed. Your "few lines on each title" seems to have lost track of that aspect.
In any event, I have pointed you at examples where it was a part of the discussion. That the discussions are not limited to this topic does not mean that the topic is not being discussed. (I wish that that point would have been obvious to you.) -- Raul On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 December 2012 17:21, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> ............ >> Hopefully my few minutes of effort here have done something to rectify >> this gap in this part of your knowledge? > > You would have spent your time more fruitfully – and saved mine – > had you actually read what you are posting, rather than concentrating > solely on exercising in sarcasm. > > A few lines on each title. > > 1. Cannot read full text (behind paywall). > The freely available abstract does not say what kind of 'a small > experiment' is being commented, but even the title says that the > notation they are referring to is that of formal specifications. > Not much to do with school algebra, to say the least. Therefore, > irrelevant. > > 2. Cannot read full text (behind paywall). > Probably relevant, but cannot tell without reading it. Too much is > unknown, such as e.g. what equations and other 'representations' are > being considered, what and how is being tested, etc. It is not clear > at all whether problems of notation as such are being discussed. > > 3. Discusses students' poor abilities for modelling but not notation. > > 4. Again, modelling abilities are the primary object of investigation. > Specifically, modelling in the domain of physics is being discussed. > > I am particularly amused that you emphasize the sentence > "Some students have trouble figuring out what are variables and what > are constants in this expression." > as if it were some strong evidence of notational inadequacy. > In fact, the students simply don't know the meanings of the letters > in formulas – which letter what physical value represents – which has > nothing to do with notation. > > 5. Discussed are modelling-related difficulties, making connection > between formal and informal, and poor instruction. Again, no relation > to notation as such. > > 6. An interesting reading overall, only a small section in which > is related to notation. However, it turns out that even there some > errors are actually because of sloppiness and not because of flaws in > the notation itself. > > 7. Cannot read full text (behind paywall). > From the title and from what can be read on the first page it can > be concluded that – once more – students' modelling abilities are > studied rather than notation. > > 8. Not behind paywall, but requires registration. Didn't bother. > The title, the author's language and the first page do not seem > like having anything to do with discussing notation. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
