> the level of mathematics
> often does not go much beyond cross-multiplying to solve for an > unknown,
There's part of the problem in a nutshell. There's no such thing as
"cross-multiply". It's..what?..a trick? It epitomizes the shortcut
that hides the rigor behind what's really going on--two
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruce Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20 Sep 2001, Jay Warner wrote:
>> true math phobes may not like the idea of putting the equation details &
>> number crunching up to software. the thinking involved in Dennis' list above
>> is much harder.
Even BC (
Dennis Roberts wrote:
> [snip]
>
> of course, talking about descriptive oriented topics within statistics is
> rather easy to do ... but, when it comes to inference ... that is a tougher
> nut to crack since there many many assumptions that have to be made ABOUT
> the data ... about the populatio
At 12:36 PM 9/19/01 -0500, jeff rasmussen wrote:
> >
> One thing I recently did was divide the class into 6 groups of ~5
> each.
>Each group got a baggy with different stuff: one was multicolored
>confetti, another was different types of pasta, another was different
>lenghts of twine tha
