In article <_uG%8.17943$Fq6.2183966 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:ahmsuh$6u2$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> writes:
<> <
<> <"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
<> <news:CqB%8.17733$Fq6.2119128 at news2.west.cox.net...
<> <>
<> <> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
<> <> news:Wfp%8.6912$DN4.1074154 at news20.bellglobal.com...
<> <> >
<> <> > Yes. There are too many assumptions in these questions though. I
<can
<> <see
<> <> > why they're difficult. There was another question about probability
<> <which
<> <> > didn't even seem to specify if the two values involved were
<independent
<> <or
<> <> > not.
<> <> >
<> <> >
<> <>
<> <> You "can see why they're difficult"?
<> <>
<> <> To whom are they difficult? To the 29% of American boys (after
<correcting
<> <> for guesses), it obviously wasn't difficult.
<> <>
<> <> Maybe to the 47.7% of Norwegian boys who got it wrong it was difficult,
<> <but
<> <> you can't claim that the other half found it to be difficult, can you?
<> <> http://christianparty.net/timssh04.htm
<> <>
<> <> It's notable that the international average for girls who got it
<correct,
<> <> after correcting for guesses, was only 1.7%, which is lower than the 3%
<> <> standard error, which suggests that most women in the world probably
<agree
<> <> that with you that "they're difficult". But is that a fact? No.
<> <>
<> <> What's truly awesome about this forum is that you've already been given
<> <the
<> <> answer, and you *still* find it "difficult". If you already know the
<> <answer
<> <> and still find it "difficult", what does it take to get you to
<understand
<> <> it?
<> <
<> <More details. The questions are ambiguous, and I could answer that stats
<> <question given earlier in many ways.
<> <
<> <
<> <> You've done a great job of demonstrating the thesis of this thread,
<which
<> <is
<> <> that there's no way to educate the uneducable. It's like teaching a
<pig
<> <to
<> <> sing. It frustrates the teacher and irritates the pig.
<> <
<> <It's difficult because I made certain assumptions in my answer.
<> <
<> <Additionally, the tension is not ZERO in the string, it's just the
<closest
<> <to the correct answer.
<> <
<>
<> Indeed. To get even geekier, the tension in the string would not be zero
<> because of tidal effects: the top ball experiences a lower acceleration
<> due to the quadrapole nature of the tidal field. Seen from the
<> center of mass of the system, the top mass is actually accelerating
<> away (upwards). But obviously this is way beyond what the designers
<> of the test intended.
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<>
<>
<
<You call this "geekier"? All you did was introduce more error into your
<"thought" process, thus expanding your "negative knowledge" about this
<simple question geometrically, and successfully demonstrating what it is
<about American 12th graders that they scored DEAD LAST in 17 of 34 TIMSS
<subjects.
<
<Was that what you were hoping to do?
<
Oh, not at all. I was hoping to see a demonstration of your knowledge
of physics.
Well?...
-- cary
