Texan who called Obama a gay prostitute might soon control textbooks

40 replies, posted

While we're talking about US education and textbooks, probably worth a watch:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k[/url]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49869306][url=http://i.imgur.com/tDSX24E.jpg][B]Here[/B][/url] is an example of a Texan texbook presenting objectively factually wrong information.[/QUOTE]
I can almost hear Cantor spinning in his grave.

Honestly, textbooks are barely a big deal in Texas middle/high schools from my experience. Any class above the base level (regular) doesn't even use them, and curriculum is pretty concetric around required learning points.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49869180]This is why the US can't have nice schools, because Texas practically controls the textbook market, and Texas is run mostly by right wing nut jobs
I'm not even sure what the fuck a conservative value textbook even looks like, like do you have Regan explaining chemistry?[/QUOTE]
There are textbooks that portray Moses as an actual historical person and an inspiration for the US constitution.

[B]VERY[/B] long video about Texas history textbooks including but not limited to:
Famous black people being written out
Hip hop being replaced with country and western music
The south willingly giving up their indentured servants (slaves)
The US being founded on the 10 commandments
Moses was a real person
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RylrkgvtcZY[/media]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49869306][url=http://i.imgur.com/tDSX24E.jpg][B]Here[/B][/url] is an example of a Texan texbook presenting objectively factually wrong information.[/QUOTE]
Can you elaborate? Im really embarassed for not getting it, but I mean, Is there a unique integer for each rational number?
I guess it is because they are both infinite, right? However, I still cant seem to have it make sense in my head, I cant picture both sets without thinking about how rationals should be bigger since they contain integers.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49869638]Look up Pearson.
They essentially [B]own[/B] the education market in the US, and they're not printing accurate text books
and people want them more free to influence the curriculum than they already are by turning education into a states affair.[/QUOTE]
I'm kinda curious now, whats wrong with pearson? Almost all of my school books are from pearson and I've been pretty satisfied with them, not only are they way no-nonsense then the polish books that I've been putting up with through my entire education, but they even come with the e-book versions so I don't even need to carry them home

[QUOTE=WhyNott;49871943]I'm kinda curious now, whats wrong with pearson? Almost all of my school books are from pearson and I've been pretty satisfied with them, not only are they way no-nonsense then the polish books that I've been putting up with through my entire education, but they even come with the e-book versions so I don't even need to carry them home[/QUOTE]
They are writing the textbooks, making the tests for them, writing up lecture plans, lobbying for more tests, and score just about every major academic exam out there, in effect they control everything about the curriculum

[QUOTE=J!NX;49871202]relevant
[video=youtube;zoGl8-Wc-L0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoGl8-Wc-L0[/video][/QUOTE]
Like not to be rude but you just embedded a video I linked to... :goodjob:
but its ok bby I still love you

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49871916]Can you elaborate? Im really embarassed for not getting it, but I mean, Is there a unique integer for each rational number?
I guess it is because they are both infinite, right? However, I still cant seem to have it make sense in my head, I cant picture both sets without thinking about how rationals should be bigger since they contain integers.[/QUOTE]
This is non-obvious and you shouldn't be embarrassed about not getting it, especially because it was a huge debate in the math world a bit over 100 years ago, but anyone who is qualified to write a math textbook should have learned it in undergrad. But yes, there is a unique integer for each rational number, and it's not just because they are both infinite sets.
[url=http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/EnumeratingTheRationalNumbers/][B]Here[/B][/url] is a Wolfram thingy to visualize enumerating the rationals (actually the positive rationals, but it's not really any harder to do all of them). If you don't want to install their plugin, just look at the snapshots. Hopefully you can visualize the fact that any rational number will eventually be reached after finitely many steps by this construction. If you imagine that grid extending infinitely off to the right and down, there are infinitely many numbers, but for any one you pick, there are only finitely many "diagonal rows" each containing finitely many number before it.
On the other hand, the real numbers cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers in this way. Google Cantor's diagonal argument if you want to see why this is.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49873013]This is non-obvious and you shouldn't be embarrassed about not getting it, especially because it was a huge debate in the math world a bit over 100 years ago, but anyone who is qualified to write a math textbook should have learned it in undergrad. But yes, there is a unique integer for each rational number, and it's not just because they are both infinite sets.
[url=http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/EnumeratingTheRationalNumbers/][B]Here[/B][/url] is a Wolfram thingy to visualize enumerating the rationals (actually the positive rationals, but it's not really any harder to do all of them). If you don't want to install their plugin, just look at the snapshots. Hopefully you can visualize the fact that any rational number will eventually be reached after finitely many steps by this construction. If you imagine that grid extending infinitely off to the right and down, there are infinitely many numbers, but for any one you pick, there are only finitely many "diagonal rows" each containing finitely many number before it.
On the other hand, the real numbers cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers in this way. Google Cantor's diagonal argument if you want to see why this is.[/QUOTE]
"two sets have the same cardinality if and only if there exists a bijective function between them."
I think that the way that takes you to any rational number in finite steps is the bijective function between rational numbers and integers, but I cant think of any bijective function to irrational numbers.
I believe that is at least part of the reason for real numbers' lack of correspondence, at least for the amount Ive read so far.
Thanks JohnyMo1!

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.