Skip to main content

A thought on math word problems: Guess and test


                                            



 Throughout school, I took what I have come to think of as a guess-and-test approach to math word problems. This was never the 'official' approach, so I eventually had to learn to dress my answers up to seem more official.  But they were derived from guess-and-test.

Simple example.  There are two school buses, A and B.  A has 18 more seats in it than B does.  Together, they have 96 seats.  Find the number of seats in each. 

Guess-and-test.  Hmmm. Sixty is a nice round number lower than 96.  Let us see if the big bus could have 60 seats. That would mean the small bus has 18 fewer seats than that. Hmmmm. 

60 + 42 = 102 NOT 96.

Okay, each bus has to have fewer seats than that.  Let us guess that the big one has 55. Does that work?

55 + 37 = 92 NOT  96.

Oops.  But we do now know that the right answer is higher than 55 yet lower than 60. 

57 + 39 = 96. Aha! 96. This means 57 and 39 is the right answer.  You'll be surprised how often this works better than the official proceeding. 

So you won't think me ignorant. The official way is something like this:

B + 18 = A.

A + B = 96.   (These two steps simply formalize the problem).

(B + 18)  + B = 96

2B + 18 = 96

[96 - 18 = 78, so]

2B = 78

B = 39.

39 + 18 = 57.

A = 57.

But in no sense is the official approach a better one. 

Many years later than my use of that approach to word problems: I studied a little calculus (as part of an adult education course that was supposed to help me at work).  I was delighted to discover that something much like my old guess-and-test approach has an official name in calculus. It is called the Newton-Raphson method for finding the root of a real valued function. 

I won't try to explain what the root of a real valued function is.  I will only say that one quite official way of looking for it (named for THE Newton, as well as another fellow with the posthumous bragging rights of having his name forever linked with that of THE Newton) -- one quite official way of looking for the root of a real valued function is to start by guessing, run through the results of that guess, and -- if the guess is wrong -- allowing that fact to determine your next guess. 

The above illustration is of a bond once signed by Joseph Raphson.  I use it instead of a portrait of him because there don't seem to be any portraits of him. God bless him.  His existence, and the above bond, prove that Newton-Raphson can work for everyone, not just world-historical geniuses. 


Comments

  1. Christopher, I would have started as you did, by guessing 60, but then, after seeing that 60 + 42 = 102 NOT 96, I'd have said, "96 is 6 less than 102," so subtract 3 from each, and I'd have 57 + 39. My second step was not a guess, but neither was it algebra, which you call "official" approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the great things about guess-and-test is that it doesn't require purism.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak