Baker's theorem: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
en>Jsondow
→Statement: Inserted a missing + and corrected \ldots to \cdots
 
en>Bender2k14
m →History: improved punctuation
Line 1: Line 1:
The Chicago Cutlery knife set involves seventeen knives and a block with a sharpener built into it. The finest cookware knives in the set are forged from a single piece of stainless steel and sharp sufficient to peel a tomato with out the need to grip it too tight causing smashing. The Zwilling J. A. Henckels Comprehensive Book of Knife Skills: The Crucial Guide to Use, Tactics and Care. This spiral bound book has concise step by step directions on several knife techniques and security with terrific is a must have for each and every household chef. Mastering Knife Capabilities: The Crucial Guide to the Most Crucial Tools in Your Kitchen (with DVD). This set would be treated a gourmet knife set to cooking experts.<br><br>Make sure it will match comfortably in your counter space and select a set that matches your kitchen decor. The Contemporary series of knives is a fantastic top quality set that comes in at just below 200 dollars for a fantastic-sized set of 17 pieces.  This set consists of kitchen shears, a bamboo block and a sharpening stone. The Katana series is considerably far more high-priced, with a 14-piece Calphalon knife block set operating close to $350.<br><br>While knives such as the bread knife and steak knife are comparatively fundamental to ascertain, other knives such as an power knife and paring knife can be a little harder. The Chef's knife is offered in virtually each a single of the pretty best knife sets and can possibly be produced use of for any function in the cooking area. However, a chef's knife is usually created use of for cutting, slicing, and deboning smaller sized cuts of meat.<br><br>I truly do not imply to [http://Wordpress.org/search/sound+ungrateful sound ungrateful] simply because I know he just did not comprehend how vital a great sharp knife was to me. Just after explaining, he was fine with my returning the set and acquiring the Wusthof Knife. I applied a another gift certificate and cash to purchase my paring knife a Quick time later. It so occurred that a lady helped me that had the knife that I purchased. I waited actually years to ultimately get a good knife.  A watermelon knife sounds interesting.<br><br>Not to mention, it tends to make a wonderful groom's knife — guy's will also take pleasure in employing this knife and favor it for its versatility, accuracy and rugged excellent appears.  If you have any sort of questions pertaining to where and the best ways to use [http://www.thebestkitchenknivesreviews.com/ Kitchen Knife Sharpening Tools Review], you can contact us at our own webpage. This Ultimate Utility Knife attributes a special low-frequency serration with a broad belly, enabling you to comfortably and gently rock the knife for full manage and precision. There are several unique knife companies from all over the planet, but there are a handful of that stand out.<br><br>It really is definitely a modest grievance on an otherwise exceptional cutting knife. Because there is a decreased quantity of steel in the tang, a Grand Prix II chef's cutting knife supplies slightly significantly less heft when compared with its Classic counterpart, however a lot additional than the toned Le Cordon Bleu. Any one, even these with no knife sharpening expertise, can swiftly and quickly enhance a blade's condition.<br><br>Generally, the higher higher good quality material implies the upper-priced the set will be. Nonetheless, you will discover the knives composed of supplies like stainless steel, carbon steel, high carbon stainless, and titanium or laminated. As you can see, you have to have to give a variety of thought to the kind of kitchen cutlery set you get.  It looks cool, but anything it can do, a chef's knife can do just as effortlessly.<br><br>Even as the International straight edge gets dull it is still a lot thinner, and, thus, significantly sharper than the knife with the beveled edge. Years ago, cooks only had a couple of knife designs from which they could pick out. Nonetheless, for most cooking, a good, large knife and a excellent, compact knife are all one particular seriously wants. With a superior sharp chef's knife and a smaller paring knife, one should be ready to conquer the planet.
{{Orphan|date=September 2010}}
 
'''Structured derivations (SD)'''<ref>Ralph-Johan Back. Structured derivations: a unified proof style for teaching mathematics. Formal aspects of computing, vol. 22, n. 5, 2010, pp. 629&ndash;661.</ref> is a logic-based format for presenting mathematical solutions and proofs created by Prof.  [[Ralph-Johan Back]] and Joakim von Wright at [[Åbo Akademi University]], [[Turku]], [[Finland]]. The format was originally introduced as a way for presenting proofs in programming logic, but was later adapted to provide a practical approach to presenting proofs and derivations in mathematics education including exact formalisms. A structured derivation has a precise mathematical interpretation, and the syntax and the layout are precisely defined. The standardized syntax renders the format suitable for presenting and manipulating mathematics digitally.
 
==Structured derivations==
SD is a further development of the calculational proof format introduced by [[Edsger W. Dijkstra]] and others in the early 1990s. In essence, three main extensions have been made. First, a mechanism for decomposing proofs through the use of subderivations has been added. The calculational approach is limited to writing proof fragments, and longer derivations are commonly decomposed into several separate subproofs. Using SD with subderivations, on the other hand, the presentation of a complete proof or solution is kept together, as subproofs can be presented exactly where they are needed. In addition, SD makes it possible to handle assumptions and observations in proofs. As such, the format can be seen as combining the benefits of the calculational style with the decomposition facilities of natural deduction.
 
==Examples==
The following three examples will be used to illustrate the most central features of structured derivations.
 
===A simple equation===
Solving a simple equation illustrates the basic structure of a structured derivation. The start of the solution is indicated by a bullet (<math>\bullet</math>)  followed by the task we are to solve (in this case the equation <math>5x-6=10x+2</math>).
{|style="border:1px dashed #ddd;" cellspacing="20"
|-
| <math>\bullet</math>  ||<math>3x+6=16-x</math>
|-
| <math>\Leftrightarrow</math> ||{ Subtract 6 from both sides }
|-
|  || <math>3x=10-x-6</math>
|-
|  <math>\Leftrightarrow</math> ||{ Add x to both sides }
|-
|  ||<math>3x+x=10-6</math>
|-
|  <math>\Leftrightarrow</math> ||{ Add similar terms }
|-
| || <math>4x=4</math>
|-
|  <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>  ||{ Divide both sides with 4 }
|-
| || <math>x=1</math>
|-
| <math>\square</math>||
|}
 
Each step in the solution consists of two terms, a relation and a justification that explains why the relationship between the two terms hold. The justifications are given equal amount of space as the mathematical terms in order to indicate the importance of explanations in mathematics.
 
===Assumptions and observations===
Specifications of mathematical problems commonly contain information that can be used in the solution. When writing a proof or a solution as a structured derivation, all known information is listed in the beginning as ''assumptions''. These assumptions can be used to create new information that will be useful for solving the problem. This information can be added as ''observations'' that build on the assumptions. The following example uses two assumptions ((a)&ndash;(b)) and two observations ([1]&ndash;[2]). The introductory part of the solution (the task, assumptions and observations) is separated from the proof part by the <math>\Vdash</math>-symbol, denoting logical provability.
 
''Sea water, where the mass-volume percentage of salt is 4.0%, is vaporized in a pool until its mass has decreased by 28%. What is the concentration of salt after the vaporization?''
 
{|style="border:1px dashed #ddd;" cellspacing="20"
|-
| <math>\bullet</math> || || Calculate the concentration of salt ''s'' after the vaporization when
|-
| (a) || || the original salt concentration was 4.0%
|-
| (b) || || the mass of seawater left after the vaporization is 28% less than the original mass ''m''.
|-
| [1] || || {The amount of salt after the vaporization is the same as originally (a), since only water is vaporized }
|-
| || || The amount of salt is <math>0.04m</math>
|-
| [2] || || {According to (b) the remaining water mass is 72% (100%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;28%) of the original mass }
|-
| || || The remaining water mass is <math>0.72m</math>
|-
| <math>\Vdash</math> || || s
|-
| <math>=</math> || || { The salt concentration is the salt mass divided by the total mass }
|-
|  || || <math>\dfrac {0.04m}{0.72m}</math>
|-
| <math>=</math> || || { Simplify }
|-
| || || <math>\dfrac{1}{18}</math>
|-
| <math>=</math> || || { Calculate and convert to percentage }
|-
|<math>\approx</math> || || <math> 5.6%</math>
|-
| <math>\square</math>||||
|}
 
===Subderivations===
When solving a mathematical problem or constructing a proof, there is often a need to solve smaller problems in order to solve the entire problem. These subsolutions or subproofs are commonly written as fragments on the paper. SD introduces a mechanism for handling this type of subsolutions in a way that keeps these together with the remaining solution in one single chain. These ''subderivations'' are indented and the return to the original level is indicated with an ellipsis (<math>\ldots</math>). The following example is the same as the one above; here, however, the information given as observations above is given in subderivations instead.
 
{|style="border:1px dashed #ddd;" cellspacing="20"
|-
| <math>\bullet</math> || Calculate the concentration of salt ''s'' after the vaporization when
|-
| (a) || the original salt concentration was 4.0%
|-
| (b) || the mass of seawater left after the vaporization is 28% less than the original mass ''m''.
|-
| <math>\Vdash</math> || s
|-
| <math>=</math> || { The salt concentration is the salt mass divided by the total mass }
|-
| || <math>\dfrac{\text{salt mass}}{\text{total mass}}</math> ||
|-
| <math>=</math> || { Calculate salt mass }
|-
| || <math>\bullet</math>    &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;        Salt mass
|-
| || <math>=</math> &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; { The amount of salt after the vaporization is the same as originally (a), since only water is vaporized }
|-
| ||   &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<math>0.04m</math>
|-
|<math>\ldots</math> ||  <math>\dfrac{0.04m}{\text{total mass}}</math>
|-
| <math>=</math> || { Calculate total mass }
|-
| || <math>\bullet</math>    &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;        Total mass
|-
| || <math>=</math> &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; { According to (b) the remaining water mass is 28% less than the original mass  }
|-
| ||   &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<math>(100-28%)\cdot m</math>
|-
| || <math>=</math> &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; { Simplify, 72%&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.72 }
|-
| ||   &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<math>0.72m</math>
|-
|<math>\ldots</math> ||  <math>\dfrac{0.04m}{0.72m}</math>
|-
| <math>=</math> || { Simplify }
|-
| ||  <math>\dfrac{1}{18}</math>
|-
| <math>\approx</math>|| { Calculate and convert to percentage }
|-
|  || <math> 5.6%</math>
|-
| <math>\square</math>||
|}
 
==Teaching experience==
Starting in 2001, SD has been empirically evaluated at different education levels with students aged 15–24. The most extensive study so far was a three-year long quasi experiment conducted at a Finnish high school, where the test  group was taught the compulsory mathematics courses using SD and the control group studied according to the traditional approach.<ref>Mia Peltomäki and Ralph-Johan Back. An Empirical Evaluation of Structured Derivations in High School Mathematics. In ICMI 19: 19th ICMI Study Conference on Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, 2009.</ref> The results indicate that the students in the test group performed better in all courses and the matriculation examination, even when potentially influencing factors have been taken into account. Other studies have indicated that students learn to justify their solutions during one single course <ref>Ralph-Johan Back, Linda Mannila, and Solveig Wallin. Student justifications in high-school mathematics. In CERME 6: Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France, 2009.</ref><ref>Linda Mannila and Solveig Wallin. Promoting students’ justification skills using structured derivations. In ICMI 19: 19th ICMI Study Conference on Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, Taiwan, May 2009.</ref> and that students appreciate the new approach to writing mathematics.<ref>Ralph-Johan Back, Linda Mannila, and Solveig Wallin. "It takes me longer, but I understand better" &ndash; Student feedback on structured derivations", International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Volume 41, Issue 5 January 2010 , pages 575&ndash;593.</ref>
 
==References==
<!--- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to create references using <ref></ref> tags which will then appear here automatically -->
{{Reflist}}
 
==External links==
* http://www.imped.fi
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Structured Derivations}}
[[Category:Mathematics education]]

Revision as of 03:47, 2 December 2013

Template:Orphan

Structured derivations (SD)[1] is a logic-based format for presenting mathematical solutions and proofs created by Prof. Ralph-Johan Back and Joakim von Wright at Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. The format was originally introduced as a way for presenting proofs in programming logic, but was later adapted to provide a practical approach to presenting proofs and derivations in mathematics education including exact formalisms. A structured derivation has a precise mathematical interpretation, and the syntax and the layout are precisely defined. The standardized syntax renders the format suitable for presenting and manipulating mathematics digitally.

Structured derivations

SD is a further development of the calculational proof format introduced by Edsger W. Dijkstra and others in the early 1990s. In essence, three main extensions have been made. First, a mechanism for decomposing proofs through the use of subderivations has been added. The calculational approach is limited to writing proof fragments, and longer derivations are commonly decomposed into several separate subproofs. Using SD with subderivations, on the other hand, the presentation of a complete proof or solution is kept together, as subproofs can be presented exactly where they are needed. In addition, SD makes it possible to handle assumptions and observations in proofs. As such, the format can be seen as combining the benefits of the calculational style with the decomposition facilities of natural deduction.

Examples

The following three examples will be used to illustrate the most central features of structured derivations.

A simple equation

Solving a simple equation illustrates the basic structure of a structured derivation. The start of the solution is indicated by a bullet (∙) followed by the task we are to solve (in this case the equation 5x−6=10x+2).

∙ 3x+6=16−x
⇔ { Subtract 6 from both sides }
3x=10−x−6
⇔ { Add x to both sides }
3x+x=10−6
⇔ { Add similar terms }
4x=4
⇔ { Divide both sides with 4 }
x=1
◻

Each step in the solution consists of two terms, a relation and a justification that explains why the relationship between the two terms hold. The justifications are given equal amount of space as the mathematical terms in order to indicate the importance of explanations in mathematics.

Assumptions and observations

Specifications of mathematical problems commonly contain information that can be used in the solution. When writing a proof or a solution as a structured derivation, all known information is listed in the beginning as assumptions. These assumptions can be used to create new information that will be useful for solving the problem. This information can be added as observations that build on the assumptions. The following example uses two assumptions ((a)–(b)) and two observations ([1]–[2]). The introductory part of the solution (the task, assumptions and observations) is separated from the proof part by the ⊩-symbol, denoting logical provability.

Sea water, where the mass-volume percentage of salt is 4.0%, is vaporized in a pool until its mass has decreased by 28%. What is the concentration of salt after the vaporization?

∙ Calculate the concentration of salt s after the vaporization when
(a) the original salt concentration was 4.0%
(b) the mass of seawater left after the vaporization is 28% less than the original mass m.
[1] {The amount of salt after the vaporization is the same as originally (a), since only water is vaporized }
  The amount of salt is 0.04m
[2] {According to (b) the remaining water mass is 72% (100% − 28%) of the original mass }
     The remaining water mass is 0.72m
⊩ s
= { The salt concentration is the salt mass divided by the total mass }
0.04m0.72m
= { Simplify }
118
= { Calculate and convert to percentage }
≈ 5.6%
◻

Subderivations

When solving a mathematical problem or constructing a proof, there is often a need to solve smaller problems in order to solve the entire problem. These subsolutions or subproofs are commonly written as fragments on the paper. SD introduces a mechanism for handling this type of subsolutions in a way that keeps these together with the remaining solution in one single chain. These subderivations are indented and the return to the original level is indicated with an ellipsis (…). The following example is the same as the one above; here, however, the information given as observations above is given in subderivations instead.

∙ Calculate the concentration of salt s after the vaporization when
(a) the original salt concentration was 4.0%
(b) the mass of seawater left after the vaporization is 28% less than the original mass m.
⊩ s
= { The salt concentration is the salt mass divided by the total mass }
salt masstotal mass
= { Calculate salt mass }
 ∙          Salt mass
  =          { The amount of salt after the vaporization is the same as originally (a), since only water is vaporized }
               0.04m
…    0.04mtotal mass
= { Calculate total mass }
 ∙          Total mass
  =          { According to (b) the remaining water mass is 28% less than the original mass }
               (100−28%)⋅m
  =          { Simplify, 72% = 0.72 }
               0.72m
…    0.04m0.72m
= { Simplify }
118
≈ { Calculate and convert to percentage }
5.6%
◻

Teaching experience

Starting in 2001, SD has been empirically evaluated at different education levels with students aged 15–24. The most extensive study so far was a three-year long quasi experiment conducted at a Finnish high school, where the test group was taught the compulsory mathematics courses using SD and the control group studied according to the traditional approach.[2] The results indicate that the students in the test group performed better in all courses and the matriculation examination, even when potentially influencing factors have been taken into account. Other studies have indicated that students learn to justify their solutions during one single course [3][4] and that students appreciate the new approach to writing mathematics.[5]

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

External links

  1. ↑ Ralph-Johan Back. Structured derivations: a unified proof style for teaching mathematics. Formal aspects of computing, vol. 22, n. 5, 2010, pp. 629–661.
  2. ↑ Mia Peltomäki and Ralph-Johan Back. An Empirical Evaluation of Structured Derivations in High School Mathematics. In ICMI 19: 19th ICMI Study Conference on Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, 2009.
  3. ↑ Ralph-Johan Back, Linda Mannila, and Solveig Wallin. Student justifications in high-school mathematics. In CERME 6: Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France, 2009.
  4. ↑ Linda Mannila and Solveig Wallin. Promoting students’ justification skills using structured derivations. In ICMI 19: 19th ICMI Study Conference on Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, Taiwan, May 2009.
  5. ↑ Ralph-Johan Back, Linda Mannila, and Solveig Wallin. "It takes me longer, but I understand better" – Student feedback on structured derivations", International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Volume 41, Issue 5 January 2010 , pages 575–593.
Retrieved from "https://en.formulasearchengine.com/index.php?title=Baker%27s_theorem&oldid=25945"