Re: [Phys-l] Should equation solving be done with calculators and robots or by hand?

[Karim Diff <karim.diff@sfcc.edu>]

I would vote yes also. I don't know how widespread this is, but at the 
community college where I teach I have noticed a
significant drop in interest in programming among my calc-based physics 
students. The logic involved in programming would certainly
be beneficial. I have been discussing the possibility of coupling a 
physics class with a programming class sometime next year. The idea 
would be that
problems from the physics class would serve as programming projects. 
From the physics point of view, in addition to the training on logic, 
it would allow students to explore
in greater details topics we have to explore lightly or  leave aside 
(for example in first semester I am thinking about air-resistance in 
projectile motion, rocket problems etc. and in second semester
all those approximations we discuss in electrostatics).
While discussing that a colleague mentioned to me a program that seems 
rather neat (I only spent 30 minutes with it last night):
It's called "RAPTOR" <http://raptor.martincarlisle.com/>
It allows you to write a sequence of instructions as a flowchart and 
watch the program execute graphically without having to learn any syntax.

Karim Diff

Alfredo Louro wrote:
> May I introduce a related question? How about programming? Should
> physics students be taught to write programs that will calculate
> answers to physics problems? My personal vote would be yes, but I'd
> certainly like to hear other opinions.
>
> Alfredo
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Steve Highland <shighlan@uslink.net> wrote:
>   
> > I¹ve been killing time on Yahoo Answers for the past few weeks, and I¹ve
> >  been using an online tool I learned of from one of my students last year to
> >  eliminate the grind of solving equations by hand.
> >
> >  I think doing the dirty work with something like QuickMath (see
> >  http://www.quickmath.com) or MAPLE or a calculator with symbolic
> >  manipulation abilities helps one focus on the physics instead of algebra.
> >
> >  I think students get the wrong idea right away when most of their effort
> >  goes into solving equations instead of thinking about physical principles
> >  and writing down correct equations based upon them.
> >
> >  I just wrote up an answer to this question --
> >
> >  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080227052243AApaSBY&r=w&pa=FZp
> >  tHWf.BGRX3OFPgTBUUvaAziwCsCO3J5d1XhUX2FUOdKpQAWm6wEXZOmzOKSai1ioicVtdpd3Rvx4
> >  g6g--&paid=answered#Q8d6XzK5WGHv4DVMd7PvPZwaHC6vBaCfSXHKUM2OtaBcaVx3oQBF
> >
> >  ³Charged Partical and Magnetic Field?
> >  In Figure below, a charged particle moves into a region of uniform magnetic
> >  field , goes through half a circle, and then exits that region. The particle
> >  is either a proton or an electron (you must decide which). It spends 143 ns
> >  in the region. (a) What is the magnitude of ? (b) If the particle is sent
> >  back through the magnetic field (along the same initial path) but with 3.72
> >  times its previous kinetic energy, how much time does it spend in the field
> >  during this trip?²
> >
> >  QuickMath can easily solve the following set of simple equations that come
> >  directly from physics fundamentals --
> >
> >  q=1.602*10^(-19)
> >  m=1.673*10^(-27)
> >  F=q*v*B
> >  F=m*v^2/r
> >  v*143*10^(-9)=pi*r
> >
> >  Isn¹t it better to eliminate the algebra from this point on and just let the
> >  robot do the work?  Or is there a reason to solve these equations by hand
> >  (other than ³the student won¹t always be at a computer² or ³QuickMath is
> >  down again², etc.)?
> >
> >
> >  For a long time I¹ve been curious why I haven¹t seen textbooks with an
> >  appendix on calculator use.  Are there any out there?  Many students I
> >  encounter don¹t even take advantage of simple features like memories to save
> >  retyping. But they all seem to have very elaborate calculators in hand. A
> >  few years back I worked with a class where all the students had TI89¹s that
> >  were required in their math courses.  We worked on using the simultaneous
> >  equation solvers in those with some success (and also some frustration with
> >  typos and omitted parentheses and commas and the like). I¹ll admit there are
> >  Œtechnoglitches¹ to deal with.
> >
> >  I¹m interested in opinions on either side of this issue.
> >
> >  Steve Highland
> >  Duluth MN
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Forum for Physics Educators
> >  Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> >  https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> >
> >     
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>