Re: Re: what good is "percentage error"?

[PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU]

> Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 12:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Donald E. Simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
>
> So, until the folks who write the books and journal articles decide to
> change the name of this branch of mathematics, I think we should stick
> with accepted terminology. Do you suppose we should change the name of
> calculus books to "Theory and Techniques of Differentiation and
> Integration"? BTW, the mathematical discipline of calculus used to be
> called "Analysis" and many of the best upper level books (and courses)
> still carry that name.

The standard usage nowadays is Calculus for what we teach in service
courses of that title, mostly without proofs, and mostly concentrating
on computations.  Analysis is the "sophisticated" version of the same,
emphasizing proofs and "bouts of rigor -- rectitude with exactitude,"
in the words of Maurice Heins.
   In case it might be of interest here, I note that the so-called
"reform" Calculus seeks greater intuitive understanding by the student
and frequently features a constructivist (in the Education sense, not
the Brouwerian logic sense) approach. On the other hand, it removes
all notion of proof (as opposed to informal plausibility examples)
and greatly de-emphasizes traditional computations.
   For those at a college where reform Calculus is taught and who are
willing, I would be interested in hearing you compare this with
traditional Calculus in terms of how well it prepares your students
to use Calculus in physics courses. Please respond off-list, and
I'll summarize in a few weeks (after finals) if there is any general
interest here.

---------------------------------------------
Phil Parker        pparker@twsuvm.uc.twsu.edu
Random quote for this second:
  The fact that it works is immaterial.---L. Ogborn