TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A new way to make quadratic equations easy

177 点作者 uniqueid超过 5 年前

31 条评论

abnry超过 5 年前
Let&#x27;s get the criticisms of the article out of the way:<p>--It has terrible formatting and typos.<p>--It puffs up something more important than it is.<p>--It is more about pedagogy than a mathematical idea.<p>--It suggests the idea is original, when it almost certainly is not.<p>--It doesn&#x27;t link to the original (and better source).<p>Okay, here is the good things about the approach:<p>--It is good to shift your thinking about mathematical derivations and proofs and think about them as code that runs on people&#x27;s brains. You input a derivation into someone&#x27;s brain and they return a boolean value (this is true, it makes sense, etc.). Pedagogy is trying to optimize the code for less powerful architectures. Just like when you are optimizing code tiny little details of instruction orders matter, the same with mathematical derivations.<p>--Fundamentally, algebraic manipulations are uncomfortable and nonintuitive for students. They feel like tricks. Going forwards from (x+a)^2=x^2+2ax+a^2 makes sense but going backwards as in the case of completing the square is hard. It&#x27;s not the same case for x^2=a vs sqrt(x)=a. This is kind of a similar case to math students feeling confused by adding and subtracting the same quantity when doing calculus limits. For any trained mathematician, this is obvious, but it really feels like a trick at first. The nice thing about this approach is that it avoids this issue and gives you a good reason WHY the -b&#x2F;2 term shows up. Additionally, it avoids the problem of substituting, which tends to bog students down (try teaching the chain rule someday).<p>Students should still understand completing the square but I don&#x27;t think this is a bad way to introduce them to the quadratic formula. It highlights the symmetric of the roots (at least for real values), which makes sense if you plot a quadratic.
评论 #21725759 未加载
评论 #21725180 未加载
robinhouston超过 5 年前
This is bizarre. It’s no less a mathematical trick than completing the square, and it doesn’t seem to be any simpler to use.<p>The example given is to find the roots of x² - 2x + 4 = 0.<p>Completing the square gives (x - 1)² + 3 = 0, from which you can immediately see that the roots are 1 ± √3 i. If anything this seems <i>easier</i> than the method of the article.<p>Am I missing something?<p><i></i>Added<i></i>: The argument seems to be that young students will find this method easier to understand than completing the square. I have no experience of teaching mathematics to children, so this may be true for all I know. It would be interesting to test this hypothesis experimentally, because I don’t think it’s <i>obviously</i> true.
评论 #21721899 未加载
评论 #21721864 未加载
评论 #21721779 未加载
评论 #21722318 未加载
评论 #21725748 未加载
bikenaga超过 5 年前
The old (Baudhayana, Omar Khayyam) geometric approach to completing the square (and so solving [some] quadratics) is very nice because it&#x27;s visual, and it&#x27;s what I show students in many classes. It explains why it&#x27;s &quot;completing the square&quot;.<p>Suppose you want to complete the square for x^2 + 6 x. Represent this as an x-by-x square and a 6-by-x rectangle:<p><pre><code> x ..... x ..... ..... ***** ***** ***** 6 ***** ***** ***** </code></pre> Cut the 6 x rectangle into two 3-by-x rectangles:<p><pre><code> x ..... x ..... ..... ***** 3 ***** ***** ***** 3 ***** ***** </code></pre> Move the lower 3-by-x rectangle up next to the square. The L-shaped figure still has area x^2 + 6 x.<p><pre><code> x 3 ..... ***** x ..... ***** ..... ***** ***** 3 ***** ***** </code></pre> What do you need to add (what is the size of the small square on the lower right) to complete the (large) square? The small square is 3-by-3, so it has area 9:<p><pre><code> x 3 ..... ***** x ..... ***** ..... ***** ***** +---+ 3 ***** | | ***** +---+ </code></pre> You get x^2 + 6 x + 9 = (x + 3)^2. If the original x^2 + 6 x was on one side of an equation, you add 9 to both sides.
knzhou超过 5 年前
This kind of approach is familiar to me from competition math. Back in middle school math club we were taught this exact approach (under the name of &quot;Vieta&#x27;s formulas&quot;), i.e. that thinking about the sum and product of the roots could be faster in some cases. Po-Shen Loh is the director of the US IMO team, so it makes sense he would like this approach.<p>However, I don&#x27;t think it makes logical sense to teach it only this way. Here you start by <i>assuming</i> that a quadratic has two roots, which is not at all obvious the first time a kid sees a quadratic equation. (Especially because those roots can be complex numbers!) Completing the square tells you <i>why</i> there are two roots, and also naturally leads you to the necessity of complex numbers, i.e. when the &quot;square&quot; you end up making is negative. You can use the nice Vieta&#x27;s formula tricks only after establishing that.
评论 #21725228 未加载
评论 #21725613 未加载
fyp超过 5 年前
People are criticizing this because it is still the same quadratic formula. But of course it is! Math is consistent.<p>But representation matters. A good chunk of mathematics is just about rewriting the same mathematical fact in a different way. For example the equation of a line could be written with coefficients or in slope&#x2F;intercept form or in polar coordinates or in homogeneous coordinates or etc etc.<p>Here the claim is that explicitly giving a name to the variable -b&#x2F;2 makes the equation easier to think about. I see nothing wrong with that.
评论 #21721634 未加载
评论 #21721827 未加载
czrnb超过 5 年前
There is an error in the (pixelated) example that is given int the MIT tech review article (z² = 3 instead of -3). I think the fact that the author of the news missed this, that he probably took a screenshot of the formulas rewritten in Word, and that he was compelled to write such a long article on such a simple topic speaks for his level on the topic.<p>The fact that he only lists the formal article as a reference instead of the announcement, video, and accessible blog post by Po-Shen Loh really baffles me.<p>The original &quot;disclosure&quot; by Po-Shen Loh [0] is much less sensational and gives some context for his work (teaching middle school students). In the formal article, he is also stating that the method is very likely not __new__, but that he wants to popularize it in teaching.<p>I think, as many other commenters pointed out, that there is no great breakthrough here. However &quot;his&quot; method may have the advantage of training the intuition of young students, by helping them understand the concepts of average and &quot;deviation&quot; (I&#x27;m not really sure how to call it in that case), and maybe visualizing them.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.poshenloh.com&#x2F;quadratic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.poshenloh.com&#x2F;quadratic</a>
评论 #21722725 未加载
评论 #21726061 未加载
mkl超过 5 年前
This seems more complicated and roundabout than completing the square. The average of the roots shows up that way too:<p>We want to write x^2 + bx + c = 0 in the form (x+m)^2 + n = 0, so there&#x27;s only one x left and we can rearrange for it.<p>Expanding, (x+m)^2 = x^2 + 2mx + m^2, so we get the x^2 we want, and the coefficients of x tell us b = 2m, so m = b&#x2F;2. We also get an m^2 (= b^2&#x2F;4) we don&#x27;t want, so let&#x27;s take it away:<p>(x + b&#x2F;2)^2 - b^2&#x2F;4 = x^2 + bx<p>That x + b&#x2F;2 is x - (-b&#x2F;2), x minus the average of the roots, which is the x value the parabola is centred on. Then we add c:<p>(x + b&#x2F;2)^2 - b^2&#x2F;4 + c = x^2 + bx + c<p>To find the roots, set it to 0 and rearrange for the one x that&#x27;s left:<p>(x + b&#x2F;2)^2 - b^2&#x2F;4 + c = 0<p>(x + b&#x2F;2)^2 = b^2&#x2F;4 - c<p>x + b&#x2F;2 = ±√(b^2&#x2F;4 - c)<p>x = -b&#x2F;2 ± √(b^2&#x2F;4 - c)<p>Note that this is the average of the roots ± the article&#x27;s z. Then combine:<p>x = -b&#x2F;2 ± √((b^2-4c)&#x2F;4)<p>x = -b&#x2F;2 ± √(b^2-4c)&#x2F;2<p>x = (-b ± √(b^2-4c))&#x2F;2<p>If you have ax^2+bx+c = 0, divide the equation by a first, then do the same steps and you get the normal quadratic formula:<p>x = (-b ± √(b^2-4ac))&#x2F;(2a)<p>I think the linked post misstates the purpose of the article: it&#x27;s not about new maths, but about pedagogy and ways of explaining the quadratic formula.
评论 #21721816 未加载
thanhhaimai超过 5 年前
I have trouble understanding why this deserves a paper. This is what I learned in middle school back in Vietnam (although I did take advanced Math).<p>For equation Ax^2 + Bx^2 + C = 0, the roots are:<p>x1 = (-B + sqrt(B^2 - 4AC))&#x2F;2A<p>x2 = (-B - sqrt(B^2 - 4AC))&#x2F;2A<p>Now the author looks at a special case where A = 1. The equation becomes x^2 + Bx^2 + C = 0. Of course the roots simply become:<p>x1 = -B&#x2F;2 + sqrt(B^2 - 4C)&#x2F;2 = -B&#x2F;2 + sqrt((B^2)&#x2F;4 - C)<p>x2 = -B&#x2F;2 - sqrt((B^2)&#x2F;4 - C)<p>&gt; &quot;The author would actually be very surprised if this approach has entirely eluded human discovery until the present day, given the 4,000 years of history on this topic, and the billions of people who have encountered the formula and its proof. Yet this technique is certainly not widely taught or known (the author could find no evidence of it in English sources)&quot;<p>I certainly don&#x27;t think it has eluded humany discovery until the present day. It&#x27;s known to middle school students in Asia that multiplying the original equation so that A == 1 would greatly simplify the roots formula.
评论 #21721128 未加载
评论 #21724342 未加载
评论 #21721164 未加载
评论 #21722237 未加载
verandacoffee超过 5 年前
Isn&#x27;t this the same as the pq-formula? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.matteboken.se&#x2F;lektioner&#x2F;matte-2&#x2F;andragradsekvationer&#x2F;pq-formeln" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.matteboken.se&#x2F;lektioner&#x2F;matte-2&#x2F;andragradsekvati...</a> (Link in Swedish).
评论 #21721666 未加载
montalbano超过 5 年前
It would be interesting to have math historian compare this with other derivations of quadratic roots to assess its originality.<p>My favourite bit of knowledge about quadratic equations is that its roots can always be visualised as the intersection between a simple parabola (x^2) and a straight line (m*x + c).<p>In fact, the above is why imaginary numbers did not arise from needing to solve quadratic equations. Because in the case of complex roots, the line and the parabola simply do not interesect. So it was originally thought that there was no worthwhile solution anyway. The real &#x27;need&#x27; for complex numbers arose from solving cubic equations. [1]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;19161684-a-friendly-approach-to-complex-analysis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;19161684-a-friendly-appr...</a>
ninjinxo超过 5 年前
&#x2F;r&#x2F;math discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;math&#x2F;comments&#x2F;dzbmbu&#x2F;a_new_way_to_solve_quadratic_equations_poshen_loh&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;math&#x2F;comments&#x2F;dzbmbu&#x2F;a_new_way_to_s...</a><p>Original source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.poshenloh.com&#x2F;quadratic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.poshenloh.com&#x2F;quadratic</a>
dooglius超过 5 年前
I disagree that this proof is better pedagogically; it assumes the quadratic case of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (the correspondence between factorization and solutions), which at this stage would have to be taken on faith by students, whereas completing the square is fully justified.
评论 #21722769 未加载
评论 #21721470 未加载
saagarjha超过 5 年前
Is it just me, or are the images in the article extremely pixelated?
评论 #21721174 未加载
tel超过 5 年前
I think this is nice. It&#x27;s a method of calculation derived from an important fact—that quadratic equations have two solutions and those solutions can be written in such a form.<p>I don&#x27;t have the experience or interest to debate whether it&#x27;s better or worse than any other method pedagogically. I can definitely imagine that I would have appreciated learning this method as well as completing the square as a child.<p>But honestly, the real interesting thing here is the (a) gathering information about what you think the solution ought to look like and (b) working backwards from there. That&#x27;s a good general trick and worth having in your back pocket. It also emphasizes the importance of visualizing and examining your belief about what <i>should</i> occur.<p>People should suspect the fundamental theorem of algebra long before they prove it.
LatteLazy超过 5 年前
I must be missing something here...<p>The &quot;standard&quot; quadratic formula at the top of the article is just as quick and painless to solve the equation he uses as an example. And its easier for many other versions (basically any time B&#x2F;A or C&#x2F;A are not integers).<p>Plus, this isn&#x27;t new: I was taught to do exactly this IF it simplified the whole equation. That was in 2000 in London in a pretty standard secondary school.<p>(Also, what&#x27;s with taking &quot;z^2 = 3&quot; at font 10, treating it as an image and then displaying it 20 times the original size?! Is it meant to look more maths-ey?)<p>I am excited to reveal something though: I recently discovered a whole new way to make a percentages! Instead of multiplying the number by 100, you just multiply it by 10 twice! So much better :)
评论 #21723056 未加载
bograt超过 5 年前
I have been using a technique that&#x27;s almost identical to this for years, based simply on observing that the roots are symmetric around the min&#x2F;maximum: differentiate, set to zero, then difference of squares.<p>This cannot be an unrecorded technique can it?
评论 #21721115 未加载
jimhefferon超过 5 年前
I don&#x27;t know that it was ever hard.
评论 #21720921 未加载
评论 #21720948 未加载
评论 #21720929 未加载
ivan_ah超过 5 年前
That&#x27;s very cool. To the best of my knowledge the only purpose of learning how to complete the square in high school math is to be able to understand the derivation of the quadratic formula, so if we can use this alternative proof then students don&#x27;t need to know &quot;completing the square&quot; anymore. Good riddance!<p>The only other application of &quot;completing the square&quot; I can think of is the trig substitution in calculus, see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Completing_the_square#Integration" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Completing_the_square#Integrat...</a> or worked example here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.khanacademy.org&#x2F;math&#x2F;ap-calculus-ab&#x2F;ab-integration-new&#x2F;ab-6-10&#x2F;v&#x2F;integration-using-completing-the-square-arctan" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.khanacademy.org&#x2F;math&#x2F;ap-calculus-ab&#x2F;ab-integrati...</a><p>In sum, completing the square is definitely a cool trick (see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;File:Completing_the_square.gif" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;File:Completing_the_square.gif</a> ), but maybe we can skip it... or present it as extra&#x2F;optional material? I&#x27;m going to think about dropping it from my books. It will save 5+ pages of suffering for readers, which is a clear win.
评论 #21732465 未加载
edflsafoiewq超过 5 年前
If you&#x27;re going to rename the constants to make a=1, you might as well also replace b with b&#x2F;2. The solution to x^2 + 2bx + c = 0 is<p><pre><code> x = ± √(b^2 - c) - b</code></pre>
Tiruneh超过 5 年前
I have read the paper and it gives a good educational context from which the quadratic equation may be looked at. I have also worked out simpler way to solve quadratic equations using function evaluation without much memorization of symbolic formula:<p>for the equation : f(x) = ax^2 +bx + c = 0<p>X = Z +- Sqrt [-f(Z)&#x2F;a] ; Z = -b&#x2F;2a<p>for the equation f(x) = x^2 +bx+c = 0 it is even a bit simpler:<p>X = Z +- Sqrt[ -f(z) ] where Z = -b&#x2F;2.<p>Example 1: f(x) = 3x^2 -8x-35 = 0<p>Z = -b&#x2F;2a = - (-8)&#x2F;(2.3) = 4&#x2F;3<p>F(Z) = -121&#x2F;3<p>X = 4&#x2F;3 + or - Sqrt ( -(1&#x2F;3)*(-121&#x2F;3) = 4&#x2F;3 + or - 11&#x2F;3 = {5, -7&#x2F;3)<p>Example 2: (Simpler form): f(x) = x^2 - 4x+ 3 = 0<p>Z = -b&#x2F;2 = -(-4)&#x2F;2 = 2<p>f(Z) = 2^2 - 4.2 + 3 = -1<p>X = 2 + or - Sqrt( -(-1) = 2 +- 1 = { 3, 1}<p>For detail of this method, please see the following pre-print<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.researchgate.net&#x2F;publication&#x2F;337829551_A_simple_formula_for_solving_quadratic_equations_using_function_evaluation?fbclid=IwAR1yoUtuTQAc8Mpc-BRME5vdKkBZ4QbXZj741lGhUdvc7s7R3rAugZE6VGg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.researchgate.net&#x2F;publication&#x2F;337829551_A_simple_...</a>
tomp超过 5 年前
Um... what&#x27;s the difference?<p><pre><code> x = (-b ± √(b^2 - 4ac)) &#x2F; 2a </code></pre> Ok, remove <i>a</i> assuming it&#x27;s 1 - well, yeah, less general math is simpler.<p><pre><code> x = (-b ± √(b^2 - 4c)) &#x2F; 2 </code></pre> Move around 2 &amp; 4... voila.<p><pre><code> x = -b&#x2F;2 ± √(b^2 &#x2F; 4 - c) </code></pre> Like, whatever. :)
ajarmst超过 5 年前
I think there&#x27;s an unacknowledged premise here that is fundamentally misguided: that the point of teaching math is to minimize the complexity of the formulas and recipes the students have to memorize, or that skill in finding the roots of a quadratic is so important that we must optimize the experience of learning it. I work with mathematics teachers and engineers and I know of no one who has willingly factored a quadratic by hand since we put our slide rules away.<p>The goal, fundamentally, is not the skill of factoring a quadratic. The goal is understanding of the relationships of numbers, operations, and domains that allow algebra to be a powerful set of tools for solving huge classes of problems. I _never_ teach the quadratic equation. I teach completing the square, because it&#x27;s an illustration of a useful way of algebraically manipulating a relationship into a form (square of a linear binomial) that they recognize and can easily factor. I usually do a quick proof of the quadratic equation using completing the square, but generally as an illustration that if you properly understand the associated algebra, you don&#x27;t need to memorize formulas and algorithms. The use of the field axioms to manipulate polynomials, and the goal of manipulating them to a tractable form, is what they need---not the quadratic equation. This &#x27;new&#x27; technique (which appears to be a simple riff on the standard technique of looking for a pair of numbers whose sum is B and whose product is C that is taught as a matter of course in every middle school on the planet) is missing the actual goal of the lesson.<p>In particular, the reason I even teach completing the square is because it&#x27;s a precursor of me bringing up the roots of $x^2 + 1$, which takes us in to an introduction to complex numbers, the fundamental theorem of algebra, and the discovery that the same old algebra over the Reals they learned in high school can now be used to do things like solve differential equations. Later, we introduce matrices and I can return to our old friends the algebraic field axioms to solve whole systems of equations. If they&#x27;re lucky, they also get modular arithmetic and can be shown Galois fields and start using their understanding of algebra for problems in logic and set theory. All of that is easily within the reach of students in their first or second year of college, and I think if we bothered to try, we&#x27;d discover it&#x27;s easily in the reach of secondary school students---or would be if we&#x27;d stop pretending that teaching them that &quot;mathematics&quot; is making change and pushing numbers from a word problem into the blanks of some generic formula they&#x27;ve memorized.<p>The task isn&#x27;t teaching them to factor quadratics. The task is teaching them algebra.
mogadish超过 5 年前
To me this seems like a special case of the Vieta formulas (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Vieta%27s_formulas" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Vieta%27s_formulas</a>) which in my case I learned in highschool
6gvONxR4sf7o超过 5 年前
This still seems way more complicated than it needs to be to teach it. I always used a much simpler way to avoid memorizing anything.<p>Imagine you have a parabola y - c = k x^2 and want to solve for y = 0. Dead easy, right?<p>To turn any other parabola into this form, you only need to scroll left or right on x until the minimum is at x&#x27;=0 (algebraically, this means eliminating any b*x&#x27; term). Teach students how to do change of coordinates and how to solve this trivial problem, and they don&#x27;t need to memorize any formulas.<p>It also sets students up for the useful math mindset of solving new problems by reducing them to previously solved ones and relies on conceptual understanding. Seems way better than the &quot;memorize this formula&quot; approach.
评论 #21721762 未加载
spicymaki超过 5 年前
Here is a link to the paper the story was based on: &quot;A Simple Proof of the Quadratic Formula&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1910.06709.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1910.06709.pdf</a>
nestorD超过 5 年前
Note that he critisize the classical formula but that he, then, suppose that A=1 when he gives his formulation (making it simpler). Adding A back gives :<p>-B&#x2F;2A ± sqrt(B²&#x2F;4A - C&#x2F;A)<p>which is not obviously simpler than :<p>(-B ± sqrt(B² - 4AC)) &#x2F; 2A
eyeundersand超过 5 年前
In Nepal, you are taught around the sixth grade that you can solve ax^2 + bx + c = 0 by splitting b into m and n such that mn = ac and m + n = b ( or m -n = b, if a and c have opposing signs). This &quot;discovery&quot; the author claims and some other corollaries were quite commonly known.<p>I find it absurd and, frankly, laughable that this is being heralded as something new!
orbifold超过 5 年前
There is nothing new about this formula or derivation. In fact this precise formula (including that derivation) is taught in Germany.
aphextim超过 5 年前
One of my favorite things to break the ice with a younger gamer and the Quadratic Formula.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ewAHYVzMobw" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ewAHYVzMobw</a><p>Super Mario Quadratics.
shikoba超过 5 年前
(r-s)^2=r^2-2rs+s^2=(r+s)^2-4rs=b^2-4c<p>r=((r-s)+(r+s))&#x2F;2=(sqrt(b^2-4c)-b)&#x2F;2
prvc超过 5 年前
Surely this is a prank?