<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Old New Math and New New Math</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/06/05/old-new-math-and-new-new-math/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/06/05/old-new-math-and-new-new-math/</link>
	<description>Just another geek in the geek kingdom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/06/05/old-new-math-and-new-new-math/comment-page-1/#comment-4683</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2436#comment-4683</guid>
		<description>Ahh...ok...Seems like it might have been interesting, if done well. I always hated arithmetic. A little set theory might have done me well in elementary school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahh&#8230;ok&#8230;Seems like it might have been interesting, if done well. I always hated arithmetic. A little set theory might have done me well in elementary school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/06/05/old-new-math-and-new-new-math/comment-page-1/#comment-4682</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2436#comment-4682</guid>
		<description>The difference with the &#039;New Math&#039; was the emphasis on theory over practice at an early age. Bases other then 10 and set theory was taught to primary students. That&#039;s where the whole octal subtraction part comes from. 

For the base 10 subtraction the difference was in how it was explained. There was a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that 40 is &#039;4 tens&#039; and &#039;1 ten is 10 ones&#039;. Rather then saying &#039;you borrow one from the next column to give you twelve&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The difference with the &#8216;New Math&#8217; was the emphasis on theory over practice at an early age. Bases other then 10 and set theory was taught to primary students. That&#8217;s where the whole octal subtraction part comes from. </p>
<p>For the base 10 subtraction the difference was in how it was explained. There was a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that 40 is &#8217;4 tens&#8217; and &#8217;1 ten is 10 ones&#8217;. Rather then saying &#8216;you borrow one from the next column to give you twelve&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/06/05/old-new-math-and-new-new-math/comment-page-1/#comment-4675</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2436#comment-4675</guid>
		<description>Tom Leherer&#039;s movie is pretty funny but isn&#039;t that how everyone does subtraction? Is there some secret, non-borrow-a-one way that my teachers didn&#039;t share?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom Leherer&#8217;s movie is pretty funny but isn&#8217;t that how everyone does subtraction? Is there some secret, non-borrow-a-one way that my teachers didn&#8217;t share?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

