Sure, if we ignore the fact that those engineers had all of their work checked by people we called calculators.
That sounds like women’s work, of course we’re going to ignore it
I’m just testing that the calculator works. It’s part of the scientific process, sweaty
An exquisite typo.
Okay look, some of the math I do on a daily basis is like 5 levels above basic addition (it looks like I’ve written a whole ass sentences of gibberish) but like what if they changed it? I’d rather be sure that 2+2 still equals 4 than be wrong and the thing I’m working on ends up making expensive sounds.
There’s also just removing the cognitive load of having to process this information. You’re allowed to look up the answer (that’s what a calculator and the slide rule do).
Using the tools you have to speed up your work doesn’t make you a worse engineer than those in the past. You’re building off their work so you don’t have to constantly literally reinvent the wheel.
I am guessing you are an engineer of some sort.
You can’t calculate 2+2 with a slide rule
ln(2) + ln(2) = ln(4)
Try with 3+3
Sorry, that’s too complicated for me
The issue is that the floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing.
Why is it that 8th graders in 1990 could do solid algebra and polynomials on paper and not need help? Nothing about the math has changed.
Slide rules do not do basic math, that’s a poor comparison. People that did higher math on slide rules only used it for part of the problem dealing with logarithms, and that was a shorthand for larger approximation tables in books. That’s necessary help. Solving for 2+2 is not. That’s for little children that count on their fingers. If you’re not in the “WTF?” camp, you’re part of the problem.
Difficulty performing mental arithmetic doesn’t necessarily correlate with poor overall intelligence or inability to grasp higher math concepts. In a world where we all have calculators in our pockets, there is no reason to bar someone from studies or a career involving higher mathematics simply for being neurologically atypical, nor to shame them for whichever coping strategies allow them to perform.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the most basic of math should be as basic as reading. Something that anyone can do themselves.
Do you honestly think that for the rest of your life every moment will let a calculator or ChatGPT help you have every interaction you have? People are perfectly capable of basic math.
I’m not confident you’re participating in good faith here but, on the off-chance you are; I’m not sure I take your point.
Can you substantiate your initial claim? “The floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing” seems too broad a statement to meaningfully defend.
Even if we assume you’re talking about US 8th graders you’ll have to be more specific. The US has seen degraded academic performance across the board but the degree varies by State (and often again by County).
What’s “necessary help” is up for debate as well. There’s a hint of something I can agree with here though. I do agree that, for certain vocations, it’s important for individuals to have firm graps on the fundamentals. Programmers ought to be able to code without IDEs and Mathematicians work problems without calculators. I don’t agree that the common use of good tools by those professionals results in the brain-drain bogeyman you seem to be shadow boxing.
What am I meant to be alarmed about, exactly?
No, I’m here in good faith.
Being alarmed, I suppose, would be the subjective assessment that this isn’t too far off from all the cognitive decline correlated to excessive use of AI. It’s an extrapolation, sure, but similar.
It’s lovely to think that a phone will always be right on us all, for the rest of our lives. IRL, shit happens. Sometimes people just dug a calf out of a pond, their phone got soaked, and they still need to divide 250 lbs of fertilizer by 10 barrels and not be seized by indecision because there’s not a cell phone around.
As long as they don’t ask ChatGPT.
Now show the prompt lol
Sure
I don’t believe you!
Here’s what I got from Gemini:
Based on the foundational principles of mathematics, 2 + 1 = 3 because it represents combining a set of two items with a set of one item, resulting in a new set containing a total of three items. Here is a more detailed breakdown: Understanding the Numbers
- 1 (One): This is the basic unit, representing a single object or item. Imagine one apple. 🍎
- 2 (Two): This represents a collection of two basic units. Imagine two apples. 🍎🍎
- 3 (Three): This represents a collection of three basic units. Imagine three apples. 🍎🍎🍎 Understanding the Operation (+)
-
- (Addition): This symbol means “to add” or “to combine.” It instructs us to take two or more quantities (or sets) and put them together to find their total. Putting It Together The equation 2 + 1 = 3 is a statement that follows these definitions:
- Start with 2: You begin with a set containing two items.
- (🍎🍎)
- Add 1: You then combine that set with another set containing one item.
- (🍎🍎) + (🍎)
- Result is 3: When you count all the items in the combined group, you find there are three items in total.
- (🍎🍎🍎) This concept is one of the most fundamental axioms in arithmetic, often demonstrated using a number line. If you start at the number 2 on the line and move one unit to the right (which is what “+ 1” means), you land directly on the number 3.
If they are taking an exam, they are not yet an engineer.
Also if you need to check simple math during your exam, you will fail super hard because you will run out of time with almost non of the work completed.
deleted by creator
