Calculator 10 x 18p

Cobra said:
I remember the "uproar" when calculators where being introduced into schools, as a matter of course, late 60's I think.
and then latterly being allowed into maths exams.
The pro argument was "you need to be able to do basic maths to use one"
As @StewartR has just proved.
Click to expand...
Same in my school, and I still see it today when people just punch a bunch of number in and make one mistake and they don't even recognise that a mistake has been made. We all make mistakes but lets keep some perspective here; this is about moving the separator one position to the left ;) Not some big equation for NASA, this is elementary stuff.
 
dejongj said:
Oh come on, again taken a bit of a dramatic extrapolation to what I said. But hey if you are happy to employ people who take money for you who can't calculate be my guest, I'll employ those who can.
Click to expand...

If they are able to use a calculator, the they can calculate. You are just making the assumption that they can't.

BTW, I just asked the wife regarding the point made by Stewart. She struggles to do calculations in her head but, once she puts them into a calculator, she can certainly tell if it looks right so no,it isn't a reasonable assumption.
 
Cool so you employ and I don't. I won't loose any sleep over that.

Out of interest does she struggle with 10 x 18? You know a sum where no mental arithmetic is required at all? I mean that is just applying a rule no calculation. As that is how this conversation started and the context of the comments.
 
dejongj said:
Cool so you employ and I don't. I won't loose any sleep over that.

Out of interest does she struggle with 10 x 18? You know a sum where no mental arithmetic is required at all? I mean that is just applying a rule no calculation. As that is how this conversation started and the context of the comments.
Click to expand...

Any sum that you do in your head is mental arithmetic by definition but that's by the by. The whole point is that, what to you and I is an extremely simple calculation, is not to people who suffer from the aforementioned affliction.

And she was able to answer 10x18 but she did stutter with it but actually said "of course it is" when she got there.
 
fabs said:
Any sum that you do in your head is mental arithmetic by definition but that's by the by. The whole point is that, what to you and I is an extremely simple calculation, is not to people who suffer from the aforementioned affliction.

And she was able to answer 10x18 but she did stutter with it but actually said "of course it is" when she got there.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
I think I remember calculators being used in a Maths O Level exam in 1975 (I took Maths the previous year, using old style Log books for tan/sin/cos etc). The problem now with pupils using calculators with extreme scientific functioning power, is that the pupil does hardly any of the work.
When I first started work we used desktop adding machines with rolls of paper (to cross check for mistakes), and large double entry analysis books, which were balanced, and then the results entered in a large, heavy, bound ledger, and the books balanced on a monthly basis (written in pencil until it finally balanced).
A few years ago, we had a graduate, in his early twenties, and I was trying to explain the concept of a bank reconciliation (a basic accountancy principle), debits and credits in the cash book, receipts and payments going through the bank. He then looked at me and asked what the point of that was, because we had a computer programme to do that. I replied that if you know how the system works, then it was easier to find a difference, and at that point in time we had a difference.
 
dejongj said:
Should they really be working in a shop at the tills? I would have thought there are plenty better suited jobs in that case.
Click to expand...

Presumably the calculator was provided by the shop by the apparent lack of any epos. So I don't see the problem, they can't do sums doesn't mean they can't operate some buttons.
 
neil_g said:
Presumably the calculator was provided by the shop by the apparent lack of any epos. So I don't see the problem, they can't do sums doesn't mean they can't operate some buttons.
Click to expand...
If they can't do the 10 times table, how would they possibly know they've got the approximate correct answer from a calculator and didn't hit the wrong key by accident?
 
andy700 said:
I think I remember calculators being used in a Maths O Level exam in 1975 (I took Maths the previous year, using old style Log books for tan/sin/cos etc). The problem now with pupils using calculators with extreme scientific functioning power, is that the pupil does hardly any of the work.
When I first started work we used desktop adding machines with rolls of paper (to cross check for mistakes), and large double entry analysis books, which were balanced, and then the results entered in a large, heavy, bound ledger, and the books balanced on a monthly basis (written in pencil until it finally balanced).
A few years ago, we had a graduate, in his early twenties, and I was trying to explain the concept of a bank reconciliation (a basic accountancy principle), debits and credits in the cash book, receipts and payments going through the bank. He then looked at me and asked what the point of that was, because we had a computer programme to do that. I replied that if you know how the system works, then it was easier to find a difference, and at that point in time we had a difference.
Click to expand...


'79 IIRC - I was in the first year that the O&CEB allowed calculators in "O" Level exams. I used the calculator to check my answers after doing the arithmetic the old way (apart from the long division which has always caused me grief!) It was Calculus that was well and truly beyond me and still is! By the time I'd figured that out, it was too late - Maths and Physics at "A" level both need it and I can't do it so failed spectacularly at both. Since the op 4 years ago, I've had a few difficulties with mental arithmetic, mainly due to the intermediate answers/totals slipping my mind but as I'm getting better, so is my maths - as measured by the Numbers part in Countdown!!!
 
andy700 said:
The problem now with pupils using calculators with extreme scientific functioning power, is that the pupil does hardly any of the work.
Click to expand...
I think that might belong in the urban myths thread!
When I did my A-levels most of the marks were awarded for the working, not the answer. So even if you used the calculator to calculate an intercept, etc it wouldn't be enough to earn a pass mark.
You could use the calculator to check your answer, but in most cases if it turned out you were wrong you wouldn't have time to go back, find the error and and change the workings.
 
Nod said:
'79 IIRC - I was in the first year that the O&CEB allowed calculators in "O" Level exams. I used the calculator to check my answers after doing the arithmetic the old way (apart from the long division which has always caused me grief!) It was Calculus that was well and truly beyond me and still is! By the time I'd figured that out, it was too late - Maths and Physics at "A" level both need it and I can't do it so failed spectacularly at both. Since the op 4 years ago, I've had a few difficulties with mental arithmetic, mainly due to the intermediate answers/totals slipping my mind but as I'm getting better, so is my maths - as measured by the Numbers part in Countdown!!!
Click to expand...

I had left school way behind in 79 (working for four years), so it was definitely 74 or 75, because I was the only pupil not using a calculator in the maths exam - my parents refused to buy me one, thought it was cheating - thanks mum and dad - for nothing.
 
Llamaman said:
I think that might belong in the urban myths thread!
When I did my A-levels most of the marks were awarded for the working, not the answer. So even if you used the calculator to calculate an intercept, etc it wouldn't be enough to earn a pass mark.
You could use the calculator to check your answer, but in most cases if it turned out you were wrong you wouldn't have time to go back, find the error and and change the workings.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they are maths exams, not arithmetic exams.
 
andy700 said:
I had left school way behind in 79 (working for four years), so it was definitely 74 or 75, because I was the only pupil not using a calculator in the maths exam - my parents refused to buy me one, thought it was cheating - thanks mum and dad - for nothing.
Click to expand...

Err....I think not.
A basic knowledge of maths would surely have done the trick?
 
Maybe the shop assistant's employer rates people skills above maths skills.
 
dejongj said:
I'm concerned at times about the systems employed and how schools go about it. But rather than confuse them I learned the new methods to stay ahead of them and help them along with the basic skills.
Click to expand...
A few years ago now, as my son is now 25, but when he was at school, parents were invited in to be shown how they were teaching the kids maths and to compare it to how we were taught. I had the answers worked out in my head using the "old" methods, before the teachers had using the new methods.

Alastair said:
There aren't many jobs that don't depend on numbers. There's certainly no business that doesn't need a degree of numeracy or a coping strategy (e.g.a calculator).
Click to expand...

Over 34yrs as a press toolmaker, and a subsequent 3yrs as an engine development engineer, I have never had to use any degree of numeracy other than measuring something out (hardly using maths). I have had to use maths for a couple of successful tests for jobs, but still no use of maths their after. I have Grade 1 CSE's Maths and Algebra, plus a Grade B in O-Level, plus OTC and HTC BTECs in Mechanical Engineering, all included a maths element all of which has never been used at work since.
 
nilagin said:
how they were teaching the kids maths and to compare it to how we were taught.
Click to expand...
The new methods of teaching maths primary school maths take into account that there are multiple type of learning styles and learners.
The way I was taught back in the bad old days (1970's) would be classed as bullying by todays standards. I believe my would be far better than it is had I been taught maths using todays method compared to the old methods.
 
redsnappa said:
The new methods of teaching maths primary school maths take into account that there are multiple type of learning styles and learners.
The way I was taught back in the bad old days (1970's) would be classed as bullying by todays standards. I believe my would be far better than it is had I been taught maths using todays method compared to the old methods.
Click to expand...
I was taught in the 70's. I wouldn't call it bullying. Not sure how it could even come close to be thought of bullying.
 
nilagin said:
I was taught in the 70's. I wouldn't call it bullying. Not sure how it could even come close to be thought of bullying.
Click to expand...
I was taught a little earlier than that, and I'm not sure how it could be classed as bullying either.

I tried to help my daughter with her maths, some 15+ years ago now, and I really couldn't understand the question nor the example given. ( neither could she)
In this particular case it was IIRC, long division, which became apparent to her, once I showed her the way I'd been taught.
 
Cobra said:
I remember the "uproar" when calculators where being introduced into schools, as a matter of course, late 60's I think.
and then latterly being allowed into maths exams.
The pro argument was "you need to be able to do basic maths to use one"
As @StewartR has just proved.
Click to expand...
I worked as a croupier in a Brighton casino where a high degree of mental arithmetic was necessary (adding multiple combinations of odds like 5/1, 8/1, 17/1, 35/1, together with varying amounts and conversions to cash value). This had to be done very quickly and accurately, as anyone with experience of gambling in such an establishment will be aware of, and was a big matter of professional pride. I will leave it to your imaginations as to the language we used to tell a manager what to do with the calculators when she tried to make us use them!
 
I'm really crap at finding x and the like, never found I needed that sort of maths in the forty plus years since I left school despite what the maths teacher said

No problem subtracting from 501, most of my mental arithmetic came from that activity, even know all the various combinations of finishes.
Mostly based on alternatives if you miss your first target, for example 63 is treble 13, double 12. If you only hit single 13, still leaves a bull finish.

Too many players don't think, 119 no point going treble 20, if you hit a single, leaves 99 no two dart finish whereas go for treble 19, single leaves 100 and nice two darter left on the twenties

Easier on the old East London fives board, only had 5,10,15 and 20 segments plus 25 and bull, started on 505
Kent board was unusual too, no trebles or 25 ring and all Black, no bust rule was also used

Yes that's it get youngsters chucking the arrows, snooker is another good one for counting too
 
Last edited:
Penfold711 said:
This had to be done very quickly and accurately, as anyone with experience of gambling in such an establishment will be aware of, and was a big matter of professional pride.
Click to expand...
I can quite believe it :)
And as Rich, has said above, you play enough darts, and that becomes second nature too.
Although I suspect an error in darts equals a bit of a bust up, but an error in gambling establishments is whole different matter !
 
I was at school in the seventies too, hated maths with a passion as did 99% of other kids, figured I'd never use again after I left school but it keeps cropping up in my life. Arithmetic is a different matter, I worked in retail for many years (started before there was such a thing as a calculator) and adding up, subtracting, working out percentages in my head became second nature and I can still add up my shopping on the fly to the extent that I know immediately if a shop assistant has made a mistake ringing it up.

I scraped through an OU course on mathematics (M101) and found it incredibly hard to keep up after the very early stages, calculus stressed me so much that I blanked the word itself for years afterwards. I'm glad I did it but I wouldn't put myself through that again.
 
Electronic!!! - The first shop I worked in actually sold some of the first calculators, iirc they were £99.95 kinda like this one with leds and clicky buttons.

b05f31aeac132b420bded82fd0085434.jpg
 
One thing I remember is some numbers could be read upside down as letters, we did some strange things with these new fangled gadgets
 
dejongj said:
Cool so you employ and I don't. I won't loose any sleep over that.

Out of interest does she struggle with 10 x 18? You know a sum where no mental arithmetic is required at all? I mean that is just applying a rule no calculation. As that is how this conversation started and the context of the comments.
Click to expand...
Talking about not realising when you've made a mistake..:p
 
Cobra said:
I remember the "uproar" when calculators where being introduced into schools, as a matter of course, late 60's I think.
and then latterly being allowed into maths exams.
The pro argument was "you need to be able to do basic maths to use one"
As @StewartR has just proved.
Click to expand...

I was at school in the early 80s when we finally got calculators. Before we were allowed to use them we had what I consider one of the most important lessons I had at school - estimate before you calculate. So if you want to find 179 X 19737.664211 quickly then it's time for a calculator - but never forget that the answer is going to be somewhere just under 360,000 (because it's a bit less than 180 * a bit less than 20,000). If you get an answer of 8.4 * 10^79 or 0.11675 or 1 then it's pretty likely you pressed the wrong button.

Just like if you buy 3 tickets at £17.95 + 0.5% card fee + 1.27% handling fee + vat you should expect to pay somewhere round 60 quid. But there's no burning need to work it out to 4dp yourself - machines are pretty good at that stuff.
 
5138008

Doesn't really work these days. :(
 
JonathanRyan said:
So if you want to find 179 X 19737.664211 quickly then it's time for a calculator - but never forget that the answer is going to be somewhere just under 360,000 (because it's a bit less than 180 * a bit less than 20,000). If you get an answer of 8.4 * 10^79 or 0.11675 or 1 then it's pretty likely you pressed the wrong button.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you get an answer that's somewhere just under 360,000 then it's also pretty likely that you pressed the wrong button.

The estimation approach is definitely a good one, but it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of how many digits there should be before the decimal point!
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Talking about not realising when you've made a mistake..:p
Click to expand...
Good point well made. I would not take a job as an English teacher. I would not be suitable for that.
 
What does 8OLLOh5 mean?

JP, as with most furrinners on the forum, your English is far better than my (indeed, at a guess most) grasp of Dutch, French et al..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top