To clarify one point if I may. There was no bet initially. It was an offer to pay $500. That was then raised to an offer to pay $10K.

Carry on.

Thanks for this clarification. It's important to understand that the money was offered in exchange for specific acts that he asked to be performed. This is the proper analogy:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point on rote learning that i have explained but it seems no one can grasp.

My argument is NOT that any teacher cares about rote learning. So lets puts Tien's analysis of my position aside as that is not my position.

My argument is NOT that rote learning constitutes a big or even a meaningful percent in exams TODAY (it did historically), so lets put that comment prior by uke aside as that is not my position.


Going back to my friend Pi, which i was happy to see become a star of the other thread, and stating that the example I am giving below IS NOT specifically about Pi, but Pi represents any XYZ placeholder one is expected to have memorized before they can progress, here is my example...


Test: below are 15 questions in which you will have to demonstrate your ability to apply analysis and work with these equations (ABC) to demonstrate your application skills to get to the answers you will be graded on. START!

The Test supplied everything but simply expected you had prior memorised XYZ (Pi in this instance) and since you did not you are stuck. You cannot address a single question as knowing what XYZ is the fundamental first step to progressing to prove the rest out. So you get 0% on the test.

Had the teacher simply provided the value of XYZ (Pi) you would then have got 100% as you know the application cold.

Knowing XYZ (Pi) might be a tiny percent (less than 5%) of what the teacher focused on, on this test and 95% might be appropriately targeted at application and thus people tend to then say 'rote learning is no longer a thing of importance.... it constitutes so little now...' but that is not the case, all too often, as many times it is still a bar to progression to the other areas of learning.

uke might be great at not making that mistake and i would applaud him if he is. I would invite him to supply some of his sample tests here so we can read them. That is something he can do easily as I am legit curious to see if avoids that common mistake.

lol and yet I can quote everyone in the BFI, calling you out on it and not me, despite the fact I have a more antagonistic relationship with the posters there, than here.

So nice attempt at a save. it just does not fly.

Yes I've responded to that point as well

If there somehow was a contract then contract disputes are in effect identical to who won the bet disputes. So it doesn't change anything about this argument.

Correct.

Me just offering to 'pay' establishes I believe what i am saying and am not just engaging in internet normal trolling.

Me escalating it to a bet is because I do not believe he believes in what he is saying will stand up to scrutiny (and thus won't accept) and if he does and is willing to bet, will be proven wrong.


This does not mean I would win the bet (I have never lost one yet), but it shows I believe in my position which is a fading thing in forumland.

You could find a good number of people to argue 'Biden is a criminal and will eventually be convicted and jailed for Huntergate' but few who would maintain that position, or not find an excuse to duck out if given a chance to bet, even with long good odds in their favour.

Sure it does - bets require explicit terms for them to be valid. This isn't true for ordinary exchanges of goods and services for money. Do you sign a purchase contract every time you go to a grocery store or a restaurant? Of course not. Does that mean if you get your food or whatever before you pay them, you have no obligation to pay? Of course you do.

You offered a bet to anyone proving Candybar right or wrong and now we learn it was never a bet.

Lol. This "example" only shows to demonstrates your utter ignorance about what university math tests are like. As anyone who has actual experience would tell you, if you don't know the numerical value of a constant you just leave it as a constant. For the function f(x)=x^2 what is f(pi)? You guessed it! It is pi^2. That's the answer. If you type the value to 5 decimal places into your calculator that makes the answer less accurate. Sorry but this is a terrible example.

The vague point that prerequisite knowledge is indeed a prerequisite to more advanced knowledge is fine, but remember the bar you set for yourself is that "lazy academics" are "overweighting" the importance of "rote learning". So a vague notion that prerequisite knowledge is a thing doesn't remotely get you to your point.

Cuepee, what's the highest level of math that you're actually comfortable with?

and if there's a dispte which is not that uncommon and they can't resolve it between themsleves then it goes to court

Theres no real difference at all. Bets are just contracts

Sure there are, you stated them yourself:

These requirements do not exist for ordinary exchanges of goods and services for money. You can't just get someone to perform a service and then welch based on the idea that there was no meeting of the minds, no third-party to arbitrate, etc.

You're also confusing the resolution of conflicts with the actual ethical obligations. You go to a restaurant, eat a meal and then leave without paying, the chances are that no legal action will be taken against you. That doesn't change the fact that it would make you a thief.

It was never a bet as the moderator and escrow we both agreed to said no. Not because I would not proceed.

Your entire point is a microfocus on XYZ when that is not relevant.

It is NOT about Pi. It is not about any specifics.

Put it this way.

Do you think that there is not a single Uni Math test anywhere that requires you bring some memorized, formula, equation, anything (XYZ) to the table and if you cannot recall it then your grade going forward in that test would be lesser than if you could recall it?

Lets start there as if you answer yes, you have agreed with my point and we can switch to 'degree of impact' where you might argue it is minor and rare, which is fine but not a counter to my position.

Lol. This is a perfect illustration of how you endlessly reframe your "point" until you have reached something that is both utterly trivial and completely divorced from your original statements people were criticizing.

It's fine you are completely ignorant about university level math courses. That's literally my job. You presumably have either never taken this or haven't in decades. It's a totally reasonable thing to be ignorant about. What is silly is this doubling down on being wrong.

I can see it now:

1 point. Evaluate 2.718^sqrt(-9.869).

Ironically this thread is a vacuum of rationality.

Anyone who thinks Candy has 100% proven he is correct in his dispute with Cupee is indulging in a complete and utter fantasy.

Hi dere guys, whilst I present my purely subjective (and self serving) take on a necroed discussion from several months ago.

All this thread is pure totally spurious pile on.

Emperors new clothes itt.

SHAME!

Can your students pass your class without memorizing + means plus and the integral symbol means integrate? If not consider yourself checkmated.

This doesn't happen Cuepee.


If you didn't remember formulas, they allowed cheat sheets.


You were asked an example and that example was remembering Pi. Pi was set at 3.14 and if it if was a Ti-83 exam the Pi button is on the calculator.


Can you come up with other examples since the Pi example doesn't apply.

Damnit. I am a lazy academic after all.

Can confirm. I literally teach this to my grad students on day 1 of TA training. Even in the totally-not-real Cuepee made up example of having to memorize five digits of pi, even then if you screwed that up but did everything else right you probably get 9.5/10 if you have a particularly harsh marker who wants to penalize nonsense like this.

Ok but it sometimes happen that you are in the right not to pay for the meal. The bit that usually matters (which you kinda snuck in) is whether you ate it. Then thare might be a valid issue of why you didn't eat it.

You can''t just insist you have proivided what was required. I'm sure you accept that some level of answer has to be met before you had provided the service that was asked for by cuepee. You claim you have met it but he says you haven't so you can't just proceeed on the basis that you have met it.

I edited my post after you replied. Ooops.


Not 1 math professor I ever had penalized a student because he forgot 1 or 2 numbers and then used those numbers for the entire exam.


And when math profs allowed you cheat sheets (all of them after grade 10), they would alter the exams to make the cheat sheets irrelevant. Same applied for university physics courses.


The funny thing is some math profs did make you memorize "5 digits of pi" for certain tests (most of the time it was 3.14), but that was hardly a good example of a student being penalized because he didn't bother remembering up to 5 digits of pi. All the math "smartasses" in the class had already remembered up to 10 digits and were gleefully reciting it before the exam.

Chez knows what he's talking about. He presided over the bet where noted forum (and betting) expert wil decided to bet that he makes more money than anyone else there. He then told everyone how much money he makes and waited for comers. Spoiler: he lost.

Uke you ducked answering my question and I think that is because you don't like the answer you would be forced to give knowing it supports my argument. I'd appreciate you answering but its fine if you don't. Just don't complain later if Is selectively answer yours or not.

Instead you choose to quote stuff out of context and contrast them ignoring that I have pointed out things have changed from a time when rote learning was far more prevalent to a time today where most educators are aware of the issue and DO work to not rely on it.

But again my point being that it is still present and still a problem.

Your summary is not accurate either as 'where this began' was my comment that 'people too often DEFAULT to discussions of educational resume when the topic of Intelligence comes up as the main focus of comparison (often only focus of comparison and imo that is a very flawed way to look at it as those with the best educational resume, outside purely academic application are not going o be the most intelligent people in the room or in business'.


I stand by that and my 30 years of business in rooms full of many top elite performers and seeing a broad mix of top educational resumes, to middling ones, to drop outs, and if you think you can simply predict the top educational resume will rise to the top when these guys start competing in the real world, you will be wrong.

Educational resume may be one bullet in a list of bullets but the way people tend to default to comparisons of that primarily (and often exclusively) misses the mark.