"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:49:54 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:18:09 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:13:19 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:31:53 -0400, JohnH wrote:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:35:39 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:44:05 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:10:18 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:47:09 -0400, JohnH penned the following
well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:40:57 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

"As Sommers understood, it is boys' aggressive and rationalist
nature
- redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder - that's
getting
so
many of them in trouble in the feminized schools. Their problem:
they
don't want to be girls."

False. Too many boys think it's cool to be a fool, and the girls
are
realizing they're much more capable than they were given credit
for
several
years ago.

Bull****. Boys and girls both play the fool..... and the
statement
that, "...girls are realizing they're much more capable than they
were
given credit for... " is just feminazi psychobabble.

Brandon was due his answer, as was I, when I asked the same thing
nearly 50 years ago..... and I'm still waiting for a better answer
than, well... you'll need it next year, or in Junior High, or
College... or whatever crappy excuse I was given when the teacher
had
no rational explanation and the inability to teach the usefulness
of
a
concept that I *must* learn....

For context read:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...d_american.htm

Bull****, bull****.

It's my experience that the ones constantly asking the 'why'
question
are
simply trying to disrupt and start an argument. When provided a
reasonable
answer, their response is invariably, "Well, I'm never going to be
doing
that."

Sorry John, your on the wrong side of this one. Hopefully you're
having some fun poking the ferret.

Wouldn't it be nice if every math teacher could provide the perfect
answer
to every 'why' question for ever topic in all thirteen chapters of
every
high school math book!

I can- why can't you?

Then again, I'm not a "pure" engineer. :)

Bull****!

Not at all.

Truth.

Tom, please tell me why I need to know how to simplify -

[(sinx + cosx)(sinx - cosx) + 1] / sin^2x

Now remember, you're a math teacher, not an engineer.


--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

The question should be why do I need to know " [(sinx + cosx)(sinx -
cosx)
+ 1] / sin^2x" Simplifying is only to solve the problem. A valid
question
would be: What is the use of [Sin**2+cos**2=1]?

A have a patent using this equation.


Not the point. The question stands. A math teacher in high school
couldn't
be expected to know of your patent. Your equation is just a restatement
of
the Pythagorean Theorem, for which there are many uses.

Used missed the point. I asked why the question should not be what is the
equation good for?. Simplifying is only to get a solution easier, but
you
then have to answer the question with why the Pythagorean Theorem is
useful.
As to the patent, partner wrote his math teacher and said I finally found
a
use for [Sin**2+cos**2=1]. Used is Quadrature in communications. The
question is still why is the equation useful, not just why I should
simplify
it.


Sorry. I was presenting a question a kid would ask in the classroom. I
doubt if many math teachers would know what a Quadrature in Communications
was either! (This one doesn't.)

Imagine a math teacher answering a kid's question with, "You'll use this
in
a quadrature in communications."

The kid would ask what good is the equation. Not why should I simplify it.

And quadrature is how you get 50k baud on a modem with a much lower
frequency. HAs to do with phase of the signals.