ChanchanXI wrote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
ChanXxxXXxXXXXXXXi wrote:
stuff
Boredom :( And I left my permission slip at home >.<
I think you need a spanking!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the new math..continued....
the new math..continued....Follow
Why are you here? Who granted you express written permission?
Boredom :( And I left my permission slip at home >.<
I think you need a spanking!
Quote:
Elderon the Wise wrote:
ChanXxxXXxXXXXXXXi wrote:
stuff
I left my permission slip at home >.<
Elderon the Wise wrote:
I suggest you go find it or I will be forced to shove a small automobile into your **** cavity and make you sing John Denver songs repeatedly until you bleed from the ears.
Oh, there it is. *********** he said he signed it...um....well, damn.
Would you sign it? >.>
Quote:
Would you sign it? >.>
Aw, way to kill my fun. ****** off-
Apparently not. I've been a professional estimator for a living for the last eight years
---------------------------------------------------------
estimators are for insurance and loans. they are about "guestimating" costs, not about "buidling" or actualy "ordering" materials.
estimators are about adding a shade of grey to an absolute.
for instance, i dont call an "estimator" when i want a home built, i call a contractor. the contractor "might" use and estimator to deal with the shady area of what to CHARGE for a project, but the contractor will no "estimate" what he needs to get it done, he will use ACCURATE information.
estimatiors are part of the "salesmanship", not part of the math of a product. salesmanship is an ART, not a science. and ART class is exactly where "estimating" belongs.
contractors hire an "estimator" to round costs up so they dont get shortchanged with cost increases. insurance companies hire an "estimator" to round numbers down to save the insurance company money.
but when the house is getting built, the CONTRACTOR will order the ACCURATE amount of material, not the ESTIMATOR.
i do know. i have delt with both. and because of my solid math background, i paid an ACCURATE amount, not an "estimators" amount for repairs to my home.
estimators turn fact into a shifting fiction so it can be measured in DOLLARS. it is not math, it is ART. and the "estimating" has no berring at all when it comes to actually completing the project. math does.
its like a car. the car is fact. full of exact measurments, exact materials, exact purpose. the car sales man is the "estimator". he is not there to change the facts, nor does he have ANY PART in deciding the actual FACTS that went into making the car. the "estimator" is just there to assign a shifting value for the FACT.
the world would survive without "estimators" and car sales people for that matter, but the FACTS make or break what we achieve as a society.
math is the FACT of our existance.
estimators are just sales people playing with dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------
estimators are for insurance and loans. they are about "guestimating" costs, not about "buidling" or actualy "ordering" materials.
estimators are about adding a shade of grey to an absolute.
for instance, i dont call an "estimator" when i want a home built, i call a contractor. the contractor "might" use and estimator to deal with the shady area of what to CHARGE for a project, but the contractor will no "estimate" what he needs to get it done, he will use ACCURATE information.
estimatiors are part of the "salesmanship", not part of the math of a product. salesmanship is an ART, not a science. and ART class is exactly where "estimating" belongs.
contractors hire an "estimator" to round costs up so they dont get shortchanged with cost increases. insurance companies hire an "estimator" to round numbers down to save the insurance company money.
but when the house is getting built, the CONTRACTOR will order the ACCURATE amount of material, not the ESTIMATOR.
i do know. i have delt with both. and because of my solid math background, i paid an ACCURATE amount, not an "estimators" amount for repairs to my home.
estimators turn fact into a shifting fiction so it can be measured in DOLLARS. it is not math, it is ART. and the "estimating" has no berring at all when it comes to actually completing the project. math does.
its like a car. the car is fact. full of exact measurments, exact materials, exact purpose. the car sales man is the "estimator". he is not there to change the facts, nor does he have ANY PART in deciding the actual FACTS that went into making the car. the "estimator" is just there to assign a shifting value for the FACT.
the world would survive without "estimators" and car sales people for that matter, but the FACTS make or break what we achieve as a society.
math is the FACT of our existance.
estimators are just sales people playing with dollars.
Keep trying. At least you'll convince yourself.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Elderon the Wise wrote:
No sh[Aqua][/Aqua]it? A good friend of mine is also an estimator. Small world.
I'm actually a landscape estimator but the other guy in my department was a construction estimator as well. In landscaping, it's even more open-ended. On a $2mil job, you still have conversations like:
"What're we doing around this pond?"
"Wet mesic prairie with C150 blanket. Figured around 15,500 yards."
"We know the slope?"
"Nah, no civils in the set. Probably 4:1"
"All right then, this should probably cover us."
The whole idea behind professional estimating is to make an intelligent, educated guess with an answer you'll be able to live with.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
not trying to convince anyone. and i dont need a consensus to determine what i feel is right or wrong.
keep trying, and you might become a person instead of a tool.
keep trying, and you might become a person instead of a tool.
shadowrelm wrote:
for instance, i dont call an "estimator" when i want a home built, i call a contractor. the contractor "might" use and estimator to deal with the shady area of what to CHARGE for a project, but the contractor will no "estimate" what he needs to get it done, he will use ACCURATE information.
Of course they measure and get the dimensions. At the end of the day though, they're just using those numbers to make sure they'll have themselves covered for the job. If you ever actually completed a job on the dime, it'd be scary as hell.
Of course, that's for cost and material ordering and the like. Obviously you want the engineering to be exact. Which was my point -- there's a place for using estimating skills and a place for exact numbers. If you hired an architect who hasn't taken any advanced math and doesn't know the difference then (A) stop hiring unlicensed architects and (B) you're an idiot.
Edited, Fri May 12 11:42:51 2006 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The whole idea behind professional estimating is to make an intelligent, educated guess with an answer you'll be able to live with.
---------------------------------------------
exactly my point. and reguardless of your estimate, the contractor will use ACCURATE information when he actually does the job.....or go out of bussiness really quick.
---------------------------------------------
exactly my point. and reguardless of your estimate, the contractor will use ACCURATE information when he actually does the job.....or go out of bussiness really quick.
Stick with air traffic controlling
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
shadowrelm wrote:
The whole idea behind professional estimating is to make an intelligent, educated guess with an answer you'll be able to live with.
---------------------------------------------
exactly my point. and reguardless of your estimate, the contractor will use ACCURATE information when he actually does the job.....or go out of bussiness really quick.
---------------------------------------------
exactly my point. and reguardless of your estimate, the contractor will use ACCURATE information when he actually does the job.....or go out of bussiness really quick.
In the Canadian auto repair industry, but LAW a garage must provide a written estimate of work to be done to a vehicle prior to actually touching it. They MUST only charge what they have estimated on paper for the repairs outlined and not a penny more.
Your an moran.
shadowrelm wrote:
not trying to convince anyone. and i dont need a consensus to determine what i feel is right or wrong.
You certainly don't need a consensus as to what you feel. But there seems to be a consensus that you are an idiot.
shadowrelm wrote:
keep trying, and you might become a person instead of a tool.
/butthurt
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Could you have your child type your posts from now on while you dictate? Then I'll judge whether or not they're being failed by the education system.
As for:
No, not accurate in the sense that the cost will exactly equal the amount needed for materials and labor and profit. The estimate is always going to attempt to overshoot the neccessary expenses because sh[red][/red]it happens when you're building or repairing stuff. You have to break a few eggs, or shingles or pipes or even braincells as I wade through one of your ranting, ******-o-rama posts.
As for:
shadoorelm wrote:
exactly my point. and reguardless of your estimate, the contractor will use ACCURATE information when he actually does the job.....or go out of bussiness really quick.
No, not accurate in the sense that the cost will exactly equal the amount needed for materials and labor and profit. The estimate is always going to attempt to overshoot the neccessary expenses because sh[red][/red]it happens when you're building or repairing stuff. You have to break a few eggs, or shingles or pipes or even braincells as I wade through one of your ranting, ******-o-rama posts.
I cant believe you people continue to feed him. You know SR lives in his own little world and refuses to have an open mind. Funny, since that *is* a big part of what being liberal is all about. He's either one of the most closeminded arrogant people who can do no wrong, or he's one of the best trolls we got here on the site. Either way, stop feeding him tidbits
shadowrelm wrote:
Point being, in Engineering, things get extreme- quickly- and good estimation skills have saved me time and time again. I estimate at least ten times, generally around 20-30 times, per problem, consciously.. not even sure how many times I do it subconsciously.
------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but it didnt save you time and time again, all it saved you was........time.
time you decided was more important that the actual correct numbers based on your openion of the importance of accuracy vs the TIME you were willing to spend to get as close as possible to the correct answer.
i GUARENTEE you that when the time comes to actually use this information with a real spacecraft, SOMEONE WILL have to solve those values for their correct answer not an estimated answer.
adn that someone wont be anyone who learned "estimation" or finding "reasonable" answers to questions in THIRD GRADE, a time when they should have been taught how to SOLVE problems for CORRECT solutions.
math is a science. there is only one answer to a given problem, or a series of corect answers depending on the problem. it is either the RIGHT answer, or it is WRONG no matter how close the WRONG answer is to the CORRECT answer.
there may be many ways to get the CORRECT answer, but estimating and finding a reasonable answer is NOT ONE OF THEM.
in third grade, they need to learn to solve for accuracy. and if they master that, which they wont for some years to come, then they need to learn differant ways to solve for accuracy.
AFTER that, then they can be taught to use estimation to speed it along depending on the importance of the solution.
and thats the whole point. the IMPORTANCE of the solution.
you teach a child estimation and finding reasonable answers at a time when not only have they not mastered solving basic math problems, but have not even started more complex solution formulas like geometry and algebra, you WILL end up teaching them that solving for soltions is not IMPORTANT.
you send them into high school with that attitude, adn i guarentee you math will not be theri best subject.
math is the foundation of every thing we have accomplished since leaving caves. you undermine that foundation by accepting "close" answers to spacific problems, you undermine our ability to advance as a society.
math IS that important. and an estimated answer, or a reasonable answer will always be.....THE WRONG ANSWER. teaching our kids how to come up with the WRONG answer at a time when they have barley scratched the surface of math itself is, IMO, the WRONG solution to solving our **** POOR math skills in students in this country or any other.
the only thing it will accomplish is bumping up the stats on a multiple guess test.
wouldnt it be funny if there were no answers to choose from? just a blank to fil in?
how well do you think these children would fare on that type of test after spending the time they should have been learning to solve basic math problems on estimation" or finding "reasonable' solutions?
next time you do someting like have a house built, try ordering a "reasonable" amount of concrete, or "estimation" how thick the wiring should be. infact, next time you buy dinner at resturaunt, ask for a "reasonable" amount of change back.
------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but it didnt save you time and time again, all it saved you was........time.
time you decided was more important that the actual correct numbers based on your openion of the importance of accuracy vs the TIME you were willing to spend to get as close as possible to the correct answer.
i GUARENTEE you that when the time comes to actually use this information with a real spacecraft, SOMEONE WILL have to solve those values for their correct answer not an estimated answer.
adn that someone wont be anyone who learned "estimation" or finding "reasonable" answers to questions in THIRD GRADE, a time when they should have been taught how to SOLVE problems for CORRECT solutions.
math is a science. there is only one answer to a given problem, or a series of corect answers depending on the problem. it is either the RIGHT answer, or it is WRONG no matter how close the WRONG answer is to the CORRECT answer.
there may be many ways to get the CORRECT answer, but estimating and finding a reasonable answer is NOT ONE OF THEM.
in third grade, they need to learn to solve for accuracy. and if they master that, which they wont for some years to come, then they need to learn differant ways to solve for accuracy.
AFTER that, then they can be taught to use estimation to speed it along depending on the importance of the solution.
and thats the whole point. the IMPORTANCE of the solution.
you teach a child estimation and finding reasonable answers at a time when not only have they not mastered solving basic math problems, but have not even started more complex solution formulas like geometry and algebra, you WILL end up teaching them that solving for soltions is not IMPORTANT.
you send them into high school with that attitude, adn i guarentee you math will not be theri best subject.
math is the foundation of every thing we have accomplished since leaving caves. you undermine that foundation by accepting "close" answers to spacific problems, you undermine our ability to advance as a society.
math IS that important. and an estimated answer, or a reasonable answer will always be.....THE WRONG ANSWER. teaching our kids how to come up with the WRONG answer at a time when they have barley scratched the surface of math itself is, IMO, the WRONG solution to solving our **** POOR math skills in students in this country or any other.
the only thing it will accomplish is bumping up the stats on a multiple guess test.
wouldnt it be funny if there were no answers to choose from? just a blank to fil in?
how well do you think these children would fare on that type of test after spending the time they should have been learning to solve basic math problems on estimation" or finding "reasonable' solutions?
next time you do someting like have a house built, try ordering a "reasonable" amount of concrete, or "estimation" how thick the wiring should be. infact, next time you buy dinner at resturaunt, ask for a "reasonable" amount of change back.
Oh Karana you rant. And idiotically so. All of our high Math is based on estimates. All of our dealings are based in estimates. And, yes, your house is built based on estimates.. don't you for a second dare to believe otherwise.
shadowr3lm wrote:
im saying people will believe what they WANT to believe reguardless of the truth or the facts presented.
To the cynics who are with shadowrelm on this one, to some degree or another:
Estimation is VITAL.
-Calculus itself is BASED on estimation- the intergrals are macroscopic sums of ESTIMATED micromers.
-Differential equations derives itself from the estimation of based equations.
-All applied Mathematics is based on estimation. Does anyone here honestly believe that some exact laser was built to exactly cut all of your pieces constructing your house?
It's all estimation, you bastards. In the youngest grades, kids get a head start with this like with addition. It's not some grand concept, but it's a start and a base, like addition and subtraction.
Excuse me for being blunt, but the ignorance this post is based around makes me feel like I'm with a bunch of monkeys throwing ***** at eachother, "OMG did you hear what the chimpanzee tried to do the other night? It tried to teach my chimpling the alphabet! Let's throw extra scat at him today!" (Or less scat.. however it is monkeys work. You tell me, shadowrelm.)
Estimation is VITAL.
-Calculus itself is BASED on estimation- the intergrals are macroscopic sums of ESTIMATED micromers.
-Differential equations derives itself from the estimation of based equations.
-All applied Mathematics is based on estimation. Does anyone here honestly believe that some exact laser was built to exactly cut all of your pieces constructing your house?
It's all estimation, you bastards. In the youngest grades, kids get a head start with this like with addition. It's not some grand concept, but it's a start and a base, like addition and subtraction.
Excuse me for being blunt, but the ignorance this post is based around makes me feel like I'm with a bunch of monkeys throwing ***** at eachother, "OMG did you hear what the chimpanzee tried to do the other night? It tried to teach my chimpling the alphabet! Let's throw extra scat at him today!" (Or less scat.. however it is monkeys work. You tell me, shadowrelm.)
Quote:
Excuse me for being blunt, but the ignorance this post is based around makes me feel like I'm with a bunch of monkeys throwing ***** at eachother
shadowr3lm wrote:
people will believe what they WANT to believe reguardless of the truth or the facts presented.
Jophiel wrote:
Stick with air traffic controlling
Just wait til he forces them to find the exact altitude all of those planes are on. He'll be airborne, out of the tower, before the first day is up.
Shadowrelm suffers from OCD. 'Nuff said.
His ignorance frustrates the crap out of me. I oughta take DSD's advice and stop responding to him. It's not like he's even reading what I write. But anyway...
It's obvious that he's either never taken a calculus course, or he slept through the theory of the damned thing. But if his spelling and grammar are any indication, then it's safe to assume that he doesn't know **** about it either way.
He keeps complaining that math is a "science", and that this somehow indicates that it should be about exact answers. I take this to mean that he doesn't know jack about science either, because an integral part of scientific study is the inclusion of error. Every measured result has two different types of error, and it's absolutely necessary to be aware of those inaccuracies.
He also doesn't realize that in math, estimation can actually be used to come up with the correct answer quickly.
I'm an architect in training. From what I've been told, there's gonna be about 2 inches worth of error in any decent sized structure that you put up. But yeah, we've gotta take calculus too.
Edited, Fri May 12 16:21:32 2006 by Eske
It's obvious that he's either never taken a calculus course, or he slept through the theory of the damned thing. But if his spelling and grammar are any indication, then it's safe to assume that he doesn't know **** about it either way.
He keeps complaining that math is a "science", and that this somehow indicates that it should be about exact answers. I take this to mean that he doesn't know jack about science either, because an integral part of scientific study is the inclusion of error. Every measured result has two different types of error, and it's absolutely necessary to be aware of those inaccuracies.
He also doesn't realize that in math, estimation can actually be used to come up with the correct answer quickly.
Jophiel wrote:
Of course, that's for cost and material ordering and the like. Obviously you want the engineering to be exact. Which was my point -- there's a place for using estimating skills and a place for exact numbers. If you hired an architect who hasn't taken any advanced math and doesn't know the difference then (A) stop hiring unlicensed architects and (B) you're an idiot.
I'm an architect in training. From what I've been told, there's gonna be about 2 inches worth of error in any decent sized structure that you put up. But yeah, we've gotta take calculus too.
Edited, Fri May 12 16:21:32 2006 by Eske
hehe. Is there an echo in here? Not going to deal with shadow, but this caught my eye?
Actually, in practice, the exact opposite happens more often then not.
The problem is that when you do "exact" math, it's extremely hard to tell if you got the answer right. This becomes doubly problematic when dealing with complex engineering problems. A dropped decimal point or trasposed number sequence is a far more likely error. And if you don't have a tool for checking if your answer is "about right", then you wont catch it.
Without estimating of answers as an error correction device, there'd be no way to catch those kinds of mistakes. The result? Bridges that fall down because one guy goofed when doing some math. Reactor shielding that doesn't block all the radiation because one guy goofed on the math. And both not caught because no one eyeballed the thing and said: "Hey! That doesn't look quite right. Are you sure that's thick enough?...".
And that's without getting into things like calculus and such. If we did nothing but "exact math", the space program would *never* get off the ground. Even ignoring things like how much fuel to put in a rocket, how do you think space vehicles are guided? Do you honestly think that we calculate their exact position for every second of the entire trip? We don't. We calculate ranges of possible positions based on likely ranges of error in thrust vectors from a given burn at a given angle. Those are stored in tables. The computer then constantly alternates between high and low values to "guesstimate" the middle range. As they move from one point to another, they shift from table to table, adjusting their calculations as they go. The computer does not have to know exactly how fast it's going, or exactly what direction. It only needs to know that as long as it's speed is between a particular pair of values and it's direction is between another set of values, it can compute what alterations it needs to make to arrive at the target destination. Trying to do it "perfectly" would be impossibly complex (and impossible to do in real time). Estimating allows for the trip to work.
Heck. How do you think people navigated back in the day of sailing ships? They didn't know where they were at every moment of every day. They took readings at set periods of time and based on the readings, made course corrections. Amazingly, despite not knowing exactly where they were at any given moment, they could navigate across an ocean the size of the Pacific and reliably arrive on a tiny island. How'd they do it? Estimation. They knew *about* how fast they were going, and *about* what direction. And a series of such measurements could allow them to follow a path to where they needed to go.
Trying to argue that estimation is a bad thing to teach to kids is really ridiculous. It's one of the most important math skills you can have. It's how you know what you're doing is right. Following rote formulas is great, but if you don't know what the answer means or why it's right or wrong, you haven't really learned anything.
Youshutup the Vile wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work out great ten years down the line when you get a bunch of engineers whose bridge was built to "almost" exact specifications, or a nuclear technician who was "reasonably" sure the rays wouldn't make it through that lead wall.
Actually, in practice, the exact opposite happens more often then not.
The problem is that when you do "exact" math, it's extremely hard to tell if you got the answer right. This becomes doubly problematic when dealing with complex engineering problems. A dropped decimal point or trasposed number sequence is a far more likely error. And if you don't have a tool for checking if your answer is "about right", then you wont catch it.
Without estimating of answers as an error correction device, there'd be no way to catch those kinds of mistakes. The result? Bridges that fall down because one guy goofed when doing some math. Reactor shielding that doesn't block all the radiation because one guy goofed on the math. And both not caught because no one eyeballed the thing and said: "Hey! That doesn't look quite right. Are you sure that's thick enough?...".
And that's without getting into things like calculus and such. If we did nothing but "exact math", the space program would *never* get off the ground. Even ignoring things like how much fuel to put in a rocket, how do you think space vehicles are guided? Do you honestly think that we calculate their exact position for every second of the entire trip? We don't. We calculate ranges of possible positions based on likely ranges of error in thrust vectors from a given burn at a given angle. Those are stored in tables. The computer then constantly alternates between high and low values to "guesstimate" the middle range. As they move from one point to another, they shift from table to table, adjusting their calculations as they go. The computer does not have to know exactly how fast it's going, or exactly what direction. It only needs to know that as long as it's speed is between a particular pair of values and it's direction is between another set of values, it can compute what alterations it needs to make to arrive at the target destination. Trying to do it "perfectly" would be impossibly complex (and impossible to do in real time). Estimating allows for the trip to work.
Heck. How do you think people navigated back in the day of sailing ships? They didn't know where they were at every moment of every day. They took readings at set periods of time and based on the readings, made course corrections. Amazingly, despite not knowing exactly where they were at any given moment, they could navigate across an ocean the size of the Pacific and reliably arrive on a tiny island. How'd they do it? Estimation. They knew *about* how fast they were going, and *about* what direction. And a series of such measurements could allow them to follow a path to where they needed to go.
Trying to argue that estimation is a bad thing to teach to kids is really ridiculous. It's one of the most important math skills you can have. It's how you know what you're doing is right. Following rote formulas is great, but if you don't know what the answer means or why it's right or wrong, you haven't really learned anything.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 288
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (288)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the new math..continued....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC