Skip to main content

Logarithms!

 I maintain that as an unschooling parent, I don’t teach, I facilitate. I try really hard to live by those words. One of the reason is the fringe benefits I reap by not ‘teaching’.

Let me stop here  for a moment to summarize ahead of time. The point I’d like to make is that you don’t have to know the things to help someone else learn the things. Even better, frequently I find myself learning very cool new things I didn’t know before. Unschooling works, and it benefits everyone! Everything else below is rambling about math. Here we go!

The kids and I have been talking about number bases for a few years now. Starting off in base two arithmetic—binary. It was an easy way to look at concepts without worrying about memorization. The addition and multiplication tables for that base have only four entries a piece. There’s not too much you have to memorize when the only numbers you have to work with are one and zero.

A few years into this odyssey, the kids and I started looking into raising numbers to powers, and what this meant with respect to binary. We quickly arrived at the idea, (a new idea to me also), that shifting numbers in a base was the same as raising the number of that base by powers. So, in other words, working in base 2 where we have the numbers 0 - 1 to work with, we saw that,

1 << 0  = 1 (one shifted to the left by 0 is 1, corresponding to the 0th power of 2)

1 << 1  = 10 (one shifted to the left by 1 is 2, corresponding to the 1st power of 2)

1 << 2  = 100 (one shifted to the left by 2 is 4, corresponding to the 2nd power of 2)

That was cool. It immediately made sense of raising something to the 0th power, you just don’t shift the number that forms the powers of the base, the number one. I’d never understood it as a kid. I’d been told that raising something to the zeroth power will always result in the answer one, and that this was a definition I should simply memorize. 

The kids and  I  also got to make sense of terms I came across in graduate school, namely, generators, operators, and sets. In our example above, using the generator 1 and the operator (shift left), we could create all the members of the set of powers of the label of a base, (where 2 would be the label of base 2, and the powers we can generate are 1, 2, 4, and so on, (see above).

I think I may be using the term generator incorrectly, but that’s part of the process. We can all, (the gang and I), use the terms, roll the sound and the feel of the words around in our mouths, as well as our conception of them around in our minds, and then evolve those meanings over time as we learn more. What we’re learning isn’t perfect, but that's ok, it's fluid. It’ll all evolve to the full story over time.

There are two real points here besides my current fascination with exponentiation, generators, and logarithms. First, I don’t have to be an expert in a subject to learn it with the kids. This is one of the unschooling ways around the old questions, “But how will you teach them everything?’ (The other way around is that they teach themselves, I help them find resources.) The second point is that because I’m not an expert, I get to participate in all this stuff, and it’s fun!

OK, so I said I was going to talk about logarithms. I’ve taken a few different swipes at them. The logarithm is the inverse of raising a number to a power. So, if I raised 10 to the 2nd power to get 100, (in whatever base), and then took the logarithm in that same base, I’d get two. For a bit, this got me to realize that two was the number of zeroes in 100. From that point of view, logarithm is a good way to count the digits in a given number in a given base. That's sort of cool. But for the last week or so, I’ve been thinking of logarithm as returning the power the number was raised to itself, rather than the number of digits. Both interpretations give the same answer, but they present different perspectives. For me, this is awesome. I’m learning what powers, logarithms, and bases really mean, as opposed to the definitions—devoid of thought—I was taught in school. I’m getting to do that because there are unschooling kids around me who asks questions. It’s all pretty nice!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Cowbell! Record Production using Google Forms and Charts

First, the what : This article shows how to embed a new Google Form into any web page. To demonstrate ths, a chart and form that allow blog readers to control the recording levels of each instrument in Blue Oyster Cult's "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" is used. HTML code from the Google version of the form included on this page is shown and the parts that need to be modified are highlighted. Next, the why : Google recently released an e-mail form feature that allows users of Google Documents to create an e-mail a form that automatically places each user's input into an associated spreadsheet. As it turns out, with a little bit of work, the forms that are created by Google Docs can be embedded into any web page. Now, The Goods: Click on the instrument you want turned up, click the submit button and then refresh the page. Through the magic of Google Forms as soon as you click on submit and refresh this web page, the data chart will update immediately. Turn up the:

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

Now available as a Kindle ebook for 99 cents ! Get a spiffy ebook, and fund more physics The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems , there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes! What do we actually want? To convert the Cartesian nabla to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates. What we’ll need: 1. The Cartesian Nabla: 2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates: 3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system: How to do it: Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables. The chain

The Valentine's Day Magnetic Monopole

There's an assymetry to the form of the two Maxwell's equations shown in picture 1.  While the divergence of the electric field is proportional to the electric charge density at a given point, the divergence of the magnetic field is equal to zero.  This is typically explained in the following way.  While we know that electrons, the fundamental electric charge carriers exist, evidence seems to indicate that magnetic monopoles, the particles that would carry magnetic 'charge', either don't exist, or, the energies required to create them are so high that they are exceedingly rare.  That doesn't stop us from looking for them though! Keeping with the theme of Fairbank[1] and his academic progeny over the semester break, today's post is about the discovery of a magnetic monopole candidate event by one of the Fairbank's graduate students, Blas Cabrera[2].  Cabrera was utilizing a loop type of magnetic monopole detector.  Its operation is in concept very sim