[Edu-sig] K-16 CS/math hybrid

[Kirby Urner]

> > Wittgenstein, a hero of mine, was always in the dissenting camp,
> > thinking set theory "underpins" arithmetic the way a painted foundation 
> > supports a painted tower, i.e. it doesn't really.
> 
> Can you say some more about that? I thought Wittgenstein was a
> protege of Russell, and changed his mind later. Was he always
> claiming the emperor had no clothes?

Hey, that's a good point and I'm inclined to back-pedal a bit.  Yes, he
*was* a protégé of Russell's, though I don't know to what extent he ever
bought into R&W's program to formalize mathematics ala Principia.  

His goal in the Tractatus seemed far less positivist -- he was more a
"logical negativist" in that phase of his career, into showing how *little*
could be said  -- but he certainly knew how to wield symbolic logic like a
pro, and that's what earned him Russell's respect.  

Then he veered off in a different direction, losing Russell, but making a
name for himself nonetheless.  And that's when we get to his famous "painted
foundation" analogy (in 'Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics').

> > Purists might complain that I'm trying to ruin the basic math
> > curriculum, by polluting it with CS concepts.  But I say I'm trying to 
> > *rescue* set concepts from obscurity and neglect, by integrating them 
> > into a nutritious and wholesome diet featuring a wider variety of data 
> > structures.
> 
> On the other side, at the college level, there is the
> math-thinking list of computer science instructors trying to
> increase the rigor of the CS curriculum.
> 
> URL: http://www.cs.geneseo.edu/mailman/listinfo/math-thinking/
> 
> --
> Greg Matheson, Taiwan

Thanks for the link, will follow.

I'm very much the pragmatist in making these proposals:  what mix of topics,
skills, habits of thought, will keep the most doors open longest, plus
anticipate future needs (same thing really)?  

The insular world of math-teaching culture keeps it sheltered from much that
goes on outside, which is why from my point of view it's thick with dust and
barely relevant to kids in this highly technological age.  

No Python?  No rhombic dodecahedron?  How can this *possibly* be considered
an early 21st century curriculum?

Kirby