Mat 1375_D558_Mingla_Spring2018
A City Tech OpenLab Course Site
The OpenLab is an open-source, digital platform designed to support teaching and learning at City Tech (New York City College of Technology), and to promote student and faculty engagement in the intellectual and social life of the college community.
After reading the article I would still prefer to do the switch x and y method just to find the correct numbers. From there I’d figure out which is the independent and dependent in the real world. However I do understand the concern, since it would be confusing if the question was in a real world context and you got $5 for 445 credits when 1 credit is $86 like the article states.
Hi Kennethm,
Thank you for sharing. However, I would like to know more about your thoughts related to this issue. For that reason I am asking further questions:
Do you think that you learn better when you make sense out of something?
Do you see the sense or nonsense in switching the x and y to find the inverse function, or you just think that it is an easier procedure?
Everyone else in class is invited to share ideas.
I do think I learn better when I make sense of it. After reading the article I do see the nonsense in switching a and y but in the short term goal of finding the right numbers, I think its easier. Once I get the numbers I can decide which is independent and dependant.
From my understanding on the Article i prefer to solve for the dependent variable since it is less confusing for the students and also seems as if it is one less step then switching the X and Y based on the example of the of the College credit hour = $86 and $15 fee. also would save us a bit more time for the following questions.
looking at the graphs it make the concept more clear. Finding the inverse seems challenging be with some practice ill have it down pack.
Hello Everyone,
I am glad that you’re digging deep in the concept of inverse functions. That is my main goal.
We will discuss more in class. However, I am expecting everyone to participate in the online discussion as well.
Thanks!
Hey!
Inverse Functions was part of MAT 1275 and to be honest it was not that hard because it was taught only the basics of the topic. Now that we are going to go deep into the topic I hope we are going to be able to understand it properly. Switching the X in some exercises could be confusing especially how we will be able to graph it when we have square root function or division functions.
Great point!
Looking at the graph makes understanding inverse functions a little clear. However, I think we should be provided with more examples so everyone understands how to effectively solve this problem. The article somewhat made understanding the topic confusing. With more practice questions I believe we should have inverse functions mastered in no time.
This article definitely provided an insight as to learning inverse functions in a way where we actually comprehend the numbers and variables. I must admit getting through the article was a challenge because there was a lot of information but the graphs did somewhat help with understanding and managing the information. Learning the process is for me I think going to be challenging but hopefully the techniques in the article can be of help. It was definitely a challenge to get through but maybe when we do the problems I’ll understand it better.
After reading this article i believe that the method of how inverse functions are taught have two sides to it. On one hand this method is very simple and while it didn’t work in the first scenario with the cost of college credits it does work in other simpler cases which would make sense why it is taught. On the other hand teaching a method that only sometimes works to students can be a bad idea, it can lead to confusion and cause them to get answers wrong even though they were using the methods taught to them. In retrospect teaching the full proof method is overall the best method of teaching, even if it may be more time consuming for the student to learn. While switching the X and Y is simpler and can work sometimes I believe that it is nonsense to teach a method that is not full proof. Personally I believe that I learn much better when I can make complete sense of what I am doing in the problem. If i fully understand the procedure it does not really matter what problem is at that point I would already know what to do and it is as easy as following steps. The best way to learn is to drill the full proof formula into your head not the easiest solution for every niche problem.
We will definitely discuss the challenges in class. My goal is for you to understand what exactly the inverse function of a function does, rather than what is the procedure to find it. (Not that the procedure of finding and representing it is not important. They are just as important, but this is just to make you think about it).
After reading the article, while I have learned and understood the swap X and Y method from when I learned it in high school; I understand how confusing it can be when you try to apply it to real world examples. I’m sure solving for the dependent variable is probably an easier way to help students understand the subject, but since I already learned inverse functions with the swap x and y method I probably would stick to it and not swap over to the new method.
After reading the article I see the confusion and how it doesn’t make sense to switch the x and y, but thats how I was taught and feel more comfortable with. Im open to learning the new method and applying it to some problems and practice. Both methods have their pros and cons.
Reading this article really does make me think about how much we really can use these methods and one works better for some people. Although I personally prefer the swap X and Y method. I do see how it can be incorrect but I woulds say that it would take a good amount of practice before I really start to switch to the other method and the college credit question is an incredibly good example of how real world situations can require a proper method or else we would get it wrong while we know it works in other questions. I also find it interesting that if I were to discard the x and y method it would make me think less of the “addiction” of x being the independent variable. If I ever do get into an even higher class of mathematics or just if I were to work in the field of it, it could help since according to the article is that x is rarely used to represent something on a graph and they usually instead use whole words.
Reading this article really does make me think about how much we really can use these methods and one works better for some people. Although I personally prefer the swap X and Y method. I do see how it can be incorrect but I woulds say that it would take a good amount of practice before I really start to switch to the other method and the college credit question is an incredibly good example of how real world situations can require a proper method or else we would get it wrong while we know it works in other questions. I also find it interesting that if I were to discard the x and y method it would make me think less of the “addiction” of x being the independent variable. If I ever do get into an even higher class of mathematics or just if I were to work in the field of it, it could help since according to the article is that x is rarely used to represent something on a graph and they usually instead use whole words.
After finishing this article i believe that the method of inverse functions can work depending on who the person is. The method can sometimes be very simple in certain situation or it can be complicated. When this method is taught to others, it can lead to confusion since it works some of the times. I feel like the x and y method is easier and simpler since i usually use that method but i can learn the other method as well with a lot of practice.
Hi Jose,
I would like to highlight again that the point here is understanding the concept of inverse functions rather than just the procedure of finding it. The procedure (either of them) becomes more clear once the concept is clear.
That whole concept of inverse functions is new to me, and i just starting to understand it. And from the examples that we got for hw i can say that much easier for me it was solving for x instead of switching x with y. So, I completely agree with the article that the new method of learning the inverse functions might be just easier for all the students to understand it.
After reading this article I believe it is better to do the x and y method because it will always provide you with the correct answer. However, in some scenarios switching the x and y would be confusing. I believe solving for the dependent would be easier to understand however it doesn’t always provide you with the correct answer. So I will want to learn and understand the x and y method more so I am able to solve any question I have and get the correct answer.
Can you please provide examples for when you think you cannot solve for x , and when you think you can solve for x? We need to clarify your thoughts on this.
As prior clarification: We’re talking about the functions that have inverse functions (bijective functions).
Hey everyone,
To be very honest, I personally think that the article was somewhat if not very confusing. However, my understanding of the article is that we are being taught a “problematic” means of solution to a problem. But by “problematic”, they do not mean wrong. They are simply stating that students are taught how to solve equations but aren’t taught the interpretation of the solution. For example, one comment spoke of the explanation of the “mean” of a group of numbers. When you ask individuals what exactly the “mean” is they can only tell you how to compute the “mean” but not actually give you the definition you are looking for.
That being said, I personally understand the concept of switching the ‘x’ and ‘y’ and I think it works fine. It is easier to comprehend for most. Now, instead of introducing an entirely new concept, I feel like we should continue to work with the same method but implement a little change. That change being how to interpret the solutions, given that, the answers aren’t wrong as can be seen in the plotting of two separate graphs, where the axis are switched. Thus, I feel the problem can be fixed by simply implementing an addition segment into the course instead of entirely changing a renounced concept.
The whole point here is understanding the concept of inverse functions rather than focus on changing or not changing procedures.
Once the concept is clear the procedures of finding it becomes much easier and natural to apply.
After reading the article, I found it to be helpful. I like how they introduced a new method of solving inverse functions. I do, however, believe the choice is up to you. Preferably, I would stick to what I already know and what I am familiar with. But I can see some people liking this new method as others might be quick learners.
After reading this article, my thoughts on this was really interesting. They took a method on how we see functions and turned it into something new by showing us a new process of using the inverse functions. I also like how it gets really into details explaining the individual differences in concept 1 and 2.
After reading the article, I understand why it is not right to switch the x and the y but I think I still prefer finding the inverse by switching the x and the y because I’ve been using this method for a long time switching to another method would just make me confused, and whenever I use this method I always get the right answer. so solving for the dependent value method is not for me.
The concept is weird and it is a little confusing, so I would rather stick to the method I know the most. However, I understand what the new way of switching x and y means. I just need a few examples, so I am able to fully understand the new concept that I am being introduced to.
After reading the article, I understand why switching the x and y is not correct, and I now prefer to do it this way. trying to find the inverse took me a long time to find and doing it this way I find easier and faster.
After reading this article, it did provide some help into learning more about inverse functions.It gave a way we can comprehend the numbers and variables. The examples of graphs did make a little more clear, but I still feel I would need more lessons and help to fully grasp this topic. Functions has always been tough for me so more examples of this would be helpful.
After reading this article, it did provide some help into learning more about inverse functions.It gave a way we can comprehend the numbers and variables. The examples of graphs did make a little more clear, but I still feel I would need more lessons and help to fully grasp this topic. Functions has always been tough for me so more examples of this would be helpful.
After reading this article, it did provide some help into learning more about inverse functions.It gave a way we can comprehend the numbers and variables. The examples of graphs did make a little more clear, but I still feel I would need more lessons and help to fully grasp this topic. Functions has always been tough for me so more examples of this would be helpful.
We will do more examples as we go, but please practice in webwork and complete the handout that is posted in next discussion (The task for inverse functions..) and files in openlab.
There are plenty of solved examples plus practice problems.
After reading the article, for finding the inverse of an function I prefer switching the x’s and y’s. Like if your finding the inverse of y=x-3 I would switch the variables x=y-3 and solve for y so y=x+3. I found this method easier for me because I guess that’s the way I learned it in high school and I just found this way more simpler than the other methods.
After reading the article, for finding the inverse of an function I prefer switching the x’s and y’s. Like if your finding the inverse of y=x-3 I would switch the variables x=y-3 and solve for y so y=x+3. I found this method easier for me because I guess that’s the way I learned it in high school and I just found this way more simpler than the other methods.
After taking 1275 math i was taught to switch the x and y. Reading the article made me open my mind and I am willing to learn other methods.