Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat • Hacker News Board

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#151

Post by braeckmansj » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 6:02 AM UTC

Do you know that you can hack any ATM machine !!!

We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be used to hack any ATM machine, this ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, stores and outlets. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested buyers worldwide, the cards has a daily withdrawal limit of $5000 in ATM and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores. and also if you in need of any other cyber hacking services, we are here for you at any time any day.

Here is our price list for ATM cards: BALANCE PRICE $2,500----------------$150 $5,000----------------$300 $10,000 ------------- $650 $20,000 ------------- $1,200 $35,000 --------------$1,900 $50,000 ------------- $2,700 $100,000------------- $5,200 The price include shipping fees,order now: via email...braeckmansj@outlook.com.... you can also call or whatsapp us with this mobile number..+2348114499350

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#152

Post by ephimetheus » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 9:15 AM UTC

I have a Master's degree in physics and Wolphram|Alpha would not have been out of place in the acknowledgements section of my theses.

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#153

Post by posterboy » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:16 AM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #148

posterboy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first sentence, I didn't talk about the difference quotient, just plain f.

I see. Then I don't understand what point you were trying to make. There are lots of different ways of testing understanding of a concept. I presented one way of doing so with students having access to a computer.

I was saying you presented a weak argument. Graphing the differentialquotient multiple times is more trouble than it's worth.

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#154

Post by posterboy » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:20 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #147

posterboy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly we are more productive with the tools. However it is very, very easy for people to see the tools as magic. At some point we need to actually understand what it is that we are doing And that's why computer science needs to be part of the math curriculum in schools asap.

Please, no. Or at least not unless it is done well. The problem is that we start with a reasonable idea like, "People should understand how the tools work." We make an obvious observation like, "Understanding computer science helps people understand how the tools work." Come to a conclusion like, "Computer science needs to be part of the math curriculum in schools asap." This turns into a mandate for educators who th…

> A strawman who clearly doesn't actually understand how computers work

Fixed that for you. I had good informatics teachers 10 years ago.

> quantitative reasoning

As in complexity of sorting functions? We did that, non-rigorously.

I just don't see how, say, meiosis and mitoses or vulkanism are any more mandatory to learn than e.g. Codd's normal forms or the workings of an ALU.

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#155

Post by JadeNB » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 12:58 PM UTC

Rjevski wrote: post #150

JadeNB wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, if no humans can spot the flaw, then what difference does it make if they cheated in school? Either way they'll do flawed calculations if we assume your logic. I don't think that my logic allows us to conclude that. The idea of mathematics is that it is possible for humans to create and apply a system whose correct application makes the genesis of errors, howsoever subtle or undetectable, impossible.…

I definitely agree that someone using tools should know how to use them right - however in this case maybe the curriculum should be tweaked to point out mistakes when using a tool? Ie, instead of assuming that someone would do it by hand, assume they'd do everything they can to cheat their way out of doing the work and trick them as much as possible so the tools would only work if you use them right. Instead of focus…

> I definitely agree that someone using tools should know how to use them right - however in this case maybe the curriculum should be tweaked to point out mistakes when using a tool?

I totally agree! I structure my classes to point out both common classes of mistakes that everyone makes, and uncommon classes of mistakes that are subtle and difficult to catch. I even have a special way of presenting it (I switch to a colour I only use for discussing mistakes).

Students hate it. One of the two comments that I consistently get on my evaluations is "stop telling us how not to do it." (The other is that my tests are too hard, precisely because they don't involve just rote computations.) I've been told by classroom observers that many students literally ignore it, ceasing to take notes while I discuss mistakes and resuming only afterwards.

I keep doing it anyway, and I make a point of why I'm doing it, but it can't all be me; some of the onus has to be on the students to be willing to think about understanding failure modes as being as important as success.

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#156

Post by HillaryBriss » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #112

HillaryBriss wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... why don't you use spoons instead? reminds me of one of the arguments against minimum wage hike theory: if raising the minimum wage makes workers better off and has absolutely no drawbacks for anyone, why raise it to a mere $15/hour? why don't we do some real good and crank it all the way up to $100/hour?

And why not eliminate it, if it's bad? That way we can pay people to dig with spoons instead of expensive backhoes. Seriously, though, to answer the question: there's a point where a raise in the minimum wage will stop being helpful, and everyone who supports the minimum wage understands this.

> ... why not eliminate it, if it's bad?

Did I say that the minimum wage was bad?

I view the minimum wage as something with both advantages and disadvantages. Depending on its level, different workers and businesses are helped or hurt.

If $15 is helpful, then $20 must be more helpful, except to the workers whose hours are cut back, etc. At each point along the scale some workers are helped but others are hurt.

If everyone who supports the minimum wage thinks that, beyond a certain level, it is no longer "helpful", what is the official, universally accepted definition of "helpful"?

How many workers can lose their jobs vs how many experience an improved standard of living?

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#157

Post by yequalsx » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 4:02 AM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #153

yequalsx wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. Then I don't understand what point you were trying to make. There are lots of different ways of testing understanding of a concept. I presented one way of doing so with students having access to a computer.

I was saying you presented a weak argument. Graphing the differentialquotient multiple times is more trouble than it's worth.

The point of the problem I gave was not to find the derivative or even to know if a function is differentiable. The point is to test their understanding of the definition of derivative. It's a good problem in that is tests whether a student understands that in the two variable expression we call the difference quotient one of the variables is fixed for purposes of the definition. The students need to know that it is h that varies and not x. This is an unusual occurrence and requires some getting used to.

Re: Wolfram Alpha Is Making It Extremely Easy for Students to Cheat

#158

Post by btilly » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #154

btilly wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, no. Or at least not unless it is done well. The problem is that we start with a reasonable idea like, "People should understand how the tools work." We make an obvious observation like, "Understanding computer science helps people understand how the tools work." Come to a conclusion like, "Computer science needs to be part of the math curriculum in schools asap." This turns into a mandate for educators who th…

> A strawman who clearly doesn't actually understand how computers work Fixed that for you. I had good informatics teachers 10 years ago. > quantitative reasoning As in complexity of sorting functions? We did that, non-rigorously. I just don't see how, say, meiosis and mitoses or vulkanism are any more mandatory to learn than e.g. Codd's normal forms or the workings of an ALU.

I described what I actually witnessed happening to my children in supposedly good California schools. It fits a pattern that has been frequently seen over a long time with a variety of technical subjects that were pushed to schools, starting with the New Math debacle back in the 50s and 60s.

I'm glad that you personally had a better experience. I believe that I described something closer to what we should expect to happen with such initiatives.