all 14 comments

[–]chottohen 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

The answer is c).

[–]BanditMcFuklebuck 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's called objective testing, as opposed to essay/fill-in-the-blank which are more time consuming and labor intensive testing methods, and more open to subjective interpretation. I always thought it was funny labeling probably the least accurate way of assessing someone's knowledge or aptitude as objective....

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

A typical US-attidude, as i judge.

As time-efficient as it is unprecise and unfathomable at the same time.

There quite obviously is no objectivity.

But there always is money. You always can invest your time in "earning" or "spending" your time on.

[–]BanditMcFuklebuck 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I was with you until the last two sentences. What do you mean?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Objectivity is a non-word in my simulation. Because it doesn't exist (except inside mathematics itself, maybe... if one feels inclined to believe in all these axioms needed there).

It can be strived for though. But mostly not successfully "enough" by idiots. Exemplary for idiots are the sheeple developing these kind of tests mostly.

Because of that there are less and less people thoroughly thinking for themselves since money seemingly is also a time-question when developing these tests.

TL;DR: "We have not enough time to develop a test to take serious time on grading, so just let use this bullshit one".

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There quite obviously is no objectivity.


Of course there is an objective right answer. If I ask what the turning point of y = x^2 - 10 x + 24 is, there is an objective right answer (5, -1), and any other answer is wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But not for grading the answer. Your answer to this question as you presented it would net you zero points in my lectures. (If i were allowed to: even negative points.)

Exactly objectively. And since the field (e.g. these ) calculating in wasn't given (perhaps it even isn't a field...), your example isn't the "correct" answer just because you believe it strongly.. But that's another cup of tea.

Only the context or setting of a given "problem" makes it possible to even get near to a state, in which words like sense or nonsense themselves make "sense". Which is a message, seemingly most people don't "want" to get or respect.

But that's ok. Somebody had to serve me my fries, if i ever would visit McDonald's, you know?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your answer to this question as you presented it would net you zero points in my lectures.

You're not the only one who can be arrogantly, obnoxiously pedantic: "Points" (marks) are given out for answering multiple-choice questions in tests and exams, not in lectures. You fail.

Well done for finding a Wikipedia page about finite fields, but your pedantry here is misplaced. If you genuinely are a mathematician and not just playing one on social media, you know full well that lacking any other explicit statement, by convention the field understood to apply by default is the reals, not some finite field.

I don't need to state the domain is ℝ any more than I need to state that the coefficients are written in decimal. That literally goes without saying. Only if I want some other domain, or to use some non-decimal base, do I need to specify differently.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, you need to. Because the solutions of a real polynomial equation of second degree can be complex conjugated anyway, young padawan.

I always state the field or ring which we calculate in, in my assignments. Also: it makes a lot of sense letting the students calculate different solutions over different fields and rings in these kind of tasks for just one one equation in an adequate context, fyi.

Otherwise, the question is not well-asked in a strictly mathematical sense. I only apply the rules here, you just "use" but seemingly don't fully understand.

I just can't demand more from others than i do from myself. Because in my world mostly only "idiots" or primates do such alike.

If you ask questions, i explicitly consider personal, i still don't have to answer them, because this is my decision, not yours, no matter how pseudo-"hard" (empty, in reality) your threaten to question my judgement. This is just dissonance between our horizons, which is "hard" to digest at first, as even i admit.

What is genuine about me and what not you simply don't get to decide just because you googled something or i write something that doesn't fit into the schemes or categories, you derive your judgements about other human beings from. You obviously feel the urge to believe in "other" rules, than i do.

Me being quite unique considering my personal field of "work" in the way i'm thinking is one of the reasons explicitly often stated for me "still" keeping my job.

At least the one i do for the "official" civility- and "normal"-existence like simulation, so to say.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I always state the field or ring which we calculate in, in my assignments.

Good for you.

Doesn't change the truth of what I said about the reals being understood as the normal convention when no other domain or field is specified. If you are genuinely a mathematician, you already know this. Which makes your pedantry simply wrong: as I the question was given, with no alternative field specified, that implies that the field is to be taken as the reals, which leaves my answer correct.

You think that your pedantic criticism about not specifying the field makes you seem clever, but it actually does the opposite.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your truth. Not mine. Just because it yours, it doesn't follow you can't get anywhere near in selling it to me, so far. I got carte blanche in how i apply my rules. My superiors pay me exceedingly well for the few hours i invest into teaching students.

So honestly, i don't give a fuck how you do. The same i don't give a fuck about how many times you repeat your opinions. Because you gave not a single point, i'd let go through as an actual argument.

My lectures: my rules. Simple as that it is.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Its a way of evaluating students without effort or evaluating material that must be memorized but choosing 1 of N answers correct is not equally distributed because wrong answers provide information.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well-designed multiple choice tests are perfectly fine for many subjects and topics. They often (but not always) are easier than the written test, and they have advantages and disadvantages, like everything.

Badly written, lazy multiple choice tests can be bullshit. Same as anything really: 90% of everything is shit.

In Australia, final maths exams for secondary school kids are typically marked using 30-40% multiple choice and 60-70% longer written answers.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Regurgitation of masses of text does not quantify a person's intellect, nor their ability to use that information appropriately.