Thursday, April 21, 2011

HOW TO SOLVE IT : FROM A BOOK BY G. POYLA

INTRODUCTION
I just finished reading "How to solve it by G. Poyla."
What I learned.

SCHEMA 1:
Analysis or reflection.
When presented with a math problem, do first an analysis of the whole problem. Figure out how you are going to solve the problem. You can work forward or backward. If you work forward you will be working from the data to the unknown. If you are going to work backward you are going to work from the unknown to the data. Sometimes you can work forward and backwards at the same time.
After you have reflected on all you know and can do from your analysis, including doing a little research and had decided on some plan of attack. Your analysis is complete. Once you'd decided what you are going to try---use a formula, draw a table, make a drawing, do some computation, solve an equation, work forward, work backward, etc. Now you are ready to move into action and actually solve the problem--on paper.

SCHEMA 2
Synthesis or action:
Use a pencil and paper and carry out your plan to find the answer to your problem. After finding the answer you are ready to move to further reflection.

SCHEMA 3
Evaluation or further reflection.
Here you must restate how you solved the problem and whether or not you can now solve the problem in a different way.

CONCLUSION
Doing the Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation, completes the circle, that is, completes the whole enchilada.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

IN PHENOUMENA

IN PHENOUMENA
FROM NOUMENA

ABOUT NOUMENA AND PHENOMENA. Welcome to my blog

NOUMENA : I define Noumena as all that can be perceived by the senses plus all that which cannot be perceived by the senses and define phenomena as all that which can be perceived by the senses. Therefore who can tell? This is all there is to it and that is that? In this sense I agree with Kant when in his Critic of Pure Reason states " How is all knowledge possible?" Be that knowledge apriori or aposteriori or both. All knowledge is possible only inasmuch as we are capable of perceiving it which can be perceived at all. However we would argue; our knowledge, is incomplete therefore void of complete reality. We only know (at most) about the world partially and not totally. Who so ever maintains he/she knows everything is only pretending to know that which she/he does not know. One must then agree with Plato that to know anything, one must see what is and what is not possible in the world.
Hamletois
RESEARCH
KANT
NOUMENA
HAMLETOIS

My Blog List