> Kiselev’s child reader is being treated as a participant in mathematics, not as a recipient of facts.
Not sure how the other makes this claim when the passage he himself cites is just another clever proof in the list of clever things that maths books throw at you:
> It is easy to convince oneself that there exist infinitely many prime numbers. Indeed, suppose the contrary, that the number of primes is finite. Then there must exist a greatest prime; let it be a. To refute this assumption, imagine the new number N formed by the rule N = (2·3·5·7···a) + 1, that is, the product of all the primes up to a, plus one… The first term is divisible by every number in the list 2, 3, 5, …, a, while the second (the unit) is not divisible by any of them. Hence there is no greatest prime, and so the sequence of primes is infinite.
i_am_proteus 23 minutes ago [-]
This is an advertisement: the author of the blog post is selling his own translations of Kiselev's Textbooks.
user205738 15 hours ago [-]
Math is difficult for children because for them it's learning a lot of unrelated rules in their head that don't even have a reflection for them in their everyday experience. And these textbooks are trying to create this connection.
Thank you for your work, I am always happy when good books are translated.
user205738 15 hours ago [-]
I don't know if the author also posts on HN, but you can say thank you to TS, otherwise I wouldn't have seen this post)
mna_ 4 hours ago [-]
>In a typical American or British arithmetic textbook of the same period ...
British students were taught from Euclid's Elements until around the 1970s, so he's wrong.
Rendered at 12:05:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Not sure how the other makes this claim when the passage he himself cites is just another clever proof in the list of clever things that maths books throw at you:
> It is easy to convince oneself that there exist infinitely many prime numbers. Indeed, suppose the contrary, that the number of primes is finite. Then there must exist a greatest prime; let it be a. To refute this assumption, imagine the new number N formed by the rule N = (2·3·5·7···a) + 1, that is, the product of all the primes up to a, plus one… The first term is divisible by every number in the list 2, 3, 5, …, a, while the second (the unit) is not divisible by any of them. Hence there is no greatest prime, and so the sequence of primes is infinite.
Thank you for your work, I am always happy when good books are translated.
British students were taught from Euclid's Elements until around the 1970s, so he's wrong.