<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Overthinking my teaching</title>
	<atom:link href="http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>The mathematics I encounter in classrooms</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:45:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Measurement, explored by Malke</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/measurement-explored/#comment-5359</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2051#comment-5359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Late to respond, but it might have been me referencing the Russians via Twitter conversation on March 29...https://twitter.com/mathinyourfeet/status/317691974092210176]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Late to respond, but it might have been me referencing the Russians via Twitter conversation on March 29&#8230;<a href="https://twitter.com/mathinyourfeet/status/317691974092210176" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/mathinyourfeet/status/317691974092210176</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by gasstationwithoutpumps</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5353</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gasstationwithoutpumps]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good point, Jesse.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point, Jesse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by teachbarefoot</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5340</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[teachbarefoot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I tried to like your response, but then I realized Wordpress doesn&#039;t let me do that, haha.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tried to like your response, but then I realized WordPress doesn&#8217;t let me do that, haha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by Andrew</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5325</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Heh heh... The guy named &quot;teachbarefoot&quot; likes a post about doing math with socks... That&#039;s kinda funny...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh heh&#8230; The guy named &#8220;teachbarefoot&#8221; likes a post about doing math with socks&#8230; That&#8217;s kinda funny&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by jessemckeown</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5323</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jessemckeown]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Really it&#039;s counting boundary components, which is a perfectly natural  thing to do and topological.  If you want to be algebraic-topological about the distinction between boundary cycles and &quot;holes&quot;, you&#039;re going to end up with some delicious ambiguity in &lt;i&gt;where the holes really are&lt;/i&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really it&#8217;s counting boundary components, which is a perfectly natural  thing to do and topological.  If you want to be algebraic-topological about the distinction between boundary cycles and &#8220;holes&#8221;, you&#8217;re going to end up with some delicious ambiguity in <i>where the holes really are</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by gasstationwithoutpumps</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5320</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gasstationwithoutpumps]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5320</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice.  The counting is a bit off from what topologists use, though.  They would argue that socks have no holes, the leg warmers have 1 hole, the underpants 2 holes, and the shirt 3 holes.  I wonder if that numbering convention could be explained to Tabitha.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice.  The counting is a bit off from what topologists use, though.  They would argue that socks have no holes, the leg warmers have 1 hole, the underpants 2 holes, and the shirt 3 holes.  I wonder if that numbering convention could be explained to Tabitha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Armholes (6-year old topology) by teachbarefoot</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/armholes-6-year-old-topology/#comment-5319</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[teachbarefoot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2906#comment-5319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love these!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love these!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Common numerator fraction division [#algorithmchat] by Joshua Zucker</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/common-numerator-fraction-division-algorithmchat/#comment-5311</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua Zucker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2843#comment-5311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To me the common numerator division works best when I think in terms of ratios: I know that a/b divided by a will be 1/b.  If I divide by something that&#039;s c times smaller, it makes the quotient c times bigger, and so a/b divided by a/c will be 1/b * c which is c/b.  To me, this is much more satisfying than the &quot;divide across to get 1/(b/c) and then use the reciprocal property to get c/b&quot;, since the dividing across is roughly equally intuitive to me as the ratio argument, and the extra step of the reciprocal makes this second method more opaque.

So, proportional reasoning works for me here.  I&#039;d sure like to have a convincing visual, though!  The visuals that I commonly use for fraction division work a lot better with common denominators than common numerators.

I do like the focus on the size of the pieces, on your second page.  The inverse proportionality between the size of the pieces and the denominator of the fractions is a good intuition here.  I still can&#039;t quite get it into a nice visual without making common denominators eventually, though, for instance with a rectangle divided horizontally into b pieces and vertically into c pieces so that I can see why the ratio of the piece sizes leads me to c/b as the result.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me the common numerator division works best when I think in terms of ratios: I know that a/b divided by a will be 1/b.  If I divide by something that&#8217;s c times smaller, it makes the quotient c times bigger, and so a/b divided by a/c will be 1/b * c which is c/b.  To me, this is much more satisfying than the &#8220;divide across to get 1/(b/c) and then use the reciprocal property to get c/b&#8221;, since the dividing across is roughly equally intuitive to me as the ratio argument, and the extra step of the reciprocal makes this second method more opaque.</p>
<p>So, proportional reasoning works for me here.  I&#8217;d sure like to have a convincing visual, though!  The visuals that I commonly use for fraction division work a lot better with common denominators than common numerators.</p>
<p>I do like the focus on the size of the pieces, on your second page.  The inverse proportionality between the size of the pieces and the denominator of the fractions is a good intuition here.  I still can&#8217;t quite get it into a nice visual without making common denominators eventually, though, for instance with a rectangle divided horizontally into b pieces and vertically into c pieces so that I can see why the ratio of the piece sizes leads me to c/b as the result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Summer project by Iztchel</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/summer-project/#comment-5302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Iztchel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2903#comment-5302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh! it&#039;s such a great idea.  I&#039;ve been thinking about math activities for my boys but a project would be so much better!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh! it&#8217;s such a great idea.  I&#8217;ve been thinking about math activities for my boys but a project would be so much better!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Partitive fraction division by Mary Dooms</title>
		<link>http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/partitive-fraction-division/#comment-5259</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Dooms]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/?p=2875#comment-5259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was referring to method 2, but could the common denominator method be used as a &quot;bridge&quot; to understanding the invert and multiply rule? Or is that too abstract?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was referring to method 2, but could the common denominator method be used as a &#8220;bridge&#8221; to understanding the invert and multiply rule? Or is that too abstract?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>