Talk:Fuzzy math

Untitled

How do I make this neutral? Do I figure out which candidate was really right, and prove this? Or would that be an attempt to be "objective"? --Math Teacher 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to make another run at this article. It needs a little more context. It should make clear higher up when or where the debate took place and that it was broadcast. It does not really explain the background for the issue. It doesn't explain that "fuzzy math" used in this context is some sort of play on the technical phrase "fuzzy logic" or perhaps a malapropism. (It might also be an intentional malapropism -- you can never tell whether Bush is being insincerely folksy or being an actual moron.) It needs to discuss a few important persons' reactions to the debate. The format needs a complete cleanup. The transcript section seems to be an undigested cut and paste from somewhere with some extraneous irrelevant header material. Also, don't assume the reader is in the U.S. Deciding who is right is the least of our problems. It is not necessary to make a conclusion as to who is right. Such a conclusion is not prohibited either, if it can be "objectively" supported. Distinguish in your "rightness" determination between the truth value of the statements and the wisdom of the fiscal policies. Right or wrong, who is more persuasive? Hard to be objective and encyclopedic on these issues, but not impossible. Mrees1997 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually almost insulted at the size of this article. This fails to describe in detail the actual context of fuzzy math. Also, it does not mention the significant opposition to this technique. As to the debate- it looks now as if there is no real bias toward one side of the other. As stated above, it needs to be made again. Squarethecircle 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sound more familiar with this subject than I (I've basically only heard the name). How about drafting up a new article? !jim 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Election

The bit about the presidential election doesn't sound at all related to the math teaching system. If it is related, some kind of clarification needs to be added to show that they were talking about the teaching system. If not, this section should removed or moved to a different article. !jim 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge

I recommend merging into reform mathematics which is the more neutral wording. Also, the section on presidential debates sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm not sure it's worth having a whole article on that. --C S (Talk) 03:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--the primary use of "fuzzy math" will likely be to reference the debates and therefore it shouldn't be merged with an article that gets into too much specific detail on the ACTUAL definitions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.143.183 (talk) 00:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge; the section on debates is fairly brief, and much of the content overlaps. Also, the 'fuzzy' connection with 'fuzzy logic' is tenuous, and this section could either be removed or requires citations. All of these articles (fuzzy math, reform math, traditional mathematics, math wars) need help, and possibly an overarching article like History of Math Education in the United States. Dialectric (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly wrong!

This article is just plain wrong. Fuzzy math is just a way of referring to fuzzy mathematics. There is no accepted pattern for teaching math called "fuzzy math". The use of the term "fuzzy math" by politicians is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. This article should be deleted and "Fuzzy math" made to redirect to Fuzzy mathematics. -- M0llusk (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written without sources, so who could know if it's right or wrong? I agree with Mollusk - it should be deleted if it's not sourced. Roseapple (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be redirected to Fuzzy Mathematics (should that really have a capital 'M'?), with a note added to the bottom of that article that mentions the "famous" misuse of the name. Since we all agree that this can go away, then the next person here can just do the redirect. It doesn't require administrator privs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you apply any laws of exponents in fining each product