Following on from our previous post, it is worth considering the role of Roman numerals in the new Curriculum. There isn’t one.
Tag: natural numbers
New Cur 19: Turning Japanese
This is a short one and, necessarily, is WitCH-like. It is an elaboration in the new Curriculum that smelled wrong to us. We checked enough to confirm there was sufficient wrongness for the elaboration to be added to the Awfulnesses list, but we haven’t sorted it out further. The comments may be interesting (or non-existent).
New Cur 18: To be two, or not to be 2
This one may be of little interest to others, but it’s been bugging us.
A peculiar puzzle of writing mathematics is deciding when to use names and when to use numerals: should we write “two” or “2”? There is no one (1?) answer, and there are conflicting principles. Along with other rules, English style guides instruct that names should be used for small numbers, and numerals for large (with varying interpretations of “small” and “large”).
New Cur 17: Natural Selection
A few weeks ago, we posted on a klutzy index law elaboration in the new curriculum:
using examples such as , and to illustrate the necessity that for any non-zero natural number 𝑛, (new AC9M8N02)
Some commenters were understandably puzzled by a side point: ACARA’s employment of the expression “non-zero natural number”. In this post, we’ll dispel any lingering lack of puzzlement.