I assume the 1/8th shouldn’t exist on the 0 line. As you haven’t yet travelled any eighths ‘from the start’.
I could be wrong though, but that’s what I imagine they are getting at.
1/8th is not equal to 0 so eva needs to move it to the right abit
1/8 is not the same as 0
There is only 7 pieces, there should be 8. She has marked the points between the pieces which should be 9 for 8 pieces.
I would guess that the answer is “There are seven segments, the fractions of each segment would be 1/7th. They could be numbered as sevenths or each could be numbered sequentially, ie: 0/7, 1/7, 2/7 etc.”
It should start at zero. It actually shows 7ths, imagine it as a loaf of bread and count how many slices there are.
The number line only adds up to 7/8’s? One of the 1/8 ths is on the zero?
You need to count the segments between the lines, not the lines themselves. It’s in 7ths.
0≠1/8
It’s the first 1/8th. 1/8th of 1 isn’t 0 so it should be showing 1/7ths and not have the first one.
The number line actually shows 7ths.
The first eighth is pointing to zero. There should be eight segments, there are only seven.
She’s started counting at 0, there’s only 7 segments, and it should technically count up like 1/7 2/7 3/7 etc
The number line is divided into seven equal pieces, so each fraction is 1/7, not 1/8. Eva has accidentally labelled 0 as 1/8, so that’s why she’s counted eight of them.
Eva has made several mistakes, first 1/8 does not equal zero, so they all need to shift one noddle to the right. Second mistake Eva has made was getting out of bed this morning. Plus exposing her ineptitude on reddit wasn’t a smart move, either.
A fencepost error (aka an off-by-one error). Occurs in programming too many times.
Imagine the 8 arrows are fence posts and the number line the actual fence – with 7 sections.
If the total fence is 1 unit long, then each of the 7 fence sections is 1/7 units long, not 1/8.
The line is divided into 7 segments
I think the should be marked 0/8, 1/8, 2/8… then you see that it’s only 7/8 above 1
There’s only 7ths
It’s split into sevenths.
It seems the question is answered already… but Eva didn’t create the number line, she only answered a question on it. She said the number line shows 8ths.. which it kinda does but that’s not really a fraction. I’d say (assuming we’re reading left to right) it shows 8/8ths, or 1.
I think I won’t have children, thank you very much.
If you count the gaps between the lines, it’s only sevenths.
Teaching kids about fencepost errors is great but this worksheet is mad
It’s a good job there are 20+ separate comments saying the exact same thing
7ths
There’s only 7/8ths on that line. You’re probably counting the text that says 1/8, but you should be counting the gaps in between.
The first 1/8 shouldn’t be on the 0 and she should have one more segment.
It’s Maths No Problem. It often gets things wrong.
There are only 7 gaps?
The first one should be zero, there are only 7/8 on the number line.
The lines aren’t the 8ths, the sections are the 8ths. And there are 7 sections so it’s a diagram of a line split into seven 7ths.
The mistake is that hair style. Girl can’t pull it off.
Have her provide this for extra credit..
A rigorous inspection of the metric subdivision of the compact interval [0,1][0,1] immediately reveals that while eight nodal abscissae are inscribed—including the extremal boundary points—only seven equidistant open sub-intervals (xk−1,xk)(xk−1,xk) with k∈{1,…,7}k∈{1,…,7} materialize; consequently the Lebesgue measure of each constituent cell is m(xk − xk−1)=1/7m(xk−xk−1)=1/7, yielding lattice ordinates at the rational points k/7k/7. Eva’s misapprehension stems from a cardinality transposition: she enumerates *markers* rather than *interstitial cells*, thereby tacitly annexing the terminal point x7=1×7=1 as if it generated an eighth cell and so (erroneously) infers a denominator of eight. In truth, an octapartition of the unit interval would necessitate nine abscissae (two boundaries plus seven interior divisors); the extant configuration, possessing only eight, incontrovertibly encodes sevenths, not eighths.
That’s numberwang
1/7th, you count the “blocks” not the “lines”
Seems like dealing in 8ths is the problem. If she scales it up to ounces and wholesaling her product, she could move it quickly and also not have to deal with this fucking 8ths problem…
*Dyscalculia has left the chat…*
Your 7 year old is doomed
Apart from the fencepost error, why is the numberline being labelled with the same value at different points? Surely they should be incrementing? That was the first error that occurred to me.
What’s up with asking a student to figure out what some other wrong person thinks? Why would you want them to spend time getting the wrong way to do something into their head? This seems more like an exercise for teachers.
I don’t think I even understand the question, did Eva put the 1/8 markers on there? Is Eva just looking at that atrocity and supposed to work out what errors the creator of the number line made? It’s not even clear to me “what fraction is shown on the number line” means. The number line shows more than one fraction.
38 comments
I assume the 1/8th shouldn’t exist on the 0 line. As you haven’t yet travelled any eighths ‘from the start’.
I could be wrong though, but that’s what I imagine they are getting at.
1/8th is not equal to 0 so eva needs to move it to the right abit
1/8 is not the same as 0
There is only 7 pieces, there should be 8. She has marked the points between the pieces which should be 9 for 8 pieces.
I would guess that the answer is “There are seven segments, the fractions of each segment would be 1/7th. They could be numbered as sevenths or each could be numbered sequentially, ie: 0/7, 1/7, 2/7 etc.”
It should start at zero. It actually shows 7ths, imagine it as a loaf of bread and count how many slices there are.
The number line only adds up to 7/8’s? One of the 1/8 ths is on the zero?
You need to count the segments between the lines, not the lines themselves. It’s in 7ths.
0≠1/8
It’s the first 1/8th. 1/8th of 1 isn’t 0 so it should be showing 1/7ths and not have the first one.
The number line actually shows 7ths.
The first eighth is pointing to zero. There should be eight segments, there are only seven.
She’s started counting at 0, there’s only 7 segments, and it should technically count up like 1/7 2/7 3/7 etc
The number line is divided into seven equal pieces, so each fraction is 1/7, not 1/8. Eva has accidentally labelled 0 as 1/8, so that’s why she’s counted eight of them.
Eva has made several mistakes, first 1/8 does not equal zero, so they all need to shift one noddle to the right. Second mistake Eva has made was getting out of bed this morning. Plus exposing her ineptitude on reddit wasn’t a smart move, either.
A fencepost error (aka an off-by-one error). Occurs in programming too many times.
Imagine the 8 arrows are fence posts and the number line the actual fence – with 7 sections.
If the total fence is 1 unit long, then each of the 7 fence sections is 1/7 units long, not 1/8.
The line is divided into 7 segments
I think the should be marked 0/8, 1/8, 2/8… then you see that it’s only 7/8 above 1
There’s only 7ths
It’s split into sevenths.
It seems the question is answered already… but Eva didn’t create the number line, she only answered a question on it. She said the number line shows 8ths.. which it kinda does but that’s not really a fraction. I’d say (assuming we’re reading left to right) it shows 8/8ths, or 1.
I think I won’t have children, thank you very much.
If you count the gaps between the lines, it’s only sevenths.
Teaching kids about fencepost errors is great but this worksheet is mad
It’s a good job there are 20+ separate comments saying the exact same thing
7ths
There’s only 7/8ths on that line. You’re probably counting the text that says 1/8, but you should be counting the gaps in between.
The first 1/8 shouldn’t be on the 0 and she should have one more segment.
It’s Maths No Problem. It often gets things wrong.
There are only 7 gaps?
The first one should be zero, there are only 7/8 on the number line.
The lines aren’t the 8ths, the sections are the 8ths. And there are 7 sections so it’s a diagram of a line split into seven 7ths.
The mistake is that hair style. Girl can’t pull it off.
Have her provide this for extra credit..
A rigorous inspection of the metric subdivision of the compact interval [0,1][0,1] immediately reveals that while eight nodal abscissae are inscribed—including the extremal boundary points—only seven equidistant open sub-intervals (xk−1,xk)(xk−1,xk) with k∈{1,…,7}k∈{1,…,7} materialize; consequently the Lebesgue measure of each constituent cell is m(xk − xk−1)=1/7m(xk−xk−1)=1/7, yielding lattice ordinates at the rational points k/7k/7. Eva’s misapprehension stems from a cardinality transposition: she enumerates *markers* rather than *interstitial cells*, thereby tacitly annexing the terminal point x7=1×7=1 as if it generated an eighth cell and so (erroneously) infers a denominator of eight. In truth, an octapartition of the unit interval would necessitate nine abscissae (two boundaries plus seven interior divisors); the extant configuration, possessing only eight, incontrovertibly encodes sevenths, not eighths.
That’s numberwang
1/7th, you count the “blocks” not the “lines”
Seems like dealing in 8ths is the problem. If she scales it up to ounces and wholesaling her product, she could move it quickly and also not have to deal with this fucking 8ths problem…
*Dyscalculia has left the chat…*
Your 7 year old is doomed
Apart from the fencepost error, why is the numberline being labelled with the same value at different points? Surely they should be incrementing? That was the first error that occurred to me.
What’s up with asking a student to figure out what some other wrong person thinks? Why would you want them to spend time getting the wrong way to do something into their head? This seems more like an exercise for teachers.
I don’t think I even understand the question, did Eva put the 1/8 markers on there? Is Eva just looking at that atrocity and supposed to work out what errors the creator of the number line made? It’s not even clear to me “what fraction is shown on the number line” means. The number line shows more than one fraction.
Comments are closed.