[syzar]

It is clear you are not a mathematician. When we write something like:

x^2 + x + 1 = 0

And say solve it we are definitely not asserting that the two expressions are the same. Indeed they are not the same polynomials and if your view were correct we wouldn’t spend time teaching how to solve the equation. There are values for which the two polynomials evaluate to the same number. Those are the solutions.

EDIT: In mathematical logic class one talks about predicates and you learn to think of equations as assertions that two expressions are the same. However, as people typically use and think about math they don’t think in these terms. Indeed, the graphical interpretation of an equation in one variable lends itself to the idea that solving an equation, in essence, is finding values of x that make two functions have the same value.

It is also equally clear that you haven’t taught basic mathematics to innumerate students. When students are taught to solve basic linear equations we include in our instruction that they can encounter situations like:

x+1 = x

And that they can see there is no solution because they reduce the equation to solving 0=1 and that equation has no solution.

You are in an absurd position when you think

0x = 1

is an equation but that

0=1

is not. I doubt that when you simplify:

x^2-2x - (x^2 -2x)

You write 0x^2 + 0x. What I wrote about solving equations has an important word in it. Namely “essence”. In essence…. I was not providing a mathematically rigorous definition. Indeed, the rigorous definition is far beyond the scope of students of basic mathematics. So we have to teach them the essence of things.

[knaik94]

Given the first polynomial, when asked to solve it, there's an implied "for x" attached to the question. Even in higher level math you assume you're solving for a variable. When writing an equation without a solution, you don't naturally think about not including any variables. While 0 = 1 is an equation, it's not an equation you "solve". The meaning of equation is not in question, just the association of the terminology of equation to something without variables. Context is important, if the expression had a third order term and I had to use synthetic division, I would absolutely write include the zero terms.

[LordDragonfang]

I feel like you're talking past what I'm saying to continue teaching the same math lesson you've taught hundreds of times before, which is exactly the kind of discontinuity in communication that I'm trying to highlight (and, evidently, failing). It's difficult to articulate, and I already feel like this reply is rambling quite a bit, but hear goes:

> we are definitely not asserting that the two expressions are the same.

Correct. Not the same, equal. Because that's definitionally what the equals sign means. "A=B" is a symbolic representation of "'The expression A' equals 'The expression B'". I hope we can agree on that?

>if your view were correct we wouldn’t spend time teaching how to solve the equation.

What I actually said implies the exact opposite. You teach how to solve equations because that's the use case for equations as tools. That's not a bad thing, it's an extremely useful thing to teach.

But teaching how a tool is used is not the same as teaching the fundamentals of what a tool is. It can help in that goal, certainly, (and might even be required as a prerequisite) but it's not the same. It's exactly like you said:

>We teach algorithms like long division and the quadratic formula because they are relatively easy computations to learn but they don’t in any way lead students to fully grasping a concept.

It's not fair to blame students' "innumeracy" for not being able to derive "0=1" as "an equation without a solution", because they've successfully learned the thing that they were actually taught, that equations are "things with unknowns that we have to solve for". Of course generating a solution that has neither unknowns nor a solution is foreign, because everything they've learned about it as a tool goes against that.

(It's worth noting that there's another reason that the teachers teach this, one that's perhaps even more important for the school system; it's an easy thing to evaluate student understanding of. You can easily test whether a student can "solve" an equation, and return the correct answer. It's something you can get immediate, iterative feedback on. You can't really test if they actually grok a definition, because they can just parrot a definition with no understanding.)

Fundamentally, my argument is about language, not mathematics. You're saying that students aren't able to derive answers based on the definitions of terms, but not only are those definitions wildly divergent from their English meaning, they're divergent from the actual definitions the student are learning via practice.

Take, for example:

>There are values for which the two polynomials evaluate to the same number. Those are the solutions.

Values of x, you mean but didn't say. Because it's so heavily implied in the existence of an "equation to solve" that unknown quantities you are solving for are the ones written in the equation itself, that it's not even worth mentioning. But it's precisely this linguistic assumption that obscures what an equation actually is to students.