Title: Practice your Dozenal Multiplication!
dgoodmaniii - July 30, 2009 03:13 AM (GMT)
All, I've prepared a simple scirpt which will allow drilling on the dozenal multiplication tables. It's been helping me enormously; in the hopes that somebody else might find it useful, I've transferred it to a publicly available server.
Dozenal Multiplication DrillsIt's not pretty (yet), but it works. I hope it helps somebody.
Cymbyz - July 30, 2009 05:40 AM (GMT)
Already discovered one problm; the system does not allow you to enter answers of more than two digits.
dgoodmaniii - July 31, 2009 11:44 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Cymbyz @ Jul 30 2009, 05:40 AM) |
| Already discovered one problm; the system does not allow you to enter answers of more than two digits. |
"The system"? That's stating it rather grandly, isn't it? :-)
Anyway, yes; I noticed that while testing and thought I'd fixed it. (It's hard, since only one answer requires three digits.)
Possible solutions: allow entrance of three digits, or simply remove the 10s (and the 1s) as too easy to bother with. Thoughts?
kitabatake - July 31, 2009 11:56 AM (GMT)
I have a simple dozenal multiplication program written in bash, I can share the code here if anyone want it, it does the same thing as the website though :)
Dan - August 1, 2009 01:18 AM (GMT)
A good start, but I found a couple of annoyances:
(1) When I got the problem 7×5, I didn't know what letters I was supposed to use for ten and eleven (having not seen one using "X" and "E"). I put "2e" and got it counted wrong because it required "2E". Be more lenient about the two extra digits: Allow any of the X/E, T/E, or A/B conventions and ignore case.
(2) Waiting for the page to load between problems. The drill may be more suited for a client-side script than a server-side one.
dgoodmaniii - August 1, 2009 04:07 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| (1) When I got the problem 7×5, I didn't know what letters I was supposed to use for ten and eleven (having not seen one using "X" and "E"). I put "2e" and got it counted wrong because it required "2E". Be more lenient about the two extra digits: Allow any of the X/E, T/E, or A/B conventions and ignore case. |
Will do.
| QUOTE |
| (2) Waiting for the page to load between problems. The drill may be more suited for a client-side script than a server-side one. |
What kind of connection are you using? It loads with little delay on my lackluster 1.5 Mbps DSL connection (1.5 in theory; generally connects well slower). I hadn't considered client-side, since while it's faster a lot of people (myself included) disable it by default because of its security risks. Maybe I ought to bang out a replacement in Javascript, though, if speed is a real problem. Anyone else had this experience?
dgoodmaniii - August 7, 2009 06:11 AM (GMT)
Well, I had to learn Javascript to do it, but I've fixed the issues identified to me. The new dozenal multiplication practice site is at:
Practice Your Dozenal MultiplicationNote that it retains its utilitarian, pre-WWW Internet appearance. However, it explains the acceptable transdecimal numerals (you can use X/E, T/E, A/B, or any combination thereof; e.g., "Ae" would be perfectly acceptable and understandable to the script a tenzen elv), now being agnostic on the subject, and it's case-insensitive.
It's also been rewritten in Javascript and done on the client side. While this is less secure in the abstract, the code does nothing even remotely dangerous, and the server is OpenBSD run by security fanatics, so I'm not particularly worried about sabotage. As I mentioned, this required learning Javascript, which I found made PHP look simple, plus can't handle posted variables. But it works noticeably faster now.
I hope you all find it useful; I've been getting a lot of good practice in with it.
Dan - August 7, 2009 06:42 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (dgoodmaniii @ Jul 31 2009, 10:07 PM) |
| What kind of connection are you using? It loads with little delay on my lackluster 1.5 Mbps DSL connection (1.5 in theory; generally connects well slower). I hadn't considered client-side, since while it's faster a lot of people (myself included) disable it by default because of its security risks. Maybe I ought to bang out a replacement in Javascript, though, if speed is a real problem. Anyone else had this experience? |
I have a cable modem. So there wasn't much of a delay, and on most pages I wouldn't complain about it. But my expectations were formed based on all the speed math drills I did in school, and waiting for the page to reload at all was just too darn long.
| QUOTE (dgoodmaniii @ Jul 31 2009, 10:07 PM) |
| As I mentioned, this required learning Javascript, which I found made PHP look simple, |
Really? I find Javascript to be easier to use than PHP. But then, I write Javascript for a living. I do think its standard library is woefully inadequate though.
dgoodmaniii - August 7, 2009 03:19 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (dgoodmaniii @ Jul 31 2009, 10:07 PM) | | As I mentioned, this required learning Javascript, which I found made PHP look simple, |
Really? I find Javascript to be easier to use than PHP. But then, I write Javascript for a living. I do think its standard library is woefully inadequate though.
|
:-) I cut my programming teeth on straight C, so an extremely small standard library is no big deal for me. Writing basic functions to, say, reverse a string, when most languages have them built in, was pretty standard.
I should have been more specific: Javascript made PHP look simple *for web programming*. Most specifically, PHP's variable handling is a dream compared to Javascript's. Javascript presented no way at all to get at my posted variables; I was forced to use get. (Maybe a more experienced programmer knows the secret?) I wasn't really interested in mixing the two to make posted variables possible. And Javascript appears to be object-oriented from the ground up, forcing me into some overly convoluted object and method-related magic for such a simple little program. But it works, and it's better than the PHP version, so I still appreciate the suggestion.