Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page
Subject:Simple vs. Compound leaves
Date:Fri, 09 Jun 2000 15:27:40 -0400
From:Francisco Moore

I thought that you might like to know that your web page commentary on inaccuracy of words might be a little bit confusing to some people. For instance you use a text book derived example that relates to technical botanical language. You show a portion of a page of that text. On that diagram there are 3 compound leaves, and 1 simple leaf. The compound leaves contain from 7 to 132 leaflets per leaf (each appearing to be a leaf blade). In the simple leaf there is but one blade which has little, if any, more complexity than the leaflets of the compound leaves. I would conclude that the botanical terms 'Compound and Simple leaf' are in excellent congruence with the general use of compound and simple. It is also an excellent point that the two terms are relative. As a population biologist (theoretical and empirical) I can't comment on the general congruence of botanical terms with common usage. I am competent to assess some of the other definitions you mention. I would say that the definitions of energy and adaptation are simply (not in the botanical sense!) inaccurate.

Having worked in theoretical biology I appreciate the points that you are making about the power of a consistent (mathematical) language. Interestingly, in math as any other language concise description is predicated on the rigor of initial definition.

In any case I am having fun at your web site.

Thanks,
Paco Moore

Francisco B.-G. Moore
Center for Microbial Ecology
Plant and Soil Science Bldg.
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28775063Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

drawing puzzle
Posted by martin gran
31 messages
06:53 PM, May-09-08

conway's game of life
Posted by frequency
0 messages
11:52 PM, May-12-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Need details on a part of Proof o ...
Posted by Manuel S.
2 messages
05:24 PM, May-16-08

Josephus Flavius (correction)
Posted by David Turner
1 messages
09:42 AM, May-14-08