There are factual errors that come from misinformation, like the the color of the stars. Those can be corrected and the problem can be salvaged. So, I would not call that pseudocontext.

There are simplifying assumptions that are made in a problem. Simplifying assumptions are just part of math and science. Those should be stated at the beginning of the problem. For example, if you study simple harmonic motion in a trigonometry or calculus class, you use a sine function. However, that ignores the internal friction of the spring. By ignoring some details, we can focus on other details. I wouldn’t call simplifying assumptions pseudocontext.

I do completely agree with definition 2. Clearly, a problem about adding the temperature of stars is virtually unfixable. It is not a naturally arising question from the study of stellar bodies.

There is a natural tendency to attempt to pigeonhole every bad word problem as pseudocontext. To make the term “pseudocontext” useful, it should describe a proper subset of bad word problems.

A veterinary student has only studied one topic for the final: fleas. The examiner asks question number one, about dogs. The student answers: “Dogs are mammals covered with fur. In the fur, there are fleas. Fleas are…” The examiner asks question number two, about cats. The student answers: “Cats are mammals who also have fur. In cats’ fur, there are fleas. Fleas are…” The examiner, somewhat exasperated, asks about fish. The student says: “Well, fish don’t have fur. But if they did, there would be fleas in it, and fleas are…”

Way too many math questions completely miss the relative importance, coolness, relevance of different features of the context. So-called “storytelling” questions are often especially atrocious.

Check out the forum for the simulation game Orbiter sometime. Hardcore: it’s got people trading physics equations to do particular maneuvers.

i don’t see myself (or anyone else for that matter) ever having to add the temperatures of 2 stars, and i think it’s mildly sad that that was the best example they could come up with.

how about using ‘traveling through space’ as a context? imagine being at the controls of a spaceship, coming in for a landing. “How much thrust, for what duration & at what power should you give it?”

thinking about Apollo 13, i’m sure some arithmetic was needed to know how much O2 they had left, & how much more they would need to make it home safely…arithmetic is everywhere…

As for pseudo-context, I just looked through the text used in first year algebra in Detroit Public Schools and I have a sick headache from all the pseudo-context it contains. I’m struggling to find a germ of a problem that can be crafted into something worthwhile. Maybe after a good night’s sleep. . . and a book burning.

There are so many wonderful Feynman essays. There’s his essay on cargo cult science, his essay on the education system in Brazil (where students are memorizing rather than learning), his essay “What is Science? (he discusses how he learned science from his father), and so many more. I won’t include the URLs because I don’t want this comment to get marked as spam, but you should be able to find them with Google.

And don’t miss his books, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think? When I was a young kid who loved science and was frustrated with school, those books were absolutely inspiring, and undoubtedly helped influence me to enter into a career of math and science. And even if only 30% of the anecdotes in his books were actually true, I don’t care, it’s still both entertaining and inspiring.

Sorry if I sound like a Feynman fanboy. I guess I am.

The green and violet stars being made-up are flatly untrue bits, but as the rest of the data is roughly true (according to the writer) it’s not as significant of a crime as the use of addition.