<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Purposeful Practice &#038; Dandy Candies	</title>
	<atom:link href="/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/</link>
	<description>less helpful</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2016 18:02:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Maya Quinn		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2405792</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maya Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2015 01:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2405792</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#062;See any obvious holes I’ve missed?

I am not sure if &quot;holes&quot; is a generic* joke.

Your response indicates that you are thinking about the package as necessarily being a rectangular prism. To ensure that we are referring to the same problem: The version about which I am curious is more general, and allows the cubical candies to be wrapped one side at a time.

To re-paste your original question,

&#062;Given any number of cubical candies, what is the best way to minimize packaging? 

The following image shows that the minimal surface area for 9 cubical candies is not achieved by using a rectangular prism:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/iz1Sv.jpg

That image comes from the following link, which also leads to your blog:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/179371

MQ//Mathwater

*Despite the risk of over-explaining wordplay: This is, indeed, a &quot;generic&quot;/&quot;genus&quot; mathematical pun.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;See any obvious holes I’ve missed?</p>
<p>I am not sure if &#8220;holes&#8221; is a generic* joke.</p>
<p>Your response indicates that you are thinking about the package as necessarily being a rectangular prism. To ensure that we are referring to the same problem: The version about which I am curious is more general, and allows the cubical candies to be wrapped one side at a time.</p>
<p>To re-paste your original question,</p>
<p>&gt;Given any number of cubical candies, what is the best way to minimize packaging? </p>
<p>The following image shows that the minimal surface area for 9 cubical candies is not achieved by using a rectangular prism:</p>
<p><a href="http://i.stack.imgur.com/iz1Sv.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://i.stack.imgur.com/iz1Sv.jpg</a></p>
<p>That image comes from the following link, which also leads to your blog:</p>
<p><a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/179371" rel="nofollow ugc">http://mathoverflow.net/questions/179371</a></p>
<p>MQ//Mathwater</p>
<p>*Despite the risk of over-explaining wordplay: This is, indeed, a &#8220;generic&#8221;/&#8221;genus&#8221; mathematical pun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dan Meyer		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2405778</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Meyer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 17:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2405778</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Maya Quinn&lt;/strong&gt;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Have you ever returned to the integral version of this problem?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Frequently! Here is the solution I find most promising. I haven&#039;t found an example to contradict it and I don&#039;t have a proof that it works.

1. Take your number of candies.
2. Take the cube root of that number.
3. Find the factor of your number of candies that is &lt;em&gt;closest&lt;/em&gt; to that cube root.
4. Find the quotient of the number of candies and the factor from [3].
5. Take the square root of that quotient.
6. Find the factor of your number of candies that is &lt;em&gt;closest&lt;/em&gt; to that square root.
7. The third factor is trivial.
8. Use the smallest factor as your height.

See any obvious holes I&#039;ve missed?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Maya Quinn</strong>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Have you ever returned to the integral version of this problem?</p></blockquote>
<p>Frequently! Here is the solution I find most promising. I haven&#8217;t found an example to contradict it and I don&#8217;t have a proof that it works.</p>
<p>1. Take your number of candies.<br />
2. Take the cube root of that number.<br />
3. Find the factor of your number of candies that is <em>closest</em> to that cube root.<br />
4. Find the quotient of the number of candies and the factor from [3].<br />
5. Take the square root of that quotient.<br />
6. Find the factor of your number of candies that is <em>closest</em> to that square root.<br />
7. The third factor is trivial.<br />
8. Use the smallest factor as your height.</p>
<p>See any obvious holes I&#8217;ve missed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Maya Quinn		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2405758</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maya Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 08:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2405758</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#062;Given any number of cubical candies, what is the best way to minimize packaging? Can you prove it?

Have you ever returned to the integral version of this problem? I do not believe it is amenable to elementary means. (Perhaps it can be out-sourced to a combinatorialist, if you happen to know one.)

MQ//Mathwater]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;Given any number of cubical candies, what is the best way to minimize packaging? Can you prove it?</p>
<p>Have you ever returned to the integral version of this problem? I do not believe it is amenable to elementary means. (Perhaps it can be out-sourced to a combinatorialist, if you happen to know one.)</p>
<p>MQ//Mathwater</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: More Efficient Packaging &#124; the radical rational...		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2253088</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[More Efficient Packaging &#124; the radical rational...]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:27:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2253088</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] a few Dandy Candies Gift Wrapping to see their thinking in [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] a few Dandy Candies Gift Wrapping to see their thinking in [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Shelley		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2171116</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shelley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2171116</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Nate Burchell uses tactile functions in Geometers sketchpad to help students form functions that meet a particular description.  He also uses tactile functions to teach his students about parametric curves, and his activity posted on the Sine of the Times blog is a great example of purposeful practice. (Sorry no links, can&#039;t figure out how to hyperlink in the comments here).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nate Burchell uses tactile functions in Geometers sketchpad to help students form functions that meet a particular description.  He also uses tactile functions to teach his students about parametric curves, and his activity posted on the Sine of the Times blog is a great example of purposeful practice. (Sorry no links, can&#8217;t figure out how to hyperlink in the comments here).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sam Shah		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2166723</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sam Shah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 01:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2166723</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I felt compelled to comment *just* to say that when I watched the video, I got chills. There is something so perfect about this -- at least to me.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I felt compelled to comment *just* to say that when I watched the video, I got chills. There is something so perfect about this &#8212; at least to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gasstationwithoutpumps		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2166525</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gasstationwithoutpumps]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2166525</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t see the reason to limit oneself to dense packaging–allowing some holes (adding dummy candies) can reduce packaging enormously, and is routinely used in packaging parts.

The algorithm already fails at n=7, which wants 1Ã—2Ã—4, with surface area 2(2+4+8)= 28, while a 2Ã—2Ã—2 box fits 7 (with a space) and area only 6(4) = 24.

If you only need to solve this for small numbers, then a simple computational approach is attractive: compute volume and area for all small boxes with integer side lengths, sort by area (increasing) and subkey volume (decreasing), and remove any from the list whose volume is less than an entry earlier on the list. This provides a list of the biggest volume you can contain for any given surface area (up to the maximum size box of interest).

The more general question is a Diophantine equation problem, which probably means it is difficult to solve analytically.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see the reason to limit oneself to dense packaging–allowing some holes (adding dummy candies) can reduce packaging enormously, and is routinely used in packaging parts.</p>
<p>The algorithm already fails at n=7, which wants 1Ã—2Ã—4, with surface area 2(2+4+8)= 28, while a 2Ã—2Ã—2 box fits 7 (with a space) and area only 6(4) = 24.</p>
<p>If you only need to solve this for small numbers, then a simple computational approach is attractive: compute volume and area for all small boxes with integer side lengths, sort by area (increasing) and subkey volume (decreasing), and remove any from the list whose volume is less than an entry earlier on the list. This provides a list of the biggest volume you can contain for any given surface area (up to the maximum size box of interest).</p>
<p>The more general question is a Diophantine equation problem, which probably means it is difficult to solve analytically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Harry O'Malley		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2164124</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry O'Malley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 21:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2164124</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@Dan

I love the way that this video expresses, both in the playful nature with which the candies dance around as well as in the brilliant song choice, a sophisticated passion for mathematics.  It is clear that you care a great deal about your work.

As for purposeful practice, it is leveraged masterfully by the authors of the Philips Exeter Academy materials to create a curricular masterpiece.  By embedding practice opportunities into problem solving situations, they have woven together a curriculum focused almost entirely on concept development, without any loss to skill development.  Neither a word nor an inch of space is wasted in those texts.  Working through them with the right modeling tools on hand is like having the world of mathematics unfold in space like a magical pop-up book.  A world of pure imagination.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Dan</p>
<p>I love the way that this video expresses, both in the playful nature with which the candies dance around as well as in the brilliant song choice, a sophisticated passion for mathematics.  It is clear that you care a great deal about your work.</p>
<p>As for purposeful practice, it is leveraged masterfully by the authors of the Philips Exeter Academy materials to create a curricular masterpiece.  By embedding practice opportunities into problem solving situations, they have woven together a curriculum focused almost entirely on concept development, without any loss to skill development.  Neither a word nor an inch of space is wasted in those texts.  Working through them with the right modeling tools on hand is like having the world of mathematics unfold in space like a magical pop-up book.  A world of pure imagination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tommy Lingbloom		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2162343</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tommy Lingbloom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2162343</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is very similar to one of my favorite Connected Math investigations. In that investigation, students are simply given 24 cubes and asked to find different ways to package them into a box (rectangular prism). Same premise but stripped back a little bit. I wonder if the video here doesn&#039;t give too much away to students? I like asking the students to come up with the different combinations that will work. When you see a kid with a length of 3 and a width of 3 who is frustrated that they can&#039;t make 24, they start to see the connection between factors, multiples and volume. Having them record the volume (which they quickly realize is  always 24) and the surface area leads to the discussion about optimization. They don&#039;t need to start the problem with any formulas, only a conceptual understanding of what volume and surface area are.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is very similar to one of my favorite Connected Math investigations. In that investigation, students are simply given 24 cubes and asked to find different ways to package them into a box (rectangular prism). Same premise but stripped back a little bit. I wonder if the video here doesn&#8217;t give too much away to students? I like asking the students to come up with the different combinations that will work. When you see a kid with a length of 3 and a width of 3 who is frustrated that they can&#8217;t make 24, they start to see the connection between factors, multiples and volume. Having them record the volume (which they quickly realize is  always 24) and the surface area leads to the discussion about optimization. They don&#8217;t need to start the problem with any formulas, only a conceptual understanding of what volume and surface area are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steven		</title>
		<link>/2014/purposeful-practice-dandy-candies/#comment-2162336</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=20387#comment-2162336</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@Dan
The remainder factor for step 3 of the original theorem should be 9 shouldn&#039;t it? The square root of 9 is 3 and so you get your efficient packaging.

Works with 108 and 144 as well.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Dan<br />
The remainder factor for step 3 of the original theorem should be 9 shouldn&#8217;t it? The square root of 9 is 3 and so you get your efficient packaging.</p>
<p>Works with 108 and 144 as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
