Talk:Chunking (division)

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Remainder, polynomial division

I've noticed a couple of things that could be done to the article:

The lead section says "until the large number has been reduced to zero". This applies only when the "large" number is precisely divisible by the smaller one. If not, the large number is instead reduced to the remainder (you can tell when you need to stop because the number you're left with is smaller than the small number from the start). This just makes this technique more useful!
This idea can also be used on polynomials as an alternative to polynomial long division.

I would add these ideas to the article, but at the moment they're original research; I've never seen the technique itself outside this article, let alone these variants. However it's pretty clear to me that they both work. If someone could find a reference we could add them in? Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the section isn't referenced anyway, so I see no problem in changing it. I was taught chunking in primary school in South Africa and I have used it all my life. I don't think that means it's original research, if my primary school maths teacher made a webpage I could cite that so it's up to someone else (a mathematician maybe) to find a reference. However I know in practise that it works exactly as you described, because that's what I was taught. Interestingly, I was never taught long or short division as that same teacher believed it made you "lazy". I know this isn't the forum for this discussion, but I think teachers should rather teach both methods to children. I was part of a provincial maths team in secondary school so my math is good, however not knowing long division has always held me back. --ZARguy (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

The second reference (on thetimes.co.uk) is behind a paywall. NJHartley (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily an issue -- see WP:PAYWALL. Quite a lot of references on Wikipedia are behind paywalls, a lot of medical articles for example. Such references can still be verified, eg in an appropriate subscribing public library. But if you want to contribute further additional reliable-source references that are in the open, that would be welcome. Jheald (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]