Is the constant term a coefficient?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I'm a baby boomer who was taught that the constant term of a polynomial is a coefficient, being the constant factor for the x^0 term.



That's not what's taught today.



Current text books are vague on their definition of coefficient, but, when they ask for a student to list all coefficient in a given polynomial, they do not include the constant term in their answer keys.



The Kahn Academy video on the topic does include the constant term as a coefficient, as does the related Wikipedia article.



However, all modern text books written to the Common Core that I have seen imply that the constant term is not a coefficient. A lot of web sites created by today's teachers who are teaching to the Common Core explicitly state that the constant term is not a coefficient.



If you have a polynomial of one variable, aren't the coefficients supposed to uniquely determine that polynomial? Aren't they all a computer program needs to know to work with polynomials? Without the constant term, you get the related polynomial that represents a vertical displacement of the original polynomial by the opposite of the constant term. But, you don't get the original polynomial.



Further, if we are talking about natural number constants, isn't each digit, including the ones' place, a coefficient of a power of 10? We don't segregate that digit by calling it something else; it's a digit similar to all the other digits.



Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?



I would like to see this taught as: after combining like terms, all constant factors, including the constant term, are coefficients. Two of the coefficients are special. The coefficient of the term with the largest exponent is the leading coefficient. The coefficient of the term with the smallest exponent (aka zero) is the constant term. That shouldn't be too much for eighth graders who were taught exponent properties, including the zero exponent property, in seventh grade.



Is this going to be yet another contributor to generational divide?



Thanks for your thoughts,



  • Tom









share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    28 mins ago











  • Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
    – Nick C
    20 mins ago










  • @JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
    – Daniel Hast
    15 mins ago










  • The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
    – Thomas Martin
    9 mins ago














up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I'm a baby boomer who was taught that the constant term of a polynomial is a coefficient, being the constant factor for the x^0 term.



That's not what's taught today.



Current text books are vague on their definition of coefficient, but, when they ask for a student to list all coefficient in a given polynomial, they do not include the constant term in their answer keys.



The Kahn Academy video on the topic does include the constant term as a coefficient, as does the related Wikipedia article.



However, all modern text books written to the Common Core that I have seen imply that the constant term is not a coefficient. A lot of web sites created by today's teachers who are teaching to the Common Core explicitly state that the constant term is not a coefficient.



If you have a polynomial of one variable, aren't the coefficients supposed to uniquely determine that polynomial? Aren't they all a computer program needs to know to work with polynomials? Without the constant term, you get the related polynomial that represents a vertical displacement of the original polynomial by the opposite of the constant term. But, you don't get the original polynomial.



Further, if we are talking about natural number constants, isn't each digit, including the ones' place, a coefficient of a power of 10? We don't segregate that digit by calling it something else; it's a digit similar to all the other digits.



Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?



I would like to see this taught as: after combining like terms, all constant factors, including the constant term, are coefficients. Two of the coefficients are special. The coefficient of the term with the largest exponent is the leading coefficient. The coefficient of the term with the smallest exponent (aka zero) is the constant term. That shouldn't be too much for eighth graders who were taught exponent properties, including the zero exponent property, in seventh grade.



Is this going to be yet another contributor to generational divide?



Thanks for your thoughts,



  • Tom









share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    28 mins ago











  • Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
    – Nick C
    20 mins ago










  • @JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
    – Daniel Hast
    15 mins ago










  • The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
    – Thomas Martin
    9 mins ago












up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I'm a baby boomer who was taught that the constant term of a polynomial is a coefficient, being the constant factor for the x^0 term.



That's not what's taught today.



Current text books are vague on their definition of coefficient, but, when they ask for a student to list all coefficient in a given polynomial, they do not include the constant term in their answer keys.



The Kahn Academy video on the topic does include the constant term as a coefficient, as does the related Wikipedia article.



However, all modern text books written to the Common Core that I have seen imply that the constant term is not a coefficient. A lot of web sites created by today's teachers who are teaching to the Common Core explicitly state that the constant term is not a coefficient.



If you have a polynomial of one variable, aren't the coefficients supposed to uniquely determine that polynomial? Aren't they all a computer program needs to know to work with polynomials? Without the constant term, you get the related polynomial that represents a vertical displacement of the original polynomial by the opposite of the constant term. But, you don't get the original polynomial.



Further, if we are talking about natural number constants, isn't each digit, including the ones' place, a coefficient of a power of 10? We don't segregate that digit by calling it something else; it's a digit similar to all the other digits.



Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?



I would like to see this taught as: after combining like terms, all constant factors, including the constant term, are coefficients. Two of the coefficients are special. The coefficient of the term with the largest exponent is the leading coefficient. The coefficient of the term with the smallest exponent (aka zero) is the constant term. That shouldn't be too much for eighth graders who were taught exponent properties, including the zero exponent property, in seventh grade.



Is this going to be yet another contributor to generational divide?



Thanks for your thoughts,



  • Tom









share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I'm a baby boomer who was taught that the constant term of a polynomial is a coefficient, being the constant factor for the x^0 term.



That's not what's taught today.



Current text books are vague on their definition of coefficient, but, when they ask for a student to list all coefficient in a given polynomial, they do not include the constant term in their answer keys.



The Kahn Academy video on the topic does include the constant term as a coefficient, as does the related Wikipedia article.



However, all modern text books written to the Common Core that I have seen imply that the constant term is not a coefficient. A lot of web sites created by today's teachers who are teaching to the Common Core explicitly state that the constant term is not a coefficient.



If you have a polynomial of one variable, aren't the coefficients supposed to uniquely determine that polynomial? Aren't they all a computer program needs to know to work with polynomials? Without the constant term, you get the related polynomial that represents a vertical displacement of the original polynomial by the opposite of the constant term. But, you don't get the original polynomial.



Further, if we are talking about natural number constants, isn't each digit, including the ones' place, a coefficient of a power of 10? We don't segregate that digit by calling it something else; it's a digit similar to all the other digits.



Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?



I would like to see this taught as: after combining like terms, all constant factors, including the constant term, are coefficients. Two of the coefficients are special. The coefficient of the term with the largest exponent is the leading coefficient. The coefficient of the term with the smallest exponent (aka zero) is the constant term. That shouldn't be too much for eighth graders who were taught exponent properties, including the zero exponent property, in seventh grade.



Is this going to be yet another contributor to generational divide?



Thanks for your thoughts,



  • Tom






solving-polynomials






share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Thomas Martin

163




163




New contributor




Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Thomas Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    28 mins ago











  • Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
    – Nick C
    20 mins ago










  • @JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
    – Daniel Hast
    15 mins ago










  • The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
    – Thomas Martin
    9 mins ago
















  • I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
    – Joel Reyes Noche
    28 mins ago











  • Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
    – Nick C
    20 mins ago










  • @JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
    – Daniel Hast
    15 mins ago










  • The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
    – Thomas Martin
    9 mins ago















I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
– Joel Reyes Noche
28 mins ago





I don't know why the constant term is not considered a coefficient, but perhaps it has something to do with the $x^0$ term---note that some mathematicians consider $0^0$ to be undefined. If so, and if we define a polynomial as containing an $x^0$ term, then all polynomials are undefined at $x=0$.
– Joel Reyes Noche
28 mins ago













Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
– Nick C
20 mins ago




Our algebra book uses the phrase "numerical coefficient" to describe what is often called a coefficient (e.g. $5$ in the expression $5x^2y$), but discusses general coefficients as belonging to particular variables. For example, in the expression $5x^2y$, it would say the coefficient of $y$ is $5x^2$, and the coefficient of $x^2$ is $5y$. In general, it describes a coefficient of a variable (or product/quotient/power/etc. of variables) as being the other factors attached to it.
– Nick C
20 mins ago












@JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
– Daniel Hast
15 mins ago




@JoelReyesNoche: That just gives another reason why $0^0$ has to be defined to be 1.
– Daniel Hast
15 mins ago












The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
– Thomas Martin
9 mins ago




The limit of x^x as x -> 0 is 1. There's a great youtube video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=r0_mi8ngNnM.
– Thomas Martin
9 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Your question is kind of two parts: one about a convention




Is the constant term a "coefficient"




and one about a philosophy, which I perhaps find to be a more important question to answer.




Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?




Different fields of mathematics have different conventions; this can lead to some mathematicians using "sigma" for "standard deviation" in statistics and other mathematicians using "sigma" for a map defining a simplex in algebraic topology, and others using it to represent a group element in a permutation group. Even more egregiously, some people consider "Natural numbers" to include zero, and others consider "natural numbers" to be only positive integers. Even in higher mathematics, the definition of a word, or the statement of a theorem, may differ slightly between two textbooks. What is important is that 1) their definitions are clearly stated when they are introduced, and 2) that when a single mathematician uses the word in one body of work, that they are consistent. We are capable of handling the fact that different texts have slightly different definitions of what, exactly, a "coefficient" is, because we know how to interpret mathematical definitions and classify objects according to whether or not they fit that definition. That skill -- determining whether an object satisfies certain properties, or classifying mathematical objects based on definition, and recognizing properties of objects satisfying a particular definition -- is often an unstated goal in teaching mathematical vocabulary.



In that sense, I do not think that the definition of "coefficient" needs a universal definition for schoolchildren. When we teach students the meaning of mathematical words, the intent is often to build in them the ability to think about different "parts" of what they are learning and clearly articulate their thinking mathematically. In this sense, teachers and students being consistent with themselves and their textbook matters. However, being consistent across different states, or even different school districts, seems unimportant. Ultimately, they may grow up and realize that what their school called a coefficient differs slightly from what their college called a coefficient. This realization may help them understand the importance of an "operational definition" in many contexts!






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
    – Thomas Martin
    1 hour ago


















up vote
1
down vote













It sometimes happens that slightly different definitions of the same word each have advantages and disadvantages. In such cases, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people supporting one definition and other people supporting a different definition. In the case at hand, though, I can't think of any advantages for defining "coefficient" to exclude the constant term. It seems to me that, if one adopts this definition, one will repeatedly have to say "coefficients and constant term". In addition to your example, "a polyomial is determined by its coefficients and its constant term", we'd have "to multiply a polynomial by $7$, multiply all its coefficients and its constant term by $7$" and "to add two polynomials, add the corresponding coefficients and add the constant terms." All of these become simpler and clearer if we just include the constant terms among the coefficients instead of treating them separately. (And I refuse to even think about multiplying two polynomials if I'm expected to think about constant terms separately from the other coefficients.)






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
    – Thomas Martin
    12 mins ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "548"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Thomas Martin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmatheducators.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f14718%2fis-the-constant-term-a-coefficient%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote













Your question is kind of two parts: one about a convention




Is the constant term a "coefficient"




and one about a philosophy, which I perhaps find to be a more important question to answer.




Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?




Different fields of mathematics have different conventions; this can lead to some mathematicians using "sigma" for "standard deviation" in statistics and other mathematicians using "sigma" for a map defining a simplex in algebraic topology, and others using it to represent a group element in a permutation group. Even more egregiously, some people consider "Natural numbers" to include zero, and others consider "natural numbers" to be only positive integers. Even in higher mathematics, the definition of a word, or the statement of a theorem, may differ slightly between two textbooks. What is important is that 1) their definitions are clearly stated when they are introduced, and 2) that when a single mathematician uses the word in one body of work, that they are consistent. We are capable of handling the fact that different texts have slightly different definitions of what, exactly, a "coefficient" is, because we know how to interpret mathematical definitions and classify objects according to whether or not they fit that definition. That skill -- determining whether an object satisfies certain properties, or classifying mathematical objects based on definition, and recognizing properties of objects satisfying a particular definition -- is often an unstated goal in teaching mathematical vocabulary.



In that sense, I do not think that the definition of "coefficient" needs a universal definition for schoolchildren. When we teach students the meaning of mathematical words, the intent is often to build in them the ability to think about different "parts" of what they are learning and clearly articulate their thinking mathematically. In this sense, teachers and students being consistent with themselves and their textbook matters. However, being consistent across different states, or even different school districts, seems unimportant. Ultimately, they may grow up and realize that what their school called a coefficient differs slightly from what their college called a coefficient. This realization may help them understand the importance of an "operational definition" in many contexts!






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
    – Thomas Martin
    1 hour ago















up vote
3
down vote













Your question is kind of two parts: one about a convention




Is the constant term a "coefficient"




and one about a philosophy, which I perhaps find to be a more important question to answer.




Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?




Different fields of mathematics have different conventions; this can lead to some mathematicians using "sigma" for "standard deviation" in statistics and other mathematicians using "sigma" for a map defining a simplex in algebraic topology, and others using it to represent a group element in a permutation group. Even more egregiously, some people consider "Natural numbers" to include zero, and others consider "natural numbers" to be only positive integers. Even in higher mathematics, the definition of a word, or the statement of a theorem, may differ slightly between two textbooks. What is important is that 1) their definitions are clearly stated when they are introduced, and 2) that when a single mathematician uses the word in one body of work, that they are consistent. We are capable of handling the fact that different texts have slightly different definitions of what, exactly, a "coefficient" is, because we know how to interpret mathematical definitions and classify objects according to whether or not they fit that definition. That skill -- determining whether an object satisfies certain properties, or classifying mathematical objects based on definition, and recognizing properties of objects satisfying a particular definition -- is often an unstated goal in teaching mathematical vocabulary.



In that sense, I do not think that the definition of "coefficient" needs a universal definition for schoolchildren. When we teach students the meaning of mathematical words, the intent is often to build in them the ability to think about different "parts" of what they are learning and clearly articulate their thinking mathematically. In this sense, teachers and students being consistent with themselves and their textbook matters. However, being consistent across different states, or even different school districts, seems unimportant. Ultimately, they may grow up and realize that what their school called a coefficient differs slightly from what their college called a coefficient. This realization may help them understand the importance of an "operational definition" in many contexts!






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
    – Thomas Martin
    1 hour ago













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Your question is kind of two parts: one about a convention




Is the constant term a "coefficient"




and one about a philosophy, which I perhaps find to be a more important question to answer.




Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?




Different fields of mathematics have different conventions; this can lead to some mathematicians using "sigma" for "standard deviation" in statistics and other mathematicians using "sigma" for a map defining a simplex in algebraic topology, and others using it to represent a group element in a permutation group. Even more egregiously, some people consider "Natural numbers" to include zero, and others consider "natural numbers" to be only positive integers. Even in higher mathematics, the definition of a word, or the statement of a theorem, may differ slightly between two textbooks. What is important is that 1) their definitions are clearly stated when they are introduced, and 2) that when a single mathematician uses the word in one body of work, that they are consistent. We are capable of handling the fact that different texts have slightly different definitions of what, exactly, a "coefficient" is, because we know how to interpret mathematical definitions and classify objects according to whether or not they fit that definition. That skill -- determining whether an object satisfies certain properties, or classifying mathematical objects based on definition, and recognizing properties of objects satisfying a particular definition -- is often an unstated goal in teaching mathematical vocabulary.



In that sense, I do not think that the definition of "coefficient" needs a universal definition for schoolchildren. When we teach students the meaning of mathematical words, the intent is often to build in them the ability to think about different "parts" of what they are learning and clearly articulate their thinking mathematically. In this sense, teachers and students being consistent with themselves and their textbook matters. However, being consistent across different states, or even different school districts, seems unimportant. Ultimately, they may grow up and realize that what their school called a coefficient differs slightly from what their college called a coefficient. This realization may help them understand the importance of an "operational definition" in many contexts!






share|improve this answer












Your question is kind of two parts: one about a convention




Is the constant term a "coefficient"




and one about a philosophy, which I perhaps find to be a more important question to answer.




Isn't mathematics supposed to be non-arbitrary and consistent?




Different fields of mathematics have different conventions; this can lead to some mathematicians using "sigma" for "standard deviation" in statistics and other mathematicians using "sigma" for a map defining a simplex in algebraic topology, and others using it to represent a group element in a permutation group. Even more egregiously, some people consider "Natural numbers" to include zero, and others consider "natural numbers" to be only positive integers. Even in higher mathematics, the definition of a word, or the statement of a theorem, may differ slightly between two textbooks. What is important is that 1) their definitions are clearly stated when they are introduced, and 2) that when a single mathematician uses the word in one body of work, that they are consistent. We are capable of handling the fact that different texts have slightly different definitions of what, exactly, a "coefficient" is, because we know how to interpret mathematical definitions and classify objects according to whether or not they fit that definition. That skill -- determining whether an object satisfies certain properties, or classifying mathematical objects based on definition, and recognizing properties of objects satisfying a particular definition -- is often an unstated goal in teaching mathematical vocabulary.



In that sense, I do not think that the definition of "coefficient" needs a universal definition for schoolchildren. When we teach students the meaning of mathematical words, the intent is often to build in them the ability to think about different "parts" of what they are learning and clearly articulate their thinking mathematically. In this sense, teachers and students being consistent with themselves and their textbook matters. However, being consistent across different states, or even different school districts, seems unimportant. Ultimately, they may grow up and realize that what their school called a coefficient differs slightly from what their college called a coefficient. This realization may help them understand the importance of an "operational definition" in many contexts!







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









Opal E

1,225520




1,225520











  • Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
    – Thomas Martin
    1 hour ago

















  • Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
    – Thomas Martin
    1 hour ago
















Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
– Thomas Martin
1 hour ago





Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I guess my concern is that communication built upon very basic/low level definitions benefits greatly from consistency at that basic level. For example, I would love to be able to say, "The coefficients of a polynomial, together with their places in the polynomial, uniquely determine the polynomial, similar to the way the digits in natural number together with their places in the number uniquely determine the number." If some students are taught that the constant term is not a coefficient, while others are taught that they are, what do I say?
– Thomas Martin
1 hour ago











up vote
1
down vote













It sometimes happens that slightly different definitions of the same word each have advantages and disadvantages. In such cases, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people supporting one definition and other people supporting a different definition. In the case at hand, though, I can't think of any advantages for defining "coefficient" to exclude the constant term. It seems to me that, if one adopts this definition, one will repeatedly have to say "coefficients and constant term". In addition to your example, "a polyomial is determined by its coefficients and its constant term", we'd have "to multiply a polynomial by $7$, multiply all its coefficients and its constant term by $7$" and "to add two polynomials, add the corresponding coefficients and add the constant terms." All of these become simpler and clearer if we just include the constant terms among the coefficients instead of treating them separately. (And I refuse to even think about multiplying two polynomials if I'm expected to think about constant terms separately from the other coefficients.)






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
    – Thomas Martin
    12 mins ago














up vote
1
down vote













It sometimes happens that slightly different definitions of the same word each have advantages and disadvantages. In such cases, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people supporting one definition and other people supporting a different definition. In the case at hand, though, I can't think of any advantages for defining "coefficient" to exclude the constant term. It seems to me that, if one adopts this definition, one will repeatedly have to say "coefficients and constant term". In addition to your example, "a polyomial is determined by its coefficients and its constant term", we'd have "to multiply a polynomial by $7$, multiply all its coefficients and its constant term by $7$" and "to add two polynomials, add the corresponding coefficients and add the constant terms." All of these become simpler and clearer if we just include the constant terms among the coefficients instead of treating them separately. (And I refuse to even think about multiplying two polynomials if I'm expected to think about constant terms separately from the other coefficients.)






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
    – Thomas Martin
    12 mins ago












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









It sometimes happens that slightly different definitions of the same word each have advantages and disadvantages. In such cases, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people supporting one definition and other people supporting a different definition. In the case at hand, though, I can't think of any advantages for defining "coefficient" to exclude the constant term. It seems to me that, if one adopts this definition, one will repeatedly have to say "coefficients and constant term". In addition to your example, "a polyomial is determined by its coefficients and its constant term", we'd have "to multiply a polynomial by $7$, multiply all its coefficients and its constant term by $7$" and "to add two polynomials, add the corresponding coefficients and add the constant terms." All of these become simpler and clearer if we just include the constant terms among the coefficients instead of treating them separately. (And I refuse to even think about multiplying two polynomials if I'm expected to think about constant terms separately from the other coefficients.)






share|improve this answer












It sometimes happens that slightly different definitions of the same word each have advantages and disadvantages. In such cases, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people supporting one definition and other people supporting a different definition. In the case at hand, though, I can't think of any advantages for defining "coefficient" to exclude the constant term. It seems to me that, if one adopts this definition, one will repeatedly have to say "coefficients and constant term". In addition to your example, "a polyomial is determined by its coefficients and its constant term", we'd have "to multiply a polynomial by $7$, multiply all its coefficients and its constant term by $7$" and "to add two polynomials, add the corresponding coefficients and add the constant terms." All of these become simpler and clearer if we just include the constant terms among the coefficients instead of treating them separately. (And I refuse to even think about multiplying two polynomials if I'm expected to think about constant terms separately from the other coefficients.)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 23 mins ago









Andreas Blass

2,11211211




2,11211211











  • Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
    – Thomas Martin
    12 mins ago
















  • Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
    – Thomas Martin
    12 mins ago















Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
– Thomas Martin
12 mins ago




Thanks! Oh, and I fervently believe the natural numbers do not include 0. The natural numbers are so named because they come naturally to us (at least 1, 2, and 3 do). When we count, the first number we say is 1. We now know that before we say 1, we have 0--we start with nothing. But we start our count with 1. Formalizing 0 took centuries. I'm ok with educators creating the whole numbers to be the natural numbers plus 0. Educators can use that do clarify counting and distance on the number line without trying to redefine the foundational natural numbers.
– Thomas Martin
12 mins ago










Thomas Martin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















Thomas Martin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Thomas Martin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Thomas Martin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmatheducators.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f14718%2fis-the-constant-term-a-coefficient%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?