## Posted tagged ‘calculus’

### Letters of Euler to a German Princess, Vol. II, Letter XI

July 5, 2018

This is the fifth of eleven Letters of Euler I will rewrite and post on the subject of infinitesimals (the infinitely small), an idea that is fundamental to a good understanding of calculus. Click here to read the previous letter.

### Letter XI. Reflections on Divisibility in infinitum, and on Monads.

In speaking of the divisibility of body, we must carefully distinguish what is in our power, from what is possible in itself. In the first sense, it cannot be denied, that such a division of a body as we are capable of, must be very limited.

By pounding a stone we can easily reduce it to powder; and if it were possible to reckon all the little grains which form that powder, their number would undoubtedly be so great, that it would be matter of surprize, to have divided the stone into so many parts. But these very grains will be almost indivisible with respect to us, as no instrument we could employ would be able to lay hold of them. But it cannot with truth be affirmed that they are indivisible in themselves. You have only to view them with a good microscope, and each will appear itself a considerable stone, on which are distinguishable a great many points and inequalities; which demonstrates the possibility of a farther division, though we are not in a condition to execute it. For wherever we can distinguish several points in any object, it must be divisible into so many parts.

We speak not, therefore, of a division practicable by our strength and skill, but of that which is possible in itself, and which the Divine Omnipotence is able to accomplish.

It is in this sense, accordingly, that philosophers use the word ‘divisibility:’ so that if there were a stone so hard that no force could break it, it might be without hesitation affirmed as divisible, in its own nature, as the most brittle, of the same magnitude. And how many bodies are there on which we cannot lay any hold, and of whose divisibility we can entertain not the smallest doubt? No one doubts that the moon is a divisible body, though he is incapable of detaching the smallest particle from it: and the simple reason for its divisibility, is its being extended.

Wherever we remark extension, we are under the necessity of acknowledging divisibility, so that divisibility is an inseparable property of extension. But experience likewise demonstrates that the division of bodies extends very far. I shall not insist at great length on the instance usually produced of a ducat*: the artisan can beat it out into a leaf so fine, as to cover a very large surface, and the ducat may be divided into as many parts as that surface is capable of being divided. Our own body furnishes an example much more surprizing. Only consider the delicate veins and nerves with which it is filled, and the fluids which circulate through them. The subtility there discoverable far surpasses imagination.

##### *A ducat is a gold coin used in Euler’s day.

The smallest insects, such as are scarcely visible to the naked eye, have all their members, and legs on which they walk with amazing velocity. Hence we see that each limb has its muscles composed of a great number of fibres; that they have veins, and nerves, and a fluid still much more subtile which flows through their whole extent.

On viewing with a good microscope a single drop of water, it has the appearance of a sea; we see thousands of living creatures swimming in it, each of which is necessarily composed of an infinite number of muscular and nervous fibres, whose marvellous structure ought to excite our admiration. And though these creatures may perhaps be the smallest which we are capable of discovering by the help of the microsope, undoubtedly they are not the smallest which the Creator has produced. Animacules probably exist as small relatively to them, as they are relatively to us. And these after all are not yet the smallest, but may be followed by an infinity of new classes, each of which contains creatures incomparably smaller than those of the preceding class.

We ought in this to acknowledge the omnipotence and infinite wisdom of the Creator, as in objects of the greatest magnitude. it appears to me, that the consideration of these minute species, each of which is followed by another inconceivably more minute, ought to make the liveliest impression on our minds, and inspire us with the most sublime ideas of the works of the Almighty, whose power knows no bounds, whether as to great objects or small.

To imagine that after having divided a body into a great number of parts, we arrive, at length, at particles so small as to defy all farther division, is therefore the indication of a very contracted mind. But supposing it is possible to descend to particles so minute as to be, in their own nature, no longer divisible, as in the case of the supposed monads; before coming to this point, we shall have a particle composed of only two monads, and this particle will be of a certain magnitude or extension, otherwise it could not have been divisible into these two monads. Let us farther suppose, that this particle, as it has some extension, may be the thousandth part of an inch, or still smaller if you will; for it is of no importance, what I say of the thousandth part of an inch may be said with equal truth of every smaller part. This thousandth part of an inch, then, is composed of two monads, and consequently two monads together would be the thousandth part of an inch, and two thousand times nothing, a whole inch; the absurdity strikes at first light.

The partisans of the system of monads accordingly shrink from the force of this argument, and are reduced to a terrible nonplus when asked how many monads are requisite to constitute an extension. Two, they apprehend, would appear insufficient, they therefore allow that more must be necessary. But, if two monads cannot constitute extension, as each of the two has none; neither three, nor four, nor any number whatever will produce it; and this complexity subverts the system of monads.

9th May, 1761.

### Letters of Euler to a German Princess, Vol. II, Letter VIII

May 22, 2017

This is the second of eleven Letters of Euler I will rewrite and post on the subject of infinitesimals (the infinitely small), an idea that is fundamental to a good understanding of calculus. Click here to read the previous letter.

### Letter VIII. Divisibility of Extension in Infinitum

The controversy between modern philosophies and geometricians to which I have alluded, turns on the divisibility of body. This property is undoubtedly founded on extension, and it is only in so far as bodies are extended that they are divisible, and capable of being reduced to parts.

You will recollect that in geometry it is always possible to divide a line, however small, into two equal parts. We are likewise, by that science, instructed in the method of dividing a small line, ai, into any number of equal parts at pleasure, and the construction of this division is there demonstrated beyond the possibility of doubting its accuracy.

You have only to draw a line AI (plate II. fig. 23) parallel to ai of any length, and at any distance you please, and to divide it into as many equal parts AB, BC, CD, DE, etc. as the small line given is to have divisions, say eight. Draw afterwards, through the extremities A, a, and I, i the straight lines AaO, IiO, till they meet in the point O: and from O draw toward the points of division B, C, D, E, etc. the straight lines OB, OC, OD, OE, etc., which shall likewise cut the small line ai into eight equal parts.

This operation may be performed, however small the given line ai, and however great the number of parts into which you propose to divide it. True it is, that in execution we are not permitted to go too far; the lines which we draw always have some breadth, whereby they are at length confounded, as may be seen in the figure near point O; but the question is not what may be possible for us to execute, but what is possible in itself. Now in geometry lines have no breadth*, and consequently can never be confounded. hence it follows that such division is illimitable.

###### *In Shormann Math, a line is defined as a widthless length, which is the same thing Euler is describing. In fact, all normal geometry courses define a line this way. The idea is that we are not concerned with how thick, or wide the line is. When you draw a line though, it has to have some thickness to it in order to be able to see it.

If it is once admitted that a line may be divided into a thousand parts, by dividing each part into two it will be divisible into two thousand parts, and for the same reason into four thousand, and into eight thousand, without ever arriving at parts indivisible. However small a line may be supposed, it is still divisible into halves, and each half again into two, and each of these again in like manner, and so on to infinity.

What I have said of a line is easily applicable to a surface, and, with greater strength of reasoning, to a solid endowed with three dimensions, length, breadth, and thickness. Hence is is affirmed that all extension is divisible to infinity, and this property is denominated divisibility in infinitum.

Whoever is disposed to deny this property of extension, is under the necessity of maintaining, that it is possible to arrive at last at parts so minute as to be unsusceptible of any farther division, because they ceased to have any extension. Nevertheless all these particles taken together must reproduce the whole, by the division of which you acquired them; and as the quantity of each would be a nothing, or cypher (0), a combination of cyphers would produce quantity, which is manifestly absurd. For you know perfectly well, that in arithmetic, two or more cyphers joined never produce any thing.

This opinion that in division of extension, or of any quantity whatever, we may come at last to particles so minute as to be no longer divisible, because they are so small, or because quantity no longer exists, is, therefore, a position absolutely untenable.

In order to render the absurdity of it more sensible, let us suppose a line of an inch long, divided into a thousand parts, and that these parts are so small as to admit of no farther division; each part, then, would no longer have any length, for if it had any, it would be still divisible. Each particle, then, would of consequence be a nothing. But if these thousand particles together constituted the length of an inch, the thousandth part of an inch would, of consequence, be a nothing; which is equally absurd with maintaining, that the half of any quantity whatever is nothing. And if it be absurd to affirm, that the half of any quantity is nothing, it is equally so to affirm, that the half of a half, or that the fourth part of the same quantity, is nothing; and what must be granted as to the fourth, must likewise be granted with respect to the thousandth, and the millionth part. Finally, however far you may have already carried, in imagination, the division of an inch, it is always possible to carry it still farther; and never will you be able to carry on your subdivision so far, as that the last parts shall be absolutely indivisible. These parts will undoubtedly always become smaller, and their magnitude will approach nearer and nearer to 0, but can never reach it.

The geometrician, therefore, is warranted in affirming, that every magnitude is divisible to infinity; and that you cannot proceed so far in your division, as that all farther division shall be impossible. But it is always necessary to distinguish between what is possible in itself, and what we are in a condition to perform. Our execution is indeed extremely limited. After having, for example, divided an inch into a thousand parts, these parts are so small as to escape our senses, and a farther division would to us, no doubt, be impossible.

But you have only to look at this thousandth part of an inch through a good microscope, which magnifies, for example, a thousand times, and each particle will appear as large as an inch to the naked eye; and you will be convinced of the possibility of dividing each of these particles again into a thousand parts: the same reasoning may always be carried forward, without limit and without end.

It is therefore an indubitable truth, that all magnitude is divisible in infinitum, and that this takes place not only with respect to extension, which is the object of geometry, but likewise with respect to every other species of quantity, such as time and number.

28th April, 1761.

### Letters of Euler to a German Princess, Vol. II, Letter VII

May 18, 2017

This is the first of eleven Letters of Euler I will rewrite and post on the subject of infinitesmals (the infinitely small), an idea that is fundamental to a good understanding of calculus. I am rewriting them from a 1795 English translation, and will edit some of the awkward character usage (among other things, the first “s” used in any word actually looks like an “f”), but otherwise, for the most part, I will leave it unchanged. Additions and edits will be marked by braces, […].

Considered by scholars as the best mathematician in history, Euler’s influence is everywhere present in modern mathematics. Yet as smart as he was, he still took time to bring difficult concepts down to a level where a non-mathematician might learn some things. And, as you will see, defend the Christianity at the same time.

Although these posts from Letters of Euler are for students in my Shormann Calculus course(available Summer 2018), any curious prince or princess is welcome to read them, too! The idea Euler (and myself) is trying to convey is that any real object can be divided, and divided again. And again, until it is in such small parts (infinitesimals) we can’t see them. Nevertheless, they exist. But how? To understand that, let’s begin with Euler’s description of the properties of any real object, which he refers to as a body.  Enjoy!

### Letter VII. The True Notion of Extension

I have already demonstrated, that the general notion of body necessarily comprehends these three qualities, extension, impenetrability, and inertia*, without which no being can be ranked in the class of bodies. Even the most scrupulous must allow the necessity of these three qualities, in order to constitute a body; but the doubt with some is, Are these three characters sufficient? Perhaps, say they, there may be several other characters, which are equally necessary to the essence of body.

##### *if a body has extension, that means you can measure it (length, mass, etc.); if it has impenetrability, that means you can feel it, which is possible with any solid, liquid or gas; if it has inertia that means it has the physical property of resisting a change in motion.

But I ask: were God to create a being divested of these other unknown characters, and that it possessed only the three above mentioned, would they hesitate to give the name of body to such a being? No, assuredly; for if they had the least doubt on the subject, they could not say with certainty, that the stones in the street are bodies, because they are not sure whether the pretended unknown characters are to be found in them or not.

Some imagine, that gravity is an essential property of all bodies, as all those which we know are heavy; but were God to divest them of gravity, would they therefore cease to be bodies? Let them consider the heavenly bodies, which do not fall downward; as must be the case, if they were heavy as the bodies which we touch, yet they give them the same name. And even on the supposition that all bodies were heavy, it would not follow that gravity is a property essential to them, for a body would still remain a body, though its gravity were to be destroyed by a miracle.

But this reasoning does not apply to the three essential properties mentioned. Were God to annihilate the extension of a body, it would certainly be no longer a body; and a body divested of impenetrability would no longer be a body; it would be a spectre, a phantom: the same holds as to inertia.

You know that extension is the proper object of geometry, which considers bodies only in so far as they are measurable. [Geometry does not consider impenetrability and inertia.] The object of geometry, therefore, is a notion much more general than that of body, as it comprehends not only bodies, but all beings simply extended without impenetrability, if any such there be. Hence it follows, that all the properties deduced in geometry from the notion of extension must likewise take place in bodies, in as much as they are extended; for whatever is applicable to a more general notion, to that of a tree, for example, must likewise be applicable to the notion of an oak, an ash, an elm, etc. And this principle is even the foundation of all the reasonings in virtue of which we always affirm and deny of the species,  and of individuals, every thing that we affirm and deny of the genus.

There are however, philosophers, particularly among our contemporaries, who boldly deny, that the properties applicable to extension, in general, that is, according as we consider them in geometry, take place in bodies really existing. They allege that geometrical extension is an abstract being, from the properties of which it is impossible to draw any conclusion, with respect to real objects: thus, when I have demonstrated that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, this is a property belonging only to an abstract triangle, and not at all to one really existing.

But these philosophers are not aware of the perplexing consequences which naturally result from the difference which they establish between objects formed by abstraction, and real objects; and if it were not permitted to conclude from the first to the last, no conclusion, and no reasoning whatever could subsist, as we always conclude from general notions to particular.

Now all general notions are as much abstract beings as geometrical extension; and a tree, in general, or the general notion of trees, is formed only by abstraction, and no more exists out of our mind than geometrical extension does. The notion of man in general is of the same kind, and man in general no where exists: all men who exist are individual beings, and correspond to individual notions. The general idea which comprehends all, is formed only by abstraction.

The fault which these philosophers are ever finding with geometricians, for employing themselves about abstractions merely, is therefor groundless, as all other sciences principally turn on general notions, which are no more real than the objects of geometry. The patient, in general, who the physician has in view, and the idea of whom contains all patients really existing, is only an abstract idea; nay the very merit of each science is so much the greater, as it extends to notions more general, that is to say, more abstract.

I shall endeavor, by next post, to point out the tendency of the censures pronounced by these philosophers upon geometricians; and the reasons why they are unwilling that we should ascribe to real, [measurable] beings, that is, to existing bodies, the properties applicable to [measurement] in general, or to abstracted [measurement]. They are afraid lest their metaphysical principles should suffer in the cause.

25th April, 1761.

### The New Shormann Math vs. Saxon Math and Common Core

April 21, 2015

Summary: If mathematics is the language of science, then fluency should be the goal, which means the traditional “layer cake” approach to 3 years of high school math (Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2) is probably not the best approach. The shapers of Common Core’s math standards realized this, and now states that adopt their standards can choose between two high school “pathways”, either the layer cake or integrated approach, where students learn algebra and geometry together. John Saxon* actually pioneered the integrated approach in the United States back in the 1980’s, but his integrated approach was only one small part of his textbooks’ successes. His method of “incremental development with continual review,” combined with a constant encouragement for students to learn by doing, were the keys. Shormann Math builds on John Saxon’s efforts to really teach math like the language of science that it is, by not just connecting students to their world, but, more importantly, to their Creator. In doing so, students learn to wisely mingle concepts like science and Scripture, faith and reason. Doing so makes it easier to learn subjects like calculus, which really does require a faith commitment in order to make sense of it. Because of its obvious connections to God’s attributes, secular calculus courses steer clear of this, and in so doing make it much more difficult to learn. Shormann Math will change that.

*John Saxon passed away in 1996, and the company he founded, Saxon Publishers, is now owned by Houghton-Mifflin/Harcourt. They have since created some Saxon-in-name-only Algebra 1, 2, and Geometry textbooks. Click here to read our review of the new books and to learn why we don’t recommend them.

### The 10 Major Topics of Shormann Math

The 10 major topics of Shormann Math, compared to John Saxon’s books and Common Core standards.

Measurement is a topic that is a natural part of any math course seeking to teach math as the language of science. That it’s missing from three years of Common Core high school math is a huge problem. As a science class and lab teaching assistant during graduate school, one of the biggest math-related struggles I remember was students’ inability to convert from one unit to another. And it’s not just Common Core, most government school standards are weak in teaching measurement-related topics.

All Shormann Math high school courses will keep students fresh with working with measurements. Computers are also a very real part of every students’ world, so knowing about some of the mathematics behind them should be a priority. And, as mentioned in the Summary above, calculus becomes a normal part of high school math when one of the priorities is to connect students to their Creator.

### Foundations and Pedagogy

As Euclid famously said centuries ago, there is no royal road to learning. However, some methods are definitely better than others, and the Common Core’s integrated pathway (click here to read an Education Week review) is definitely a step in the right direction. However, the integrated approach has it’s own challenges. To really teach math like the active, hands-on language of science that it is, you have to teach it like languages are taught, or sports, or instruments, etc. You teach students a little bit about something, give them time to practice it, and then build on it. John Saxon called this “incremental development with continual review,” which is missing from Common Core.

Also missing from Common Core is the importance of math history. Understanding why they are learning the different math topics makes math more relevant to students. Learning some things about the people behind the math concepts they are learning, as well as some of the great, and not-so-great things they did, makes math more meaningful. And the connection to history also shines a bright light on the rich Christian heritage of mathematics, especially regarding algebra and calculus. Showing students how God’s attributes are clearly revealed in mathematics can make a huge difference in their comprehension and success in the course.

Shormann Math’s emphasis on math history means that, in developing the course, I dove deep into the classic works of Euclid, Newton, Euler, etc. Rather than reinventing the wheel, this study of the classics allowed me to develop a curriculum that stands on the shoulders of giants (a phrase often attributed to Isaac Newton). It should be a huge confidence-booster to parent and student alike to know your course is built on time-tested and proven methods for learning math.

### What 3 Years of Math Covers

By focusing on what matters most, Shormann Math does more in 3 years than either Common Core or Saxon. In the first two years, Shormann Math covers all the concepts presented on the SAT (the new 2016 version), the ACT, and both the CLEP College Algebra and CLEP College Math exam. A full credit of geometry is integrated into the first two years as well. This is different from John Saxon-authored texts, which include the geometry credit in years 2 and 3 (Algebra 2 and the first 1/3 of Advanced Math). And before you think Shormann Math couldn’t possibly have enough geometry, consider that we will cover all the standards, like perimeter/area/volume, similarity and congruence, circle and triangle theorems, and proofs. In addition, we will show students how the proof technique is not some isolated subject you only learn in geometry class, which is what most students, and parents, think it is. We’ll introduce students to proofs by studying the master, Euclid, covering several of his propositions. We’ll do the standard triangle proofs and circle proofs, but will also apply proof technique in other topics like algebra. And students will learn how proof is used in the real world. They’ll even learn how geometry is used in art and architecture. And on top of all that, we’ll introduce non-Euclidean geometry in Algebra 2, diving deeper in Precalculus. We’ll also use CAD programs like Geometer’s Sketchpad to complete proofs and more.

Finally, Shormann Math will introduce calculus fundamentals. By year 3 (precalculus), Shormann Math students will be very comfortable finding limits, and will have a solid grasp of derivatives and integrals. We hope all students will continue on to Shormann Calculus, but if not, they will be more than ready for college-level calculus. Of all the courses in college, calculus is the subject that opens the door to virtually every college major, or if the student cannot pass the class, closes the door on about 80% of majors. The first three years of Shormann Math will give students the confidence they need to take college calculus, and be at a level to help their peers learn it, which can also open up opportunities to build relationships and share the gospel. And completing 4 years of Shormann Math will allow students to possibly prepare for and pass either the CLEP or AP Calculus exam, receiving college credit for their efforts.

### But Saxon + DIVE Lectures do a lot of this already. Why make a new curriculum?

There are many reasons, here are a few:

• We can build the curriculum on a Christian and historical foundation, rather than bringing these fundamentals in from the side, like we do with the DIVE Lectures that teach Saxon Math.
• The one topic John Saxon didn’t integrate was calculus. We think it just might be the most important topic to integrate, and our current Shormann Math students are proving Algebra 1-level students can learn some calculus fundamentals!
• We don’t know how long Houghton Mifflin/Harcourt will continue to sell John Saxon-authored textbooks.
• We can take advantage of 21st Century technology and e-learning to provide more efficient and effective learning. Our self-paced e-learning format includes many powerful learning tools, including video lectures and video solutions to homework, all for about the same price as the Saxon home study kits. The following table lists some detailed differences between Shormann Math and Saxon Math.

### What is the prerequisite for Shormann Math Algebra 1?

Students who have successfully completed a standard pre-algebra course, including either Saxon 8/7 or Saxon Algebra Half, are ready for Shormann Math Algebra 1.

*******************************************

Click here for a detailed description of Shormann Math, including sample video lectures and pricing information.

### It Only Takes an Instant

December 1, 2014

Two images of a wave in Waimea Bay, Hawaii, taken 0.1 s apart, reveal how quickly things can change from beauty to chaos (or vice versa). © 2014 David E. Shormann

I never cease to be amazed by the technology of today’s digital cameras. By pushing a few buttons, anyone crazy enough to bob around in a 6-8′ high shore break can capture some amazing beauty in God’s creation! But as the photos above reveal, the beauty only lasts for an instant.

It seems impossible that things can change from beauty to chaos, or vice-versa, in so short a time. But big changes can and do occur in even less time than the tenth of a second that elapsed between these two photos.

Strangely enough, instantaneous change, something us humans really can’t fully comprehend, is behind almost every major technological achievement of the past 300+ years!  How can that be? How can something we will never fully understand help us make all sorts of useful devices? Well, some things we just have to take on faith. Faith is at the heart of the branch of mathematics known as calculus. And calculus is all about the study of instantaneous change.

Subjects like calculus are easier to grasp when we consider the Author of every instant of time, and Creator of the biggest  and best instantaneous changes of all. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:52 how we will be changed “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783), a devout Christian man considered the best mathematician ever, wrote that “it is God, therefore, who places men, every instant, in circumstances the most favourable, and from which, they may derive motives the most powerful, to produce their conversion; so that men are always indebted to God, for the means which promote their salvation.”

Euler understood God’s relationship with man and creation very well. He also understood mathematics really well, too! Much of the way we teach mathematics today comes from Euler’s textbooks on the subject.

In our new Shormann Mathematics curriculum, we believe that all 10 major topics covered, including and especially calculus, are best understood by connecting the study of mathematics to Jesus Christ, the founder of all knowledge, and the founder and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

### The 10 Major Concepts of Shormann Mathematics

August 26, 2014

The following is the fifth in a series of posts covering Shormann Mathematics, Algebra 1, the newest product from DIVE Math and Science! Click here to read the complete document that covers Shormann Math core ideas, course description, and Algebra 1 table of contents.

After years of teaching mathematics, researching math curricula and math history, and applying mathematics as a scientist and engineer, I concluded mathematics can be taught by covering 10 major concepts. The 10 major concepts are: number, ratio, algebra, geometry, analytical geometry, measurement, trigonometry, calculus, statistics, and computer math. While all 10 concepts can be taught in any K-12 course, specific concepts will be emphasized more or less at appropriate times. For example, number and ratio will be emphasized in younger grades, algebra in Algebra 1 and 2, etc.

I know what you are thinking right now, and that is “But CALCULUS is one of the 10 major concepts! How can you possibly teach calculus to an Algebra 1 student?!” Well, if you have even an 8th grade level of math proficiency, you know that if it took you exactly one hour to drive 60 miles, your average speed would be 60 mph. If you understand that, you already understand something about calculus, because calculus is really nothing more than studying rates of change. And yes, it gets more complicated than that example, but it also gets less complicated, too, so much so that there are things about calculus you could teach a kindergartner!

Most state mathematics standards do not include calculus, and none that I know of require calculus in high school. And the federal Common Core math standards include no calculus, and almost no precalculus either! However, the discovery of calculus is one of the greatest mathematical achievements ever! All the great technological achievements of the last 300+ years are in some way or another related to calculus! And proficiency in calculus opens the door for a student to choose any college major, while an inability to pass calculus limits a student to about 20% of college majors.

For high school mathematics, most home schools and private schools simply parrot whatever their state standards are, which means they complete Algebra 1, 2, and Geometry, and check off math on their transcript, not really knowing why they did math this way. With Shormann Math though, we want you to know why you are doing math differently. We are going to paint a broader brush than most math curricula, teaching math like a language, while at the same time helping you become proficient in standard Algebra 1, 2 and Geometry concepts. Along the way, rather than avoiding calculus because you heard it was scary, you are gently introduced to it. And, before you know it, you will be understanding more calculus than all your peers, and probably even your parents, ever did! Rather than an afterthought or a scary thought, Shormann Math makes calculus a normal, natural part of the curriculum, and culminates with a formal (and yes, it’s optional!) calculus course that will prepare students to receive college credit via CLEP or AP Calculus.

Done in a thoughtful and age-appropriate way, all 10 major concepts listed above can most definitely be represented in one way or another in a K-12 mathematics curriculum.