In Defense of Standard Algorithms

from the American Mathematical Society

"An important feature of algorithms is that they are automatic and so do not require thought once mastered. Thus learning algorithms frees up the brain to struggle with higher-level tasks."

"Standard algorithms may be viewed analogously to spelling: to some degree they constitute a convention, and it is not essential that students operate with them from day one or even in their private thinking; but eventually, as a matter of mutual communication and understanding, it is highly desirable that everyone (that is, nearly everyone -- we recognize that there are always exceptional cases) learn a standard way of doing the four basic arithmetic operations. (The standard algorithms need not be absolutely unique, just as there are variant spellings between, say, the U.S. and England, but too much variation leads to difficulties.) We do not think it is wise for students to be left with untested private algorithms for arithmetic operations -- such algorithms may only be valid for some subclass of problems. The virtue of standard algorithms -- that they are guaranteed to work for all problems of the type they deal with -- deserves emphasis."

"We would like to emphasize that the standard algorithms of arithmetic are more than just "ways to get the answer" -- that is, they have theoretical as well as practical significance. For one thing, all the algorithms of arithmetic are preparatory for algebra, since there are (again, not by accident, but by virtue of the construction of the decimal system) strong analogies between arithmetic of ordinary numbers and arithmetic of polynomials. The division algorithm is also significant for later understanding of real numbers. For all its virtues, decimal notation suffers a significant drawback over, say, standard notation for fractions: decimal numbers (meaning decimal fractions with finitely many terms) do not allow division. This can be remedied at the cost of using infinite decimal expansions, but this is a big leap, and the general infinite decimal is not rational. To understand that rational numbers correspond to repeating decimals essentially means understanding the structure of division of decimals as embodied in the division algorithm. We do not see that naive use of calculators can be of much help here: the length of repeat of a decimal will typically be comparable to the size of the denominator, so that 7/23 or 5/29 will not reveal any repeating behavior on standard calculators."

Source: American Mathematical Society NCTM2000 Association Resource Group Second Report June 1997 link