|ASFL| BUD| CCC| CRFC| DVM| FEFC| Grok| HGC| ICPA| LHS| microCAD| OTB| PCI| Pedigree| PEMDAS|

|PRFC| Provenance| Q = Q'| QRDD| QRFC| QRUP| RHS| RTP| SEQ| TAMO| TIIQ| TLFC| TOPP| Two Weeks|

ASFL

"Adjacent Salient-Feature Labels" - This is an admonition to label important parts of your graph (intercepts, crossings, endpoints, highs, lows, asymptotes) with their coordinates or equations or relevant variable names. These labels should be right next to the feature being labeled, perhaps connected with an arrow.

Tick marks, which the reader must count, are just not it in this context.

This also applies to other sorts of pictures or diagrams you might use in a problem. If a variable appears in a related equation, it should also be indicated on the diagram.
Back to top.

BUD

"Bogus Universal Distributivity" - This is accusing you of acting as though you really believe that

f(A + B) = f(A) + f(B)

for the function f under consideration. It must be that this function is not a function whose graph is a straight line through the origin, so you are in error! You need to extirpate this pattern from your automatic pilot's script. Otherwise you'll go around announcing that

the square root of four is four

or

1/3 + 1/4 = 1/7

The famous variation

f(x + h) = f(x) + h

can be used to prove that the graph of every function (even straight lines!) has slope 1 at every point!!

Back to top.

CCC

This is a shorthand accusation: in simplifying or reducing a fraction, you have "cancelled" an item which is not a factor of both the numerator and the numerator.
Back to top.

CRFC

"Chain-Rule Federal Case" - the CHAIN RULE was called for here, but you didn't.
Back to top.

DVM

"Dummy-Variable Mismatch" - This is a function-grammar error: if

f(x)   =   t²  +   2t

then

f(0)   =   t²  +   2t           and           f(z)   =   t²  +   2t

Back to top.

FEFC

"Fractional-Exponent Federal Case" - An accusation that you've mishandled rational-exponent notation. Here's a University-of-Utah review: click here.

Back to top.

Grok

Verb transitive: to grok something is to understand it DEEPLY in all its aspects.

See Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein
Back to top.

HGC

"Hide Graphing Calculator" - Technology is interfering with a learning experience we want you to have.

Your answers to the case-in-point simple graphing problem look as if your calculator has kept you from confronting some concept. Usually this involves an apparent deficiency in horizontal-asymptote awareness. We hope you will put the calculator away and do a low-tech think about how the graph should look, about its salient features.

After you've given the graph your best shot, then check up on your results via your graphing calculator. At this point, you may want to bring in the calculator to decide some minor detail.
Back to top.

ICPA

"In-Context Prose Answer" - Story problems deserve such a final answer.

Imagine that you have been retained as a high-priced consultant to tell a major CEO how many french fries. When you send the CEO a bill, your answer had better not be

Q = 4,000,000

Rather you should tell him something like, "There are four million french fries". This is prose, in the context of the original question, and without a whiff of the variables and methods you used to solve the problem.

At the end of your story-problem solutions, you must have one of these In-Context Prose Answers.

Another need for prose answers occurs when one has done a messy calculation in response to a yes-or-no question. Here you would present your calculation, and then, offer brief prose explaining why your calculation does the trick:

Suppose you were asked, "Is every fnordnik also a widget?". After your calculation you might write something like

No, it is not true that every fnordnik is a widget: comparison of columns 5 and 9 of the above truth table, especially row 37, shows an example of a non-fnordnik widget.

Back to top.

LHS

"Left-Hand Side" - You are guilty of one or more of the following:

1. You've written an algebraic fragment which should be the right-hand side of an equation with a left-hand side. This left-hand side should identify your fragment and suggest how it relates to the rest of the problem at hand. A common instance:

   f(x) = cos(x)

   -sin(x)

   0

   which should have been written

   f(x) = cos(x)

   f'(x) = -sin(x)

   f'(0) = -sin(0) = 0

2. You've commenced a chain of equalities without explaining, via symbols or prose, where this chain is starting.
   Back to top.

microCAD

You've drawn a diagram or graph as part of the solution to a problem or as part of a proof. The trouble is that it's just too tiny to be of any use either as a support for your argument or as a communication device.
Back to top.

OTB

"Off the Beam" - take your homework paper to the instructor and ask for suggestions on how to avoid getting "OTB" in the future.
Back to top.

Pedigree

Insufficient justification for a result. No points.
Back to top.

PCI

"Premature Calculator Invocation" - You're being accused of starting up your calculator in floating-point mode before your instructor believes you should. Your instructor hopes you will do algebra down to the very end of the problem, breaking out with decimal approximations only after a simplified "algebra answer" has been obtained.

It makes it hard to grade your stuff (and hard/impossible to assign partial credit) if you begin using calculator approximations too early in a calculation.
Back to top.

PEMDAS

"Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally" or "Parentheses, Exponents, Multiply, Divide, Add, Subtract" - You're being accused of an order-of-operations error. Maybe you wrote something like

2 + 4*6 = 36

or

2*(3+5) = 11

or

-5*1² = 25

Back to top.

PRFC

"Product-Rule Federal Case" - This is accusing you of the advanced-math and calculus error of using the product rule (uv)' = u'v', which just isn't IT at all.
Back to top.

Provenance

Insufficient justification for a result. No points.
Back to top.

Q = Q'

You're accused of writing as if you hold the unwarranted belief that some function is equal to its own derivative. For instance:

sec(x) = sec(x)tan(x)

which might be better written as

sec'(x) = sec(x)tan(x)

or

If Q(x) = sec(x) then Q'(x) = sec(x)tan(x)

Back to top.

QRDD

"Quotient-Rule Denominator Ditcher" - In taking the derivative of a quotient, you've allowed the denominator to drift away. Pernicious effects ensue.
Back to top.

QRFC

"Quotient-Rule Federal Case" - This is accusing you of the advanced-math and calculus error of using the quotient rule (u/v)' = u'/v' or (u/v)' = (v'u-vu')/v², which just aren't IT at all.
Back to top.

QRUP

Your quotient-rule work on (u/v)' is OK, except that it's upside-down-ish: you have either

1. given us a correct (v/u)' or
2. given us a correct (u/v)' denominator along with a correct (v/u)' numerator

Back to top.

RHS

"Right-Hand Side" - this is just shorthand. Note that Maple has a command "rhs()" for picking out the right-hand side of an equation.
Back to top.

RTP

"Read the Problem"
Back to top.

SEQ

"Sequential Argument" - This is accusing you of not presenting your solution in a step-by-step fashion.

However you discovered your solution or argument, it should be presented as beginning at a beginning and proceed left-to-right down the page with the answer or denouement at the end.
Back to top.

TAMO

"Then A Miracle Occurs" - This is accusing you of not showing steps at a crucial point.

It is an allusion to a famous Far-Side cartoon by Gary Larsen.
Back to top.

TIIQ

"The Instant in Question" - This is not an accusation, for a change.

In elementary calculus, in "related-rates" problems, one sets up a diagram and equation(s) which are valid for an interval of time reaching from before TIIQ to after TIIQ. Steps are then taken to arrive at equations involving time rates of change. It's these latter equations that are evaluated at TIIQ to answer the question posed.
Back to top.

TLFC

You're accused of writing as if you don't see the error in saying that the tangent-line equation at x = A is

y - f(A) = f'(x)(x-A)       instead of       y - f(A) = f'(A)(x-A)

For example, if

g(x) = 1 - x³

then it is certainly true that

g'(x) = -3x².

But the line tangent at the point where x = 2 is not

y = (-7) - 3x²(x - 2),

Back to top.

TOPP

This is a Top of Page Problem. You stand accused of starting up a problem too close to the bottom of the page. This gets you doing the crucial parts of the problem down in that narrow little zone at the bottom where everything turns to mush.

Or else you have to turn over the page in the midst of your work. This brings in copy errors, and is generally pernicious to your hopes.

So, coach yourself to spot problems which have to be started at the top of a new page. If you run out of space on the first page, continue to a new sheet of paper, so you can keep the entire process in view.
Back to top.

Two Weeks

This is a challenge to you: put this item aside for two weeks, then pick it up and try to descry what it's all about. You've been too terse in your writing -- while one doesn't want to make a career providing exhaustive context for problem solutions, a certain minimum needs to be there.
Back to top.