# Errors in MCT

## Recommended Posts

I have seen a few errors in MCT that have been minor and I have just pointed them out to dd as we have gone along.

However, today in CE2 one of the definitions was actually incorrect. One of the definitions he gave for oblique was "angles that are not acute, but are greater than 90 degrees." Not so, oblique angles are any angles that are not 90 degrees or multiples of 90 degrees. You can have acute angles that are oblique.

Most of the mistakes I have just considered no big deal, but this one really annoys me.

Any other improperly defined words that anyone has encountered?

##### Share on other sites

Are you on the yahoo group? You should mention this there (also he just posted a thing about phrases, and answered another question you were talking about earlier in the week).

##### Share on other sites

Somebody confused obtuse with oblique, is that what happened? Ouch. How...obtuse. I agree, I'd post it to the yahoo group and fix it in your own book.

It's a good lesson that texts aren't infallible, though I know that it's egregious when it's actual incorrect information rather than bias.

##### Share on other sites

Oh dear. I guess if MCT comes out with a geometry book, we should definitely pass on that one ;)

##### Share on other sites

Are you on the yahoo group? You should mention this there (also he just posted a thing about phrases, and answered another question you were talking about earlier in the week).

No, I'm not on the yahoo group and I am definitely not enough of a groupie to want to be! :lol: I just want to teach and be done. :tongue_smilie:

##### Share on other sites

Oh dear. I guess if MCT comes out with a geometry book, we should definitely pass on that one ;)
:lol:
##### Share on other sites

Somebody confused obtuse with oblique, is that what happened? Ouch. How...obtuse. I agree, I'd post it to the yahoo group and fix it in your own book.

It's a good lesson that texts aren't infallible, though I know that it's egregious when it's actual incorrect information rather than bias.

That is what I assume, though it isn't even an accurate definition of obtuse since obtuse angles have to be less than 180 degrees.

I guess it bothers me b/c it is a vocabulary book defining its own vocabulary incorrectly. Geesh!

The other mistakes I have encountered I have just sort of rolled my eyes over b/c they are obviously editing errors or poorly written. Some aren't mistakes, just pts of disagreement. But, this one is just flat out incorrect.

The reason it aggravates me so much is that occasionally there are words that I am not positive about all the definitions. Now I am going to be hesitant about not needing to look them up and make sure they are correct. That, like a yahoo loop, is something I don't need in my life!

##### Share on other sites

There's the MCT social group on here. I started an errata list but no one's added to it :(

It'd be nice if RFWP would have an errata list on their website. I am on the yahoo group, but I don't like having to check and update the texts for errors.

##### Share on other sites

8FillstheHEart - if you're not on the yahoogroup, would you mind if I post the error so it can be corrected?

On a similar note, I just received a pdf from Rightstart that is about 17pages long for errors to be corrected in RS Geo. I don't think I will print them, just hand write in the corrections but it is pain. But if I spend a few minutes and do it all at once, I suppose I won't bleed too badly. :glare:

##### Share on other sites

8FillstheHEart - if you're not on the yahoogroup, would you mind if I post the error so it can be corrected?

On a similar note, I just received a pdf from Rightstart that is about 17pages long for errors to be corrected in RS Geo. I don't think I will print them, just hand write in the corrections but it is pain. But if I spend a few minutes and do it all at once, I suppose I won't bleed too badly. :glare:

17 pgs! Is it still going to print w/that many errors? If so, that is shameful! I guess I could understand if it were a first ed. and hadn't had lots of time to be corrected. But an established curriculum shouldn't have so many mistakes. :tongue_smilie:

##### Share on other sites

Well, it wasn'at 17pages of mistake. She reproduced each page which had a mistake. A few were mis-spellings or a wrong number in a computation.

Edited by Capt_Uhura

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.