| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:30 Torte de Lini wrote: (48÷2)(9+3)) Here you go, this should help solve issues. Do what's on the inside first (9+3) then (48/2) then multiply. ERROR: Unmatched parenthesis. | ||
|
StallingHard
144 Posts
By leaving no space there you imply to many (especially with how ambiguous non-equation format type can be) that 2(9+3) is one variable. Edit: yeah, yeah PEMDAS/PEDMAS but with type format things become confusing very quickly. It's best to group things by variable and use all equation identifiers: (),+,_,*,/ at each decision point. | ||
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
For the second one I picked (1/2)*x but its down by so many votes its making me a bit confused o_O EDIT: oh wait is it supposed to be a fraction or division.. That totally changes everything xD | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:28 darmousseh wrote: Maple assumes that if you don't write the operator, then you want to multiply those parameters. In maple 24/12*(9+3) means (24/12)*(9+3) 24/12(9+3) means (24)/(12*(9+3)) it's this way because humans mistakingly write 1/(2x) as 1/2x. Maple assumes that all humans make this mistake and thus interprets it this way. I don't think that's what's going on here. See, writing 1/2x gives an error. Writing 48 / 2 (3+9) doesn't do the multiplication with weird priority to get 2, it gives 24, so the factor of (3+9) is ignored. As I wrote in my post, this syntax is actually triggering maple's function evaluation rules. Edit: On rereading your post, I realize there is a possibility that you meant to troll me by changing the numbers. If so, nice one  | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On April 08 2011 06:51 eLiE wrote: BEDMAS!!! No uni courses necessary here! lol, what are you talking about? Anagrams are convenient and there's nothing to understand here; you just have to know the order of operations. Brackets, Exponents, Division/Multiplication, Addition/Subtraction. Easy! No need to be an angry face. Anagram I don't think it is what you think it is | ||
|
RoyalCheese
Czech Republic745 Posts
| ||
|
gix_
Germany28 Posts
Taken *this* context here, written as it is, there is only 288 as answers, since the normal order of operators kicks in (btw. I find those BEDMAS/... acronyms quite misleading…). Of course, having had higher math courses, I know notation can be more relaxed, though you usually have indicators what is meant, e.g. it might be written as "1 ∕ 2x" (note the larger spacing, and a larger than normal slash, putting implied parenthesis around 2x) when not enough space for a proper fraction. But this thread is neither a scientific paper, or a higher math course. | ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
This was fun though hahaha. | ||
|
Raiznhell
Canada786 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:32 RoyalCheese wrote: I love how 2nd part of this thread is way more appealing to me then most of the SC based threads on TL. Perhaps because there is no balance in math. Algebra is imba. Most math revolves around it. NERD RAGE!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:32 RoyalCheese wrote: I love how 2nd part of this thread is way more appealing to me then most of the SC based threads on TL. Perhaps because there is no balance in math. Oh, there is balance in math. Non-standard analysis is totally IMBA, for example. | ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:22 micronesia wrote: I really don't think for most people advanced in math the issue should be being able to remember the rules of order of operation... it's just a matter of what is more natural for them based on how the expression is written. That's not to say people with degrees in math can't forget basic math but I don't think that's a predominant issue in this thread among the well educated in math. Im getting my math degree at U of Michigan and thats the first time I've seen numbers written like that in YEARS without an unknown variable. To me it just looks....weird for some reason. If one of the numbers in there was substitited for an x or y I wouldnt have had to think about it at all, but because of how its written I had to go back to elementary school in my head and say the rules to myself. Honestly if I got to the end of a problem and ended up with numbers like that I would just backtrack to the nearest variable and plug it in to solve it that way. | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:30 Myles wrote: You're distributing wrong. Because it's multiplication or division, you distribute both the 48 and the 2. It would go to (48÷2)*9+(48÷2)*3. If it were 48+2(9+3) then it would go to 48+(18+6) That's assuming 48 * (9+3) 2 Or you can assume 48 2(9+3) The more I think about it the more it's just really poor formatting. | ||
|
ToasteR_
Canada551 Posts
| ||
|
uNiGNoRe
Germany1115 Posts
| ||
|
Asur
64 Posts
I can see why people who memorised PEMDAS would get a different result since the abbreviation doesn't remind you that multiplication and division rank equally. I find 1/2x more ambiguous. I'd probably read it as a lazy (1/2)x unless I spent a lot of time writing math equations on one line. Reading it as 1/(2x) and using 0,5x for (1/2)x would probably be more common if you spend any decent amount of time typing lots of equations. I say we just insist on people using appropriate/clarifying parentheses when typing math on a single line. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
Basically the only reason it ever matters is when you're trying to get a calculator or computer to give you the right answer. Otherwise who cares? | ||
|
Spinfusor
Australia410 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:26 Mailing wrote: I learned that it is mathematical law(?) that you distribute always after parenthesis 48÷2(9+3) is essentially 48 / (18 + 6), but it is far more simple to do 48÷2(12) first THEN distribute to 48÷24 The other way people have been getting 288 is just mathematically incorrect, regardless of interpretation, from what I learned.... Am I wrong or does everywhere else teach math wrong? o_0 You're reading the question wrong. It's actually: 48 * (1/2) * (9 + 3). Distributing 0.5(9+3) will work fine. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 08 2011 07:13 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: The only people who are dropping my jaw in this thread are the people who are refusing to acknowledge that it's a trick because of multiple ways of interpretation. No reasonable person would write the problem like that, but rules exist to tell you how to read it; it's not a matter of choosing between equally valid interpretations. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
EDIT: Oh, and PEMDAS should really be written P/E/MD/AS, to avoid confusion. By the way, 1/2x has absolutely no ambiguity. It's definitely x/2; the 1/(2x) is a misconception, and 1/2x should actually never be written as a substitute for it. It's acceptable to write 1/(2x) with 1 above BOTH the 2 AND the X below the line, but not 1/2x. It literally means "1 divided by 2 times x". The words "the quantity" are so underused in life XD | ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/198399/tl_math_problem.png)
