| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
So, incorrect notation should be advocated because it looks better? I'll concede that if you're in a group of people that will ALWAYS understand what IS right, yet communicate to each other in a technically incorrect manner for ease of communication, that's fine. However, that's clearly not what's happening, otherwise people wouldn't be confused. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
1/2x=1/2*x=(1/2)*x=.5x Yes, I did engineering at a university level. | ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:00 Ecrilon wrote: 2x has a different order than 2*x. 2x is treated as a single unit in all scientific disciplines. The answer is 2. If the equation were 48/2*(9+3) the answer would be 288. This is correct. Just because your average Java compiler doesn't distinguish between the two doesn't mean there is no difference. | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
A Simple Math Problem? Obviously not. In most languages where it is unambiguous they get mad at you for not using ascii, lol "÷" Python even complains that 2() is an invalid function. My students often get tripped up when typing "6.28/2pi" doesn't give them something close to 1. Even odder is that my 20 year old TI-81 does give .9995, while a newer TI-84 gives 9.865. So don't rely on a possibly buggy implementation of order of operations and just use an extra * / | ||
|
jnkw
Canada347 Posts
So you're telling me that 2x is not 2*x. Please prove this mathematically. | ||
|
Ratel
Canada184 Posts
Not sure why people struggling with this. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
it isnt about PEDMAS and whatnot, its about seeing 2x as one variable or not. in this case, i saw 2(9+3) as 1 variable(?), so these had the first priority over others. so 48/2(9+3) = 2 while 48/2*(9+3) = 288 | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:09 jnkw wrote: So you're telling me that 2x is not 2*x. Please prove this mathematically. There is a difference between something's order and something's value. The proof is left to the reader. | ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
a/b * c/d = ac/bd Some people see this question as 48/2 (a fraction) multiplied by (9+3)/1 (another fraction) which in turn = 48(9+3)/2 = 576/2, which equals 288 Others see it as 48 ÷ 2(9+3) (not a fraction) and use BEDMAS or PEDMAS to solve the question and they get 2 as the answer. I saw the second scenario before the first because my calculator has both the "/" and the "÷" symbols. (Should I post a picture of my calculator with both answers?) | ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:09 gyth wrote: Obviously not. In most languages where it is unambiguous they get mad at you for not using ascii, lol "÷" Python even complains that 2() is an invalid function. My students often get tripped up when typing "6.28/2pi" doesn't give them something close to 1. Even odder is that my 20 year old TI-81 does give .9995, while a newer TI-84 gives 9.865. So don't rely on a possibly buggy implementation of order of operations and just use an extra * / ye my friend used a TI-81 to check this "problem" and he got 2 | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:08 Zeke50100 wrote: So, incorrect notation should be advocated because it looks better? I'll concede that if you're in a group of people that will ALWAYS understand what IS right, yet communicate to each other in a technically incorrect manner for ease of communication, that's fine. However, that's clearly not what's happening, otherwise people wouldn't be confused. Don't forget, you and I are talking about trigonometric functions, not the original problem. | ||
|
Usyless
54 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:09 Ratel wrote: I am in a pretty crappy university, my last math course that i took was a grade 11 uni level in high school and i knew the right answer right away for this question. Not sure why people struggling with this. Your first and last statements may have a common explanans. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:08 munchmunch wrote: I decided not to tell you to brush up on your reading comprehension in my last reply to avoid being snarky. But now it is unavoidable: put aside your amazing grade school education and read the thread. What about it? A discussion of how things are communicated to each other, the conventions people are used to, and other topics to which my post holds complete relevance? That's great. You might want some of that amazing grade-school education, by the way. I'll share some with you, if you really want some. | ||
|
Jesushooves
Canada553 Posts
 | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:09 jnkw wrote: So you're telling me that 2x is not 2*x. Please prove this mathematically. This isn't mathematics, it's notation. Remember how Mathematica deals with this? Surely you've ran into this problem while writing your math papers before... | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On April 08 2011 08:09 jnkw wrote: So you're telling me that 2x is not 2*x. Please prove this mathematically. he's saying 2x implies (2*x), you're saying it implies 2*x without the brackets. | ||
|
zlosynus
Czech Republic339 Posts
| ||
|
TicketoHELL
Canada368 Posts
now im confused | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
