|
On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive?
this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics.
|
How do we go about changing the notation and intepretation to be the same all across? =)
|
On April 09 2011 01:08 Lowell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:04 SKYFISH_ wrote:On April 09 2011 00:53 Jameser wrote:
the way it is written you can interpret it either way No you can't, there is only one correct way to interpret it. The division sign shows exactly which part of the equation is on top of the division line and which is under it. 48 ------ 2(9+3) from this point you can simplify it and be a total idiot about it 24 ---- 9+3 => 24 ---- 3(3+1) => 8 -- 3+1 => 8 --- 4 fifth grade guise, seriously Well youre wrong. You would be right if twas 48/(2(9+3) which would be the way you described it, but its 48 ----- * (9+3) = 288 2
yup you're right
48÷2(9+3)
= 48÷2(12) <-- (12) is actually *12 or something multiplied by 12. (12) itself has no priority since there is nothing to multiply inside so you open the brackets to reveal its hidden "multiply" sign.
= 48÷2*12 <------ you dont take 2 multiply by 12 since multiplication and division are on the same level therefore, read left to right.
ans: 288
|
On April 09 2011 00:59 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:55 Deadlyfish wrote:48/2*(9+3) = 288 48/2(9+3) = 2 That is how it is in my head  I know it's wrong, but to me this is just an optical illusion or whatever, doesnt really have a lot to do with math. Where i come from we always write x*(xx) not x(xx). And we never use that division sign either (not since like 3rd grade). So you are just tricking people by writing something that they aren't used to seeing, if it was written "correctly" 99% of everyone here would get it right. Actually you're one of the 1% of the thread who got it right 
You know the saying how every family has one nut, and if yours doesn't then you are the nut? This is sort of the same thing. If you think everyone else got it wrong, it's probably you who got it wrong.
|
On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive? this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics.
Being unable to correctly interpret a math problem is a.....math problem. Hopefully this thread will educate some people out there because it's painfully obvious they need it.
|
On April 09 2011 01:03 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:01 Nysze wrote:It's 288, I can see how someone looking at this could think 2 at first, but I cannot understand how there can then be 73 pages with people arguing that in fact it is 2 after reading the simple explanation. Google Implied Multiplication, there are many many references that state that 2x is another way of writing 2 * x or 2(3) is another way of writing 2 * 3, another way of writing means that the order of operations laws still apply. Thus 48÷2(9+3) is the same as 48÷2 * (9+3). And order of operations (PEMDAS or BEMDAS, states that multiplication and division have the same priority and are to be solved left to right (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations). Also how do more than half get the first problem right, then the second problem 1/2x wrong, this again is implied multiplication and equals 1 / 2 * x which is equal to x / 2. they get it wrong because they read the numbers in their head and following standard blackboard language "one over two x" means 1/(2x) and not ½x again, if you are used to learning your math via the internet you probably get this right, but the majority of people go to an actual school where you have intonation & blackboard to write on
Yes like I said I can definitely see how someone could get either problem wrong, it's a very easy mistake to make.
What I can''t understand is how people can then argue that "2" is correct even after reading parts of this thread.
I read a study that when people get into an non-rational argument they use a different portion of their brain that doesn't truly evaluate all sides of the argument, but rather uses any relationship to the current problem and past experience to validate one point, even if all signs point to the fact that they are wrong. (Sorry I had trouble wording this and couldn't find a link to the study, but hopefully this makes since)
|
fuck this. Nobody I know would write it this way. :D
Anyways sin 2x ^= sin (2x) ?:D
|
On April 09 2011 00:56 cyst wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:44 Pufftrees wrote:On April 09 2011 00:41 Jhax wrote:
Anybody remember "BEMDAS" which is the order of how algebraic questons must be solved.
Brackets
Exponential
Multiplication
Division
Additon
Subtraction
I'm an engineer, the answer is 2 LOL I feel so bad for whatever "engineer" you are. Actually bro, the M and D and A and S are on the same tier, and you do those left to right. Maybe you should try something that doesn't involve math. Actually bro, the M and D are on the same tier, both above A and S (also on the same tier). Maybe you should try again?
That's what he said. "M and D and A and S"
He didn't say M D A and S
or M, D, A and S. Sometimes you would have seperated the two pairs with "&" instead of "and" but that is subject to language and region.
His condescending was obnoxious but he was still correct. This is actually a bit fun since it plays on the same sort of missinterpretation as the equation in the OP
|
On April 09 2011 01:08 Lowell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:04 SKYFISH_ wrote:On April 09 2011 00:53 Jameser wrote:
the way it is written you can interpret it either way No you can't, there is only one correct way to interpret it. The division sign shows exactly which part of the equation is on top of the division line and which is under it. 48 ------ 2(9+3) from this point you can simplify it and be a total idiot about it 24 ---- 9+3 => 24 ---- 3(3+1) => 8 -- 3+1 => 8 --- 4 fifth grade guise, seriously Well youre wrong. You would be right if twas 48/(2(9+3) which would be the way you described it, but its 48 ----- * (9+3) = 288 2
Note the sign in the OP ÷
It shows which part of the equation is above the division line and which is not.
Everything before the sign - above the line.Everything after it - below the line.
Your logic would be correct only if the equation was written as (48÷2).(9+3)
And its not
|
On April 09 2011 01:15 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote:On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive? this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics. Being unable to correctly interpret a math problem is a.....math problem. Hopefully this thread will educate some people out there because it's painfully obvious they need it. Well, I guess rather if it's on interpretation or if it's a math problem, or both. Is also a problem of interpretation
|
On April 09 2011 01:15 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote:On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive? this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics. Being unable to correctly interpret a math problem is a.....math problem. Hopefully this thread will educate some people out there because it's painfully obvious they need it.
a breakdown of communications is not a math problem, it's a communications problem
|
On April 09 2011 01:12 Ceril wrote:
How do we go about changing the notation and intepretation to be the same all across? =) What do you mean? If you don't wanna have problems with notation just write it as a fraction or just use parenthesis.
|
Guys, math isn't some regional thing. Leading bodies in this field come from all over and agree on a set standard for all this stuff. If you interpret it wrong then you either had a brain fart or you don't understand math. It doesn't matter whether or not you have 2*x or 2x, or that "where I'm from we do it blah blah blah." If you have two PhD's, one from North America, one from Asia, they are both going to see 2x as the same as 2*x because that's how math works. This isn't a debate about interpretation or about math, it's just some people trying to recoup some dignity after getting the question wrong.
|
This is why we have typesetting languages like latex. (=
|
On April 09 2011 01:20 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:15 trainRiderJ wrote:On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote:On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive? this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics. Being unable to correctly interpret a math problem is a.....math problem. Hopefully this thread will educate some people out there because it's painfully obvious they need it. a breakdown of communications is not a math problem, it's a communications problem
As RBKeys said, this isn't a communication problem. It's not an interpretation problem.
It's a problem of not understanding math. Math is universal, there is only one correct way to "interpret" the problem. Other "interpretations" are just wrong.
|
On April 09 2011 01:17 SKYFISH_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:08 Lowell wrote:On April 09 2011 01:04 SKYFISH_ wrote:On April 09 2011 00:53 Jameser wrote:
the way it is written you can interpret it either way No you can't, there is only one correct way to interpret it. The division sign shows exactly which part of the equation is on top of the division line and which is under it. 48 ------ 2(9+3) from this point you can simplify it and be a total idiot about it 24 ---- 9+3 => 24 ---- 3(3+1) => 8 -- 3+1 => 8 --- 4 fifth grade guise, seriously Well youre wrong. You would be right if twas 48/(2(9+3) which would be the way you described it, but its 48 ----- * (9+3) = 288 2 Note the sign in the OP ÷It shows which part of the equation is above the division line and which is not. Everything before the sign - above the line.Everything after it - below the line. Your logic would be correct only if the equation was written as (48÷2).(9+3) And its not
um, brackets are only first priority if there is anything happen INSIDE IT, once its solved, you open the bracket which is multiply then we have. in this case there is no first priority for the number in the bracket because we're left with divide and multiply. thats all. its not algebra. you read left to right since ÷(division) and X(multiply) are on the same level.
48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12) <- open brackets yayyyyy, no dont multiply 12. you can't start multiplying as the division comes first from left to right.
48÷2*12
ans: 288
BUT if its algebra
48÷2x and X is 12
48÷24 = 2
|
On April 09 2011 01:21 RBKeys wrote:
Guys, math isn't some regional thing. Leading bodies in this field come from all over and agree on a set standard for all this stuff. If you interpret it wrong then you either had a brain fart or you don't understand math. It doesn't matter whether or not you have 2*x or 2x, or that "where I'm from we do it blah blah blah." If you have two PhD's, one from North America, one from Asia, they are both going to see 2x as the same as 2*x because that's how math works. This isn't a debate about interpretation or about math, it's just some people trying to recoup some dignity after getting the question wrong. Prove me and point me to where I can find this leading consensus on math. We discussed this on page 60 something. We looked it up and concluded that programming and engineering have central authorities guiding standards. But math doesn't.
Feel free to prove me wrong. But so far it seems that both 2 or 288 are "officially" wrong answers.
Someone even had linked to a long article detailing this same issue about how many confusions are caused by the lack of a central consensus on divisions and how it's taught differently in different places.
Some other guy even said that in Denmark he was taught that the little old division sign means substraction.
|
On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:07 Hesmyrr wrote:
Guys, this is pointless. This is not a limited debate which members for the either camps are fixed. Even if should you able to persuade most of the opposite camp, law of the internet decrees that there will always be appearance of new individuals who will fight against you. Seriously- wtf is this thread still alive? this thread seriously needs to die. it is shameful that TL users are too hardheaded and judgmental to understand that the problem lies in interpretation and NOT mathematics.
has nothing to do with interpretation, a number touching a bracket is seperated by a multiplication and not included in the brackets
|
On April 09 2011 01:17 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:56 cyst wrote:On April 09 2011 00:44 Pufftrees wrote:On April 09 2011 00:41 Jhax wrote:
Anybody remember "BEMDAS" which is the order of how algebraic questons must be solved.
Brackets
Exponential
Multiplication
Division
Additon
Subtraction
I'm an engineer, the answer is 2 LOL I feel so bad for whatever "engineer" you are. Actually bro, the M and D and A and S are on the same tier, and you do those left to right. Maybe you should try something that doesn't involve math. Actually bro, the M and D are on the same tier, both above A and S (also on the same tier). Maybe you should try again? That's what he said. "M and D and A and S"He didn't say M D A and S or M, D, A and S. Sometimes you would have seperated the two pairs with "&" instead of "and" but that is subject to language and region. His condescending was obnoxious but he was still correct. This is actually a bit fun since it plays on the same sort of missinterpretation as the equation in the OP
Would that be "same tiers" to specify that there are 2 rather than one? Silly English... :p
|
On April 09 2011 01:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:21 RBKeys wrote:
Guys, math isn't some regional thing. Leading bodies in this field come from all over and agree on a set standard for all this stuff. If you interpret it wrong then you either had a brain fart or you don't understand math. It doesn't matter whether or not you have 2*x or 2x, or that "where I'm from we do it blah blah blah." If you have two PhD's, one from North America, one from Asia, they are both going to see 2x as the same as 2*x because that's how math works. This isn't a debate about interpretation or about math, it's just some people trying to recoup some dignity after getting the question wrong. Prove me and point me to where I can find this leading consensus on math. We discussed this on page 60 something. We looked it up and concluded that programming and engineering have central authorities guiding standards. But math doesn't. Feel free to prove me wrong. But so far it seems that both 2 or 288 are "officially" wrong answers.
It's called implied multiplication, google it.
http://www.lifeisastoryproblem.org/vocab/en/i/impliedmultiplication.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
