EPTYou fucking idiots.
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
A Simple Math Problem? - Page 76
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Facedriller
Sweden275 Posts
You fucking idiots. User was warned for this post User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:12 Terranist wrote: 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. Huh? The equation is silly and designed to trap people but I'm sure it's not open to interpretation. If I saw anyone writing this while doing an actual math problem I would slap them and demand they wrote it properly. But that doesn't make it "wrong" or open to interpretation. The answer is final and it's 288. Don't be sad though, I voted 2 as well. Seems like you are the hardheaded one here... :s | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:29 Nysze wrote: That has NOTHING to do with the source of the ambiguity in this problem. The problem here is determining where the denominators of the division sign ends. Nothing else.It's called implied multiplication, google it. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:31 Vorenius wrote: 76 pagesHuh? The equation is silly and designed to trap people but I'm sure it's not open to interpretation. If I saw anyone writing this while doing an actual math problem I would slap them and demand they wrote it properly. But that doesn't make it "wrong" or open to interpretation. The answer is final and it's 288. Don't be sad though, I voted 2 as well. Seems like you are the hardheaded one here... :s Not ONE SINGLE POST proves that there's only one interpretation and that it's not ambiguous. Quite a few others clearly showing the opposite. Yes I read it all ^^ (which is actually not hard since 90% of the posts are "lol ur all dumb it's [wrong answer]") | ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
| ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:24 trainRiderJ wrote: 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. Sounds more like religion than math. | ||
|
Nysze
United States111 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:31 VIB wrote: That has NOTHING to do with the source of the ambiguity in this problem. The problem here is determining where the denominators of the division sign ends. Nothing else. READ the quote that you originally quoted asking for proof, it is stating that 2 * x is the same as 2x. Now you are bringing something else up that is completely different, and also irrational | ||
|
RBKeys
Canada196 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:26 VIB wrote: 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. Check any basic math text book from grade school to basic university math. Everything in there is a result of tried, tested, and true methods of solving math problems. There's a reason why this stuff is taught in school, because if it didn't work then what good would it be? Ever wonder why the world can progress on multiple fronts (I.e., technology, medicine, infrastructure, etc.)? It's because they don't argue basic math anymore. If they did, then the more advanced stuff wouldn't work and we would still be in the dark ages. I'm not a math major, not even a math enthusiast, and, although I don't know of a book with the title: "The leading authority on math presents: a compendium . . ." I do know that this has been around for thousands of years and one would think that in that time, people way smarter than all of us, would have come to a conclusion about what this thread has talked about and put it into effect . . . oh wait. | ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
Reminds me of this comic ![[image loading]](http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/7879/1869299a96476631c.jpg) Definitely made me think the first time I read it. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:31 Vorenius wrote: Huh? The equation is silly and designed to trap people but I'm sure it's not open to interpretation. If I saw anyone writing this while doing an actual math problem I would slap them and demand they wrote it properly. But that doesn't make it "wrong" or open to interpretation. The answer is final and it's 288. Don't be sad though, I voted 2 as well. Seems like you are the hardheaded one here... :s Yea, fairly sure if wrote 43/2(9+3) on my math test or something i'd get it wrong because you aren't supposed to write it like that, because it's really confusing. It's just a really stupid question to me. It's funny how people call each other idiots over this though  | ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
Let me know when you come up with some sort of real thought or meaning behind your "witty" comment... | ||
|
BackupHero
United States5 Posts
However, its not open to interpretation. Take the equation, substitute one of the values for x, and set it equal to 288. When you solve for x, x will equal the value that you substituted. This does not happen when you set the equation equal to 2. | ||
|
Zhou
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:33 VIB wrote: 76 pages Not ONE SINGLE POST proves that there's only one interpretation and that it's not ambiguous. Quite a few others clearly showing the opposite. Yes I read it all ^^ (which is actually not hard since 90% of the posts are "lol ur all dumb it's [wrong answer]") 1)Terms inside brackets 2)Expressions with exponents. 3)Multiply and divide in order from left to right. 4)Add and subtract in order from left to right. And when following that you get 288. There is no interpretation. That's how it works. Don't be angry because you get fooled by an equation constructed in a way to fool people... | ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:37 eatmyshorts5 wrote: Reminds me of this comic Definitely made me think the first time I read it. The problem is that we don't teach people the "why" of all this until their third year of math in university. Mathematics has been dumbed down to such a degree that integers are now the "counting numbers" and kids obviously aren't even taught order of operations. | ||
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:36 Nysze wrote: READ the quote that you originally quoted asking for proof, it is stating that 2 * x is the same as 2x. Now you are bringing something else up that is completely different, and also irrational 2*x and 2x are the same, yes, but if you write for example 3/2x on a calculator it will calculate it as 3/2*x, which i assume is what this problem is about. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:34 eatmyshorts5 wrote: Don't mean to be rude, but I find it interesting some people here are calling an arithmetic problem (albeit set up confusingly) open to interpretation. Let me emphasize. This isn't real analysis or integration where creativity is encouraged, this is arithmetic. I welcome somebody to prove me wrong and I will gladly listen =D. http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf Just read the first few paragraphs. | ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I realize i might sound hypocritical saying this =p | ||
|
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
For me ÷ and / have the same meaning in text. left side number/right side number. if its algebra,1/2x, gives us a silent () around the 2x 1/(2x) to show they belong togheter. Am I correct in this thinking? 48/2x would mean I would read it as (48/(2x)) and likeso ((48)÷(2x)). Both carry the same meaning in my imaginary mind. You never use ÷ to show your dividing, you use a slash if you do see the ÷ sign its saying the exact same thing. So in other news, we must reach a settlement on how to actualy intepret our new lover "÷" ...And I got a scolding from the lady just now typing this. I asked her, she said 2 I said 288. Argument followed like here. She said: the ÷ defines everything right under the line and everything left above. Should you rewrite it on paper... 48 -------- =2 2(9+3) Had you used a simple slash it would mean (48/2)*(9+3) or 288. I'am saying they are the same, she's saying its actualy my above mentioned ((a)/(b)) form =( I'am so confused now  Someone link me a definetive source so I can say ÷ === / | ||
|
KillyKyll
United States267 Posts
| ||
| ||
