EPTLove my scrambled on toast with swine.
A Simple Math Problem? - Page 77
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
Love my scrambled on toast with swine. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:36 RBKeys wrote: I don't think you're understanding what I'm talking about. You're arguing something completely different. I'm talking about math not having a central body settings standards and you're talking about math being... tested? You're not a math major, but many math majors have posted on this thread and confirmed there are no global conventions on notations. In fact. Many papers and books will start by specifying which notation they'll use in that particular case, so people don't get confused. Because confusion does happen, pretty often.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. | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:37 eatmyshorts5 wrote: 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. What's nice about math is that it's nothing like a religion, there's no faith, all results have to be proven. | ||
|
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:17 Vorenius wrote: 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  I noticed that too, had quite a chuckle. | ||
|
DMBlaster
Italy5 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:42 Vorenius wrote: Wow.. not only people miss the ambiguity in the equation. But even after being shown the ambiguity many still don't understand it! ^^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... | ||
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
| ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL13/C026/paper.pdf | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:50 VIB wrote: Wow.. not only people miss the ambiguity in the equation. But even after being shown the ambiguity many still don't understand it! ^^ I understand how people got it wrong if that's what you mean. I even did that my self the first time I tried it. But that's because you overcomplicate it. You invent a parenthesis around everything right of the division sign even though there is none. That's not a case of division signs being ambiguis. That just mean that you (and I) read it wrong. I will definitly agree it's a bad notation. It wouldn't be accepted at any math institution. If my professor saw me write this he would kill me. But it's a funny little math question designed to trick people. And given the equation in the OP there is only one solution. And that is 288. | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:48 hugman wrote: What's nice about math is that it's nothing like a religion, there's no faith, all results have to be proven. still, axioms are assumed to be true with no proof. For a long time people assumed the world was Euclidean, but now we think it's not. Who knows what we'll think in a hundred years from now? | ||
|
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:52 Sneakyz wrote: So, having never seen that division sign(obelus?) used at my university, is there an actual text source as to whether "/" and that one means the same? I don't like sourcing wiki... but here it's convenient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols | ||
|
mpupu
Argentina183 Posts
In summary, the expression is intrinsically ambiguous due to its informal style. | ||
|
aztrorisk
United States896 Posts
| ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
not taken math in like 7 years but luckily I learned BEDMAS in grades 5-9 and its just part of reading easy math. Math beyond bedmas is tricky though | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 09 2011 02:01 Gnaix wrote: still, axioms are assumed to be true with no proof. For a long time people assumed the world was Euclidean, but now we think it's not. Who knows what we'll think in a hundred years from now? The axiomization of math is indeed an interesting subject. The ZF axioms which all our math is built on are based on intuition as far as I know. Even then, many of the ZF axioms are considered controversial. More importantly, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that "for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms." In other words, everything in math cannot be proven. Doh. I feel bad letting everyone know that math isn't as perfect as they thought it was.  There is no mathematical system capable of proving all true propositions, and for the last 50 years we've kind of pretended this problem doesn't exist. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:59 Vorenius wrote: How can you say that we read it wrong? You're assuming there is one right. Meaning there is one right convention to read that / sign, and one wrong. Could you please show me a link of the official consensus that there is this one convention. Because in 77 pages, so far, no one has found one I understand how people got it wrong if that's what you mean. I even did that my self the first time I tried it. But that's because you overcomplicate it. You invent a parenthesis around everything right of the division sign even though there is none. That's not a case of division signs being ambiguis. That just mean that you (and I) read it wrong. I will definitly agree it's a bad notation. It wouldn't be accepted at any math institution. If my professor saw me write this he would kill me. But it's a funny little math question designed to trick people. And given the equation in the OP there is only one solution. And that is 288. Quite the contrary, a few math majors posted here expliciting that there is no such convention. | ||
|
andrewwiggin
Australia435 Posts
On April 09 2011 02:09 MiniRoman wrote: Bracket = 12, divide = 24, 24x12 / 12x24 = 288. not taken math in like 7 years but luckily I learned BEDMAS in grades 5-9 and its just part of reading easy math. Math beyond bedmas is tricky though YOU = correct IF YOU = wrong THEN CALCULATORS = wrong THINGS WORKED OUT WITH CALCULATORS = wrong ??? WORLD EXPLODES ..get what im saying?? =) p.s it means you're right. and if you input the calculation correctly into a calculator, it will work out the same answer (288). Engineers/Medical Researches/Scientists all use calculators too. Correctly inputted, their calculators should give the same answer - uniformity of mathematical operations is the reason for that. You need math to work the same in every country - that includes calculators. If we ain't right... then alot of the stuff built today must be.. wrong? =/ | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 09 2011 02:20 andrewwiggin wrote: 8 posts above you there's a link to an article saying different calculators give different results on this. Not even calculators have come to a consensus here ^^YOU = correct IF YOU = wrong THEN CALCULATORS = wrong THINGS WORKED OUT WITH CALCULATORS = wrong ??? WORLD EXPLODES ..get what im saying?? =) p.s it means you're right. and if you input the calculation correctly into a calculator, it will work out the same answer (288). Engineers/Medical Researches/Scientists all use calculators too. Correctly inputted, their calculators should give the same answer - uniformity of mathematical operations is the reason for that. You need math to work the same in every country - that includes calculators. If we ain't right... then alot of the stuff built today must be.. wrong? =/ | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:40 trainRiderJ wrote: Let me know when you come up with some sort of real thought or meaning behind your "witty" comment... I mean that people seem to be taking a trivial issue very seriously. An expression designed to trick people, tricked people. Don't read the collapse of civilization into it. | ||
| ||
