|
On April 09 2011 02:15 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:59 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:50 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:42 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:33 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:31 Vorenius 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. 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 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... 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. 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  Quite the contrary, a few math majors posted here expliciting that there is no such convention.
Are you then saying this isn't true:
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.
I don't have any definite source for this no, but it's the way I've seen it explained in all books I've seen, and it's the way it's shown on wikipedia. I know wiki isn't good for sources for a lot of thing but generally the math sections seems to be legit. Add to that the fact that it supports what is said everywhere else.
I'm pretty sure the above is universally acknowledged as the standard order of operations, and that applied to the original equation (without inventing brackets) gives 288. So if you insist that number is not universally true please show another order of operations that's universally acknowledged.
|
guys i have a serious question
what if they used distributive property?
48/(2*9+2*3)= 48/24=2
wtf I thought it was 288.
The Distributive Property in ALgebra:
The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses.
a(b + c) = ab + ac
|
For all you people saying that you can interpret the signs differently like sure I guess you could do that but by mathematical standards you are wrong.
Its like if you were to say 2+3=2 which is just simply doesn't defined by standardized mathematics but one could "interpret" that 2+3=2 but they are just simply wrong.
(1 class away from my math minor [linear algebra])
I've taken Calc I-III, Diff Eqs, Partial Diff Eqs.
|
You cant distribute because it happens after you divide.
|
On April 09 2011 02:39 Spinfuser wrote:
You cant distribute because it happens after you divide.
can you explain?
|
lol we just did order of operations in my ?Tech? class for some reason.
|
I don't know where most of you took math, but because of the lack of separation with brackets makes this equation do this
48÷2(9+3)=
(48/2)(9+3)=
288=
|
Since this argument has continued to come full circle, I figure why not re post what I said earlier.
I believe in any situation of importance, one would seek clarification on the equation. Are you guys arguing against that?..
This equation would not be accepted in a published paper with no clarification, and yet some here argue it is legitimate. A majority of people aren't arguing against the answer, but rather that the question is ambiguous, which for some reason people are arguing against.
Its great that all you guys remembers pemdas, good job. But surely you can understand the problem is intended to be ambiguous to cause the confusion.
|
When using order of operations when you have multiply and divide you HAVE to start from left to the right
so you must do 48/2
since the distributive property is a form of multiplying through this cannot happen until after 48/2 which equals 24 then you could distribute 24( 9+3) which = 216 + 72 = 288 !
|
48÷2(9+3) == 48 ÷ 2 * (9 + 3) == 24 * 12 = 288
|
On April 09 2011 02:34 Golgotha wrote:guys i have a serious question what if they used distributive property? 48/(2*9+2*3)= 48/24=2 wtf I thought it was 288. Show nested quote +The Distributive Property in ALgebra:
The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses.
a(b + c) = ab + ac
You're using the property wrong. a = 48/2 a != 2
|
it isn't ambiguous. you just need to learn how math works.
|
On April 09 2011 02:32 Vorenius wrote:
I'm pretty sure the above is universally acknowledged as the standard order of operations, and that applied to the original equation (without inventing brackets) gives 288. So if you insist that number is not universally true please show another order of operations that's universally acknowledged.
Wikipedia and googling later I find nothing saying that ÷ shouldnt be read as /
Part of what is being argued about here is that some, not all, intepret the ÷ sign as not having the same meaning as /.
Some intepret/been taught ÷ to mean: everything to the left divided by everything to the right (a)/(b) if we had several statments it would read as ((a)/(b)) or ((48)/(2(9+3)).
or written on paper
48
----------------
2(9+3)
where our line --------- is represented by the ÷ sign, 48 is above it, 2(9+3) is below it.
Mathematicians are lazy and will want shorthand for most. I feel that at some point in time before today with computers mathematicians would use ÷ to draw a line in their texts on old monochrome terminals rather then writting: 48/(2(9+3)). Now, for this simple statement no gain is visible. But if we had several
48^2 + ab -2^e ÷ 4(3x+ 2^e) would be read as:
48^2 + ab -2 ^e
------------------------
4(3x + 2 ^e)
and then ofc (48^2 +ab-2^e ÷ 4(3a+2^e)) - (12+ab-a^e÷2b) etc etc so on
|
(48/1)(1/2)(9+3)=288
Using the factor unit method, which removes the "which comes first" division vs multiplication of bedmas it is fairly easy to see that 50% of TL users can't do math.
|
K, so if this was giving to you on your final, as simply - Solve - you would wholeheartedly put 288 and not ask the professor to make to clarify the problem?
|
On April 09 2011 02:50 Beardfish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:34 Golgotha wrote:48/(2*9+2*3)= 48/24=2 The Distributive Property in ALgebra:
The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses.
a(b + c) = ab + ac You're using the property wrong. a = 48/2 a != 2
That is the discussion the thread is about, is a 2 or 48/2, which depends on how you read the question and which system you use.
|
because 9+3 is in parenthesis, u find that first to get 12, divide 48 by 2 to get 24*12, which is 288
|
On April 09 2011 02:32 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:15 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:59 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:50 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:42 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:33 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:31 Vorenius 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. 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 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... 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. 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 Quite the contrary, a few math majors posted here expliciting that there is no such convention. I don't have any definite source for this no, but it's the way I've seen it explained in all books I've seen, and it's the way it's shown on wikipedia. I know wiki isn't good for sources for a lot of thing but generally the math sections seems to be legit. Add to that the fact that it supports what is said everywhere else. I'm pretty sure the above is universally acknowledged as the standard order of operations, and that applied to the original equation (without inventing brackets) gives 288. So if you insist that number is not universally true please show another order of operations that's universally acknowledged. Actually wikipedia cites PlanetMath, which in turn explains there are other conventions and tells you use parenthesis to avoid confusion:
"For more obscure operations than the ones listed above, parentheses should be used to remove ambiguity. Completely new operations are typically assumed to have the highest priority, but the definition of the operation should be accompanied by some sort of explanation of how it is evaluated in relation to itself. For example, Conway's chained arrow notation explicitly defines what order repeated applications of itself should be evaluated in (it is right-to-left rather than left-to-right)!"
- http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=3951
Also, the onus of the evidence is on you. It's you saying there is a consensus, I'm saying there isn't. I can't prove my point by just not showing you any. Since, you know, there isn't any. If you wanna prove me wrong. Show me where you can find an official central consensus on the matter and I'll shut the hell up.
|
On April 09 2011 02:53 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:32 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 02:15 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:59 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:50 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:42 Vorenius wrote:On April 09 2011 01:33 VIB wrote:On April 09 2011 01:31 Vorenius 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. 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 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... 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. 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 Quite the contrary, a few math majors posted here expliciting that there is no such convention. I don't have any definite source for this no, but it's the way I've seen it explained in all books I've seen, and it's the way it's shown on wikipedia. I know wiki isn't good for sources for a lot of thing but generally the math sections seems to be legit. Add to that the fact that it supports what is said everywhere else. I'm pretty sure the above is universally acknowledged as the standard order of operations, and that applied to the original equation (without inventing brackets) gives 288. So if you insist that number is not universally true please show another order of operations that's universally acknowledged. Actually wikipedia cites PlanetMath, which in turn explains there are other conventions and tells you use parenthesis to avoid confusion: "For more obscure operations than the ones listed above, parentheses should be used to remove ambiguity. Completely new operations are typically assumed to have the highest priority, but the definition of the operation should be accompanied by some sort of explanation of how it is evaluated in relation to itself. For example, Conway's chained arrow notation explicitly defines what order repeated applications of itself should be evaluated in (it is right-to-left rather than left-to-right)!" - http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=3951Also, the onus of the evidence is on you. It's you saying there is a consensus, I'm saying there isn't. I can't prove my point by just not showing you any. Since, you know, there isn't any. If you wanna prove me wrong. Show me where you can find an official central consensus on the matter and I'll shut the hell up.
(48/1)(1/2)(9+3)=288
This is the answer, can everyone please learn to math.
|
On April 09 2011 02:52 quiggy wrote:
(48/1)(1/2)(9+3)=288
Using the factor unit method, which removes the "which comes first" division vs multiplication of bedmas it is fairly easy to see that 50% of TL users can't do math.
Because its so simple to tell that the (9+3) is in the numerator... ok. Genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
