|
On April 08 2011 05:45 MasterOfChaos wrote:
If there were a multiplication sign in between, then it'd be unambiguously 288. I'd say if the multiplication sign is omitted then multiplication binds stronger than division. So 1/2(x+1) is the same as 1/(2(x+1)) and not (1/2)*(x+1). Just like 1/2x is 1/(2x) and not (1/2)*x.
But that's just a matter of convention. You just define stuff as you need, and as long as it's consistent it doesn't matter. Arguing about conventions is utterly stupid.
I perfectly agree with this quote (even if I am late).
1/2*x is clearly x/2
1/2x is technically x/2 too, but I don't know any mathematician who would interpret it as x/2 rather than 1/(2x) (and I am quite sure I have papers in good mathematical journals where I use 1/2x rather than 1/(2x)).
|
On April 09 2011 02:58 shabinka wrote:Show nested quote +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.
48/2(9+3)
((48/2)(9))+((48/2)(3))
216+72
288
Can we get out of basic algebra.
I can do this all day dude. The number is clearly 288
|
|
|
thank you !!! that is exactly what i thought.
spinfuser may I ask how you interpreted 1/2x?
|
44% of TL-frequenting starcraft nerds are not math nerds.
The results are almost entirely based on the fact these terms are written in text. Written on a sheet of paper, 1/2x is clearly defined as either (1/2)*x or 1/(2x) to anyone, but written in text it is ambiguous until you apply order of operations conventions. Same with the first question. It's not surprising the questions could be misinterpreted when presented in uncommon formats.
|
48/2(9+3)
let a=(48/2)
a(9+3)
a9+3a
((48/2)(9))+((48/2)(3))
216+72
288
Using substitution to better explain the process. I removed the (48/2) completely and you can see the number is still undeniably 288. This really should be all you need to see. I removed all the "confusing" parts and did algebra...
|
To all the elitists who think its 288....
48/2x
x= (9+3)
solve please.
uh oh.....?
|
48 / 2(9+3)
48/18 + 6 = 8.66667
u mad?
|
Sooooo What is this correct answer?
|
On April 09 2011 02:52 Ceril wrote:Show nested quote +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
pretty good point :D
48:2(9+3) would be 2.
|
On April 09 2011 03:04 Jyxz wrote:
To all the elitists who think its 288....
48/2x
x= (9+3)
solve please.
uh oh.....?
(48/1)(1/2)(x)
(48/1)(1/2)(9+3)
288
|
On April 09 2011 03:05 dbosworld wrote:
Sooooo What is this correct answer?
the correct answer is that the problem isn't sufficiently well described to answer. The representation of the text in the op is not clear enough. That's why you should use graphics or a specific tool to represent the mathematical equations.
Or something like that
48
-------- = 2
2(9+3)
48(9+3)
--------- = 288
2
The other "problem" is of the exact same nature
|
Well I managed to get 264 a good 4 or 5 times till it struck me, 9 + 3 ≠ 11
Oh dear...
|
u guys need to solve the ones in the bracket and number next to it ... answer is obviously 2
|
On April 09 2011 03:04 Jyxz wrote:
To all the elitists who think its 288....
48/2x
x= (9+3)
solve please.
uh oh.....?
Algebra, and more specifically, Order of Operations. Simplifying 48 / 2 (12) is the same as 48 / 2 * 12.
You are trying to write the problem as (2 (9+3)), but that is not what is given. Writing it out as 2x implies that they are already combined, which they are not.
If you're a lazy bum, you could also plug it into a graphing calculator or a computer program and find that the answer is 288.
|
On April 09 2011 03:09 Bellygareth wrote:the correct answer is that the problem isn't sufficiently well described to answer. The representation of the text in the op is not clear enough. That's why you should use graphics or a specific tool to represent the mathematical equations. Or something like that 48 -------- = 2 2(9+3) 48(9+3) --------- = 288 2 The other "problem" is of the exact same nature This guy is right.
|
On April 09 2011 03:09 Bellygareth wrote:the correct answer is that the problem isn't sufficiently well described to answer. The representation of the text in the op is not clear enough. That's why you should use graphics or a specific tool to represent the mathematical equations. Or something like that 48 -------- = 2 2(9+3) 48(9+3) --------- = 288 2 The other "problem" is of the exact same nature
Nah its pretty clear.
|
On April 09 2011 03:05 dbosworld wrote:
Sooooo What is this correct answer?
Why do people always think there is one correct answer when it comes to math... the moment you start doing math you realize how wrong that is...
There is no correct answer here. There is a correct answer for each interpretation of the input, but since the input is ambiguous in the most proper sense (it would require one more set of brackets), then depending on how you put the missing set of brackets there is a correct answer. A lot of people have an interpretation of the input that reads from left to right and applies the order of operations and thus brackets like (48÷2)(9+3), others (including a lot of calculators) interpret the input when involving division signs as top divided by bottom until there's a space (like in mathematica), and thus they would bracket it as (48)/(2(9+3)). For either of those you will get a correct answer, but for the original question the correct answer is that you have a syntax error and thus are just using shorthand and if people misinterpret what you meant by your shorthand then you should probably change the way you wrote the problem.
|
On April 08 2011 14:43 Schamus wrote:
...I answered two. I'm also a computer engineer, so...
I just re-wrote in my head as 48 / 2(9+3) which is wrong, and I understand that, but thats why I got 2. But at the same time, this is more about being a stickler on notation, than saying that everyone is stupid and can't do math. <--- People will flip out and say without notation math doesn't exist, but I feel like this is more of an elitist "grammar nazi"-esque point, than a truly mathematical one.
Bingo. Been saying this throughout the thread, and I hope people can just realize that this post sums this entire thread up perfectly.
This is NOT MATH!!!!
|
On April 09 2011 03:17 rackdude wrote:Why do people always think there is one correct answer when it comes to math... the moment you start doing math you realize how wrong that is... There is no correct answer here. There is a correct answer for each interpretation of the input, but since the input is ambiguous in the most proper sense (it would require one more set of brackets), then depending on how you put the missing set of brackets there is a correct answer. A lot of people have an interpretation of the input that reads from left to right and applies the order of operations and thus brackets like (48÷2)(9+3), others (including a lot of calculators) interpret the input when involving division signs as top divided by bottom until there's a space (like in mathematica), and thus they would bracket it as (48)/(2(9+3)). For either of those you will get a correct answer, but for the original question the correct answer is that you have a syntax error and thus are just using shorthand and if people misinterpret what you meant by your shorthand then you should probably change the way you wrote the problem.
The correctness of the problem should be a given if you intend to do proper maths. And if the problem is clearly stated, then it has a definite answer as long as you stay in the realm of logics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
