EPTThis thread needs to die. This is b.net forum brain-dead stupidity, not TL.
A Simple Math Problem? - Page 82
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Pigsquirrel
United States615 Posts
This thread needs to die. This is b.net forum brain-dead stupidity, not TL. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:05 Pigsquirrel wrote: At first, I thought this would be an interesting social experiment. But it's just a flame war. This thread needs to die. This is b.net forum brain-dead stupidity, not TL. Social experiment succeeded. Mankind, on the other hand, failed pretty hard. | ||
|
mpupu
Argentina183 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:03 Ace wrote: why are you distributing 2 to (9+3)? These aren't variables these are constants. The distributive property can be applied to both variables and constants, so you're missing the point. At risk of reiterating what's already been said, the key factor here is the precedence assigned to multiplication. | ||
|
shadowy
Bulgaria305 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:03 Ace wrote: why are you distributing 2 to (9+3)? These aren't variables these are constants. Edit: Read post above me. Also, because of implied multiplication. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Pretty simple math here. to the below: No you are not getting rid of the parenthesis. PEMDAS doesn't mean "do whats closest to parenthesis" first. It means do whats INSIDE parenthesis first. Thats why the answer is not 2 if you are using PEMDAS. | ||
|
ztoa03
Philippines181 Posts
On April 08 2011 18:27 Kentor wrote: requoting this. in other words this math problem is retarded and has no real life consequences. I requote this too. Maybe I was wrong.  Maybe not.  I answered 2 because of PEMDAS. You have to get rid of the parenthesis first right? Also, doing it the way I read it from the above document. given: 48÷2(9+3)=x required: x=? solution: x = 48÷2(9+3) x = 48÷2(12) x = 48÷24 x = 2 Edit: You can also "distribute" the 2. (Which in my opinion is a correct move to get closer to the solution.) Eventhough I'm slow at math, I try to solve it on my own. Please don't use calculators. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:14 Ace wrote: Even if there is implied multiplication - you can't distribute the 2 because you have to do whats inside parenthesis first. Pretty simple math here. how is distributing not doing the parenthesis? 2(9+3) = 24 (2*9+2*3) = 24 | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
 | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 09 2011 03:58 levelnoobz wrote: BTW I really don't see the point of those 81 pages appart from proving that if you write maths like this nobody will understand you. Some folks in this thread think that if you write maths in this incompetent way, everyone should understand you. Hence the thread hinges on a value judgement, and value judgements can and usually are debated without limit. On April 09 2011 04:07 SharkSpider wrote: Social experiment succeeded. Mankind, on the other hand, failed pretty hard. Social experiments usually end that way >_< I think half the point of social experiments is to point out how fucked up peoples' reactions can be. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:16 chonkyfire wrote: how is distributing not doing the parenthesis? 2(9+3) = 24 (2*9+2*3) = 24 because there is an expression on the left of it. If it was just what you wrote then sure it works because there is nothing else there. However you have 48 ÷ sitting to the left of it. PEMDAS/Order of Operations tells you that you have to go left to right when dealing with equal precedence. Even if you wanted to distribute this is what you'd get: 48 ÷ 2(9+3) 24(9+3) 216 + 72 288  | ||
|
Hikko
United States1126 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bRXgh.jpg) | ||
|
mpupu
Argentina183 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:14 Ace wrote: Even if there is implied multiplication - you can't distribute the 2 because you have to do whats inside parenthesis first. No, you don't. It's perfectly valid to apply certain properties before evaluation an expression. I wish people would stop quoting the whole PEMDAS thing. That's an elementary school guideline intended for beginners, not the end-all be-all of mathematics. I'm not saying it's wrong, but there are other ways of doing things and if that's the only thing you know, chances are you don't have a lot of real exposure to the subject. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:20 Ace wrote: because there is an expression on the left of it. If it was just what you wrote then sure it works because there is nothing else there. However you have 48 ÷ sitting to the left of it. PEMDAS/Order of Operations tells you that you have to go left to right when dealing with equal precedence. Even if you wanted to distribute this is what you'd get: 48 ÷ 2(9+3) 24(9+3) 216 + 72 288 No now you're not doing the brackets first. If you distribute you do that brackets first. If you did the brackets first you get 48/24 | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:23 chonkyfire wrote: No now you're not doing the brackets first. If you distribute you do that brackets first. If you did the brackets first you get 48/24 For the last time, brackets first does not mean multiply whatever is near the brackets before division. Brackets first means do whats inside of it first. No matter which way you do it - 288 is the answer. You just don't understand the actual rules of operation here. I'm done dealing with the trolling though, have fun. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:24 floor exercise wrote: ... Exponents bind tighter than association. 2x^2x = 2(x^2) not (2x)^2 | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:24 Ace wrote: For the last time, brackets first does not mean multiply whatever is near the brackets before division. Brackets first means do whats inside of it first. No matter which way you do it - 288 is the answer. You just don't understand the actual rules of operation here. I'm done dealing with the trolling though, have fun. I need some proof that the 2 doesn't belong to (9+3) then I'll believe you. I came into this thread 100% sure it was 288, but i'm 99% sure that's not right now | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
How do you call these laws in English? Distributive law, associative law and commutative law? | ||
|
mpupu
Argentina183 Posts
On April 09 2011 04:24 Ace wrote: I just showed you that the answer is still 288 even if you do distribute. I've got a lot of math exposure since you know I have to take a lot of them for my major. But keep assuming that everyone that disagrees with you is "less qualified". PEMDAS isn't just for beginners - it's there for everyone as a standard guideline for dealing with just this kind of thing. Stop making excuses and trolling the thread. Don't take it personally. I'm not trolling anyone and I never said you were "less qualified" or anything like that. But if the only guideline you know is PEMDAS, you're missing the big picture. And saying you can't apply the distributive property is certainly wrong, that's 100% fact. I'll give you an analogy: let's say you know how the common SOH-CAH-TOA applies to trigonometric functions. Would you dispute it if I told you that sine is a trascendental function defined in terms of infinite series? After all, it's just a relation between the lengths of different sides of a triangle, right? | ||
|
VisuaL.
Canada22 Posts
I got 288 and 1/(2*x) was pretty easy and don't see how it can be 2 :s | ||
| ||
