|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37021 Posts
Let me get this straight.....
A thread telling us to answer 2 math problems
has emitted 95 pages? .......
Wow.....
Edit: Oh, nvm I just made page 96
|
On April 09 2011 12:28 Seeker wrote:
Edit: Oh, nvm I just made page 96
dear god....
|
|
|
On April 09 2011 12:25 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:23 Ace wrote:On April 09 2011 12:18 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:14 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/P1NvC.gif) =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 In this case you're not really distributing anything since 2(12) is equivalent to 2*12, making the whole thing go to 48÷2*12, in which you follow left to right since neither operation takes precedence. Distributing occurs when theres a parenthesis. Hence PEMDAS or whatever you use. Again the parenthesis does not disappear when you add the 9+3..the 12 is the in parenthesis. So it takes priority. they do disappear. A constant next to parenthesis is the same as multiplication - there is no precedence. If I write 2(12) it is the same as 2 * 12. Like I said before even if you have different notations the easiest way to solve it is just REWRITE the entire thing so ALL the terms have multiplication. Whats the answer to this: (48)(1/2)(9+3) Using the way you'd do it with parenthesis taking precedence what are the steps you'd use to solve this? You, too, missed this post: On April 09 2011 05:23 MasterOfChaos wrote:At least one reputable source, namely the American Mathematical Society used high priority for omitted multiplication signs in their publications. Show nested quote +We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display $${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$ ![[image loading]](http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?$${1%5Cover{2%5Cpi%20i}}%5Cint_%5CGamma%20{f(t)%5Cover%20(t-z)}dt$$) is likely to be converted to $(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$ ![[image loading]](http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?$(1/2%5Cpi%20i)%5Cint_%5CGamma%20f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$) in our production process. http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20011201061315/http://www.ams.org/authors/guide-reviewers.html
Juxtaposition is suppose to only work for situations with variables and symbols not with numbers alone. So i dont think that link pertains to this question.
eg:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/2x
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/2(4)
|
On April 09 2011 12:12 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:09 mcc wrote:On April 09 2011 10:16 Ace wrote:
There is no ambiguity. With no parenthesis it's still clear as day what the order of evaluation is. Just because you may think or assume it could be something else doesn't mean it is. And you are assuming notation which was NOT specified. Read my last post (which I've said like 3 times already in this thread). Just rewrite the expression so it's just straight up normal multiplication. No PEMDAS, no conventions to argue about - you will get 288.
Why would I do that, notation means graphical representation. From notational point of view 2(9+3) IS DIFFERENT than 2*(9 + 3). There are notations that interpret those two expression differently. I already posted much more about that in this thread, but I would guess you did not read it as it was before page 60-65.
|
On April 09 2011 12:28 Seeker wrote:
Let me get this straight.....
A thread telling us to answer 2 math problems
has emitted 95 pages? .......
Wow.....
Edit: Oh, nvm I just made page 96
Yeah this just proves that arguing on the internet is indeed retarded.
|
On April 08 2011 05:36 Marradron wrote:
lol by standard mathematical rules the answer would be 288. However stupid people might not know this and assume 48/ (2((9+3) = 2. However this is wrong since multiplication and division are to be done in order unless changed by brackets.
What this made me realize is how poorly documented, taught and communicated math is.
The problem could easily be written as 48 ÷ 2 x (9+3) and everyone and their dog would get it right.
This poll isn't a measurement of intelligence, it's more a test to see if you remember what your high school math teacher taught you.
|
On April 09 2011 12:27 Keitzer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:25 Ropid wrote:On April 09 2011 12:23 Ace wrote:On April 09 2011 12:18 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:14 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 In this case you're not really distributing anything since 2(12) is equivalent to 2*12, making the whole thing go to 48÷2*12, in which you follow left to right since neither operation takes precedence. Distributing occurs when theres a parenthesis. Hence PEMDAS or whatever you use. Again the parenthesis does not disappear when you add the 9+3..the 12 is the in parenthesis. So it takes priority. they do disappear. A constant next to parenthesis is the same as multiplication - there is no precedence. If I write 2(12) it is the same as 2 * 12. Like I said before even if you have different notations the easiest way to solve it is just REWRITE the entire thing so ALL the terms have multiplication. Whats the answer to this: (48)(1/2)(9+3) Using the way you'd do it with parenthesis taking precedence what are the steps you'd use to solve this? You, too, missed this post: On April 09 2011 05:23 MasterOfChaos wrote:At least one reputable source, namely the American Mathematical Society used high priority for omitted multiplication signs in their publications. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display $${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$ is likely to be converted to $(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$ in our production process. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! god, stop posting impossible bullshit... your post can be simplified saying that 5 * 5 + 5 = 125.... wait wut? ya, i ASSUMED parenthesis like you're fancy pic did (1/2pi i, remember that? it's NOT equal to 1 / (2pi i) )
He keeps posting that but doesn't understand what it means. The AMS link using multiplication indicated by juxtaposition rewrote an expression using VARIABLES where it was clear what the terms are because they are encoded with parenthesis. There is nothing ambiguous about them as everyone knows (a)/(b) can be rewritten as (a)(b)^-1.
Which is not what we are dealing with here.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 09 2011 12:24 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:18 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:14 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 In this case you're not really distributing anything since 2(12) is equivalent to 2*12, making the whole thing go to 48÷2*12, in which you follow left to right since neither operation takes precedence. Distributing occurs when theres a parenthesis. Hence PEMDAS or whatever you use. Again the parenthesis does not disappear when you add the 9+3..the 12 is the in parenthesis. So it takes priority. No I think you misunderstood the bracket rule when you were introduced to it. The rules apply to what's inside the bracket not what is operating on the bracket.
Not quite. If you wanted to distribute you would do it from the start before evaluating the parenthesis. It would be (48/2)*9+(48/2)*3. 2(12) is not distributing, its just multiplication.
|
On April 09 2011 12:25 Keitzer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:23 reprise wrote:On April 09 2011 12:15 Keitzer wrote:On April 09 2011 12:13 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:08 Keitzer wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 Distributing = multiplication (notice how you MULTIPLIED the 2 by the 12).. which, in order of operations, states that it's on the same level as division, which means you're still wrong. Yes distribution is the same thing as multiplication no argument there..but you distribute (ie. if there is a parenthesis) before doing multiplication or division. OK, maybe this will convice you... it's what Ace said earlier... 48 / 2 * (9+3) 48 * 1/2 * (9+3) outmath that... since THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE OP! and don't tell me you can just forget about the first multiplication There is no multiplication symbol between the 2 and the (9 + 3), so don't put one there. It changes the format of the question for those who believe multiplication by juxtaposition takes precedence over regular multiplication and division. what the fuck? Sir, to take the high road, I shall first ask... what is your math experience? Because to me, it does not seem higher than a 5th grader who doesn't know what () means in math class.
I'm studying math in university. I guess that doesn't compare to your high school AP that you seem to tout around so proudly. Resorting to ad hominem instead of breaking down my argument, classy.
Show me an explicitly stated rule where multiplication by juxtaposition does NOT have priority and I will submit. Calculators are not proof, as different calculators have different programming which will result in different answers. MasterofChaos has even nicely linked an instance where it does have priority, but sadly it is not solid proof as it is simply a convention that the AMS uses.
Show me God doesn't exist.
|
On April 09 2011 12:31 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:27 Keitzer wrote:On April 09 2011 12:25 Ropid wrote:On April 09 2011 12:23 Ace wrote:On April 09 2011 12:18 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:14 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 In this case you're not really distributing anything since 2(12) is equivalent to 2*12, making the whole thing go to 48÷2*12, in which you follow left to right since neither operation takes precedence. Distributing occurs when theres a parenthesis. Hence PEMDAS or whatever you use. Again the parenthesis does not disappear when you add the 9+3..the 12 is the in parenthesis. So it takes priority. they do disappear. A constant next to parenthesis is the same as multiplication - there is no precedence. If I write 2(12) it is the same as 2 * 12. Like I said before even if you have different notations the easiest way to solve it is just REWRITE the entire thing so ALL the terms have multiplication. Whats the answer to this: (48)(1/2)(9+3) Using the way you'd do it with parenthesis taking precedence what are the steps you'd use to solve this? You, too, missed this post: On April 09 2011 05:23 MasterOfChaos wrote:At least one reputable source, namely the American Mathematical Society used high priority for omitted multiplication signs in their publications. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display $${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$ is likely to be converted to $(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$ in our production process. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! god, stop posting impossible bullshit... your post can be simplified saying that 5 * 5 + 5 = 125.... wait wut? ya, i ASSUMED parenthesis like you're fancy pic did (1/2pi i, remember that? it's NOT equal to 1 / (2pi i) ) He keeps posting that but doesn't understand what it means. The AMS link using multiplication indicated by juxtaposition rewrote an expression using VARIABLES where it was clear what the terms are because they are encoded with parenthesis. There is nothing ambiguous about them as everyone knows (a)/(b) can be rewritten as (a)(b)^-1. Which is not what we are dealing with here.
Exactly... making a word doc (and screenshotting to pic format) for an even easier explanation.
|
On April 09 2011 12:31 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:27 Keitzer wrote:On April 09 2011 12:25 Ropid wrote:On April 09 2011 12:23 Ace wrote:On April 09 2011 12:18 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:14 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 12:05 mints wrote:On April 09 2011 12:00 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 11:55 mints wrote:48÷2(9+3) =48÷2(12) =48÷24 =2 or =2 Im still standing by the answer 2. Multiplication and division have the same order of operation, so you do whichever comes first when reading left to right. Thus you would do the parenthesis first like you did, but then do the division of 48/2 since it comes before multiplying the 2*12. No...when you add (9+3) ... its then 48÷2(12), the parenthesis does not disappear..so you would distribute the 2 then divide. Thus 48÷24=2 In this case you're not really distributing anything since 2(12) is equivalent to 2*12, making the whole thing go to 48÷2*12, in which you follow left to right since neither operation takes precedence. Distributing occurs when theres a parenthesis. Hence PEMDAS or whatever you use. Again the parenthesis does not disappear when you add the 9+3..the 12 is the in parenthesis. So it takes priority. they do disappear. A constant next to parenthesis is the same as multiplication - there is no precedence. If I write 2(12) it is the same as 2 * 12. Like I said before even if you have different notations the easiest way to solve it is just REWRITE the entire thing so ALL the terms have multiplication. Whats the answer to this: (48)(1/2)(9+3) Using the way you'd do it with parenthesis taking precedence what are the steps you'd use to solve this? You, too, missed this post: On April 09 2011 05:23 MasterOfChaos wrote:At least one reputable source, namely the American Mathematical Society used high priority for omitted multiplication signs in their publications. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display $${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$ is likely to be converted to $(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$ in our production process. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! god, stop posting impossible bullshit... your post can be simplified saying that 5 * 5 + 5 = 125.... wait wut? ya, i ASSUMED parenthesis like you're fancy pic did (1/2pi i, remember that? it's NOT equal to 1 / (2pi i) ) He keeps posting that but doesn't understand what it means. The AMS link using multiplication indicated by juxtaposition rewrote an expression using VARIABLES where it was clear what the terms are because they are encoded with parenthesis. There is nothing ambiguous about them as everyone knows (a)/(b) can be rewritten as (a)(b)^-1. Which is not what we are dealing with here.
It's just my opinion, that the OP is poorly written, and flaming half of the answers is stupid. Also there's the second part with 1/2x.
|
I totally nailed the 100+ predicition
|
On April 09 2011 12:30 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:12 Ace wrote:On April 09 2011 12:09 mcc wrote:On April 09 2011 10:16 Ace wrote:
There is no ambiguity. With no parenthesis it's still clear as day what the order of evaluation is. Just because you may think or assume it could be something else doesn't mean it is. And you are assuming notation which was NOT specified. Read my last post (which I've said like 3 times already in this thread). Just rewrite the expression so it's just straight up normal multiplication. No PEMDAS, no conventions to argue about - you will get 288. Why would I do that, notation means graphical representation. From notational point of view 2(9+3) IS DIFFERENT than 2*(9 + 3). There are notations that interpret those two expression differently. I already posted much more about that in this thread, but I would guess you did not read it as it was before page 60-65.
For the record, I answered 2 for precisely this reason. Your not crazy. 2(9+3) and 2 x (9+3) are two different things.
I don't feel at all bad for getting the calculation wrong, it was structured to fool people. Congrats, nerds!
|
ok... here we go...
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/TTfFT.jpg)
|
On April 09 2011 12:36 Keitzer wrote:ok... here we go...
Yeah, but do you have a reliable source that says you don't assume the 2 goes with (9+3) in this case? Everything I keep reading is that in a situation like this 2(9+3) = (2*9+2*3)
If you can give me a source saying otherwise fantastic. I'm looking for it myself. I'm sure you're real smart and great at math, but there has to be a rule written somewhere especially since brackets have their own rules in algebra
|
yes, you can't just assumed parenthesis left and right.
5 + 5 * 5 =/= 50, NEVER!!!
however, with your, just-assume-em rule, you CAN make it 50... by going (5+5) * 5 = 50
HOWEVER! (and the point i've been making this entire time) is that the ORIGINAL equation is NOT written with assumed parenthesis, and THUS cannot be used in explanation of a wrong answer.
|
On April 09 2011 12:41 Keitzer wrote:
...
too much proof for the ignorant crowd?
That was no proof, and since this is not math question there is no proof possible. Also you even do not understand what most people are arguing. Some maybe are arguing that there are implicit parenthesis. Some are saying something quite different.
EDIT:Ahh you edited, my post is still valid.
|
On April 09 2011 12:41 Keitzer wrote:
yes, you can't just assumed parenthesis left and right.
5 + 5 * 5 =/= 50, NEVER!!!
however, with your, just-assume-em rule, you CAN make it 125... by going (5+5) * 5 = 50
HOWEVER! (and the point i've been making this entire time) is that the ORIGINAL equation is NOT written with assumed parenthesis, and THUS cannot be used in explanation of a wrong answer.
He's not advocating a "just-assume-em" rule. In the humanities, we call what you're making a straw-man argument. I don't know what you call it in the math department.
|
On April 09 2011 12:41 Keitzer wrote:
yes, you can't just assumed parenthesis left and right.
5 + 5 * 5 =/= 50, NEVER!!!
however, with your, just-assume-em rule, you CAN make it 50... by going (5+5) * 5 = 50
HOWEVER! (and the point i've been making this entire time) is that the ORIGINAL equation is NOT written with assumed parenthesis, and THUS cannot be used in explanation of a wrong answer.
that's not a very good source
whatever this thread is going no where
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
