8/2(2+2)

[Trainwreck2100]

Yeah the diagonal proof is ing awesome. First saw it in Baby Rudin with sequences of 0 and 1, which also proved the segment [0,1] is uncountable when you consider binary representations of numbers. Sad that Cantor went nuts studying this .

you don't need the diagonal proof to prove 2 infinities.

The natural numbers N are considered "countable" while the R real numbers are not. N goes to infinity but so does R so because one is countable and one isn't there must be two different infinities. Countable infinity and not countable.

[Sir Johnny]

I'll be damn, and all this time I really did think nobody here actually knew anything, yep.....wrong.

[baseline bum]

you don't need the diagonal proof to prove 2 infinities.

The natural numbers N are considered "countable" while the R real numbers are not. N goes to infinity but so does R so because one is countable and one isn't there must be two different infinities. Countable infinity and not countable.

Still, the diagonal proof is the most cool proof I have seen that R is uncountable. The least interesting one is (0,1) has nonzero measure while the measure of a countable set is 0, hence (0,1) is uncountable, hence R is since you can define a bijective map (0,1) -> R... eg like f(x) = tan[pi*(x+1/2)].

[Trainwreck2100]

Still, the diagonal proof is the most cool proof I have seen that R is uncountable. The least interesting one is (0,1) has nonzero measure while the measure of a countable set is 0, hence (0,1) is uncountable, hence R is since you can define a bijective map (0,1) -> R... eg like f(x) = tan[pi*(x+1/2)].

are you talking straight diagonal set proof or the corollary one which is the decimal version. The decimal version is my favorite, because of how simple it is.

[baseline bum]

are you talking straight diagonal set proof or the corollary one which is the decimal version. The decimal version is my favorite, because of how simple it is.

Same , either one works for me.

[pgardn]

it should be noted that for anyone reading the article both the mathematician and the theoretical physicist agree the answer is 16. The doctoral statistics student declined to answer.

If you can't agree, or you agree on a different set of symbol rules.
Because it's simply a symbol and a rule of symbols problem.

Its really not some astounding idea.
Like zero or infinity are... that help solve other sticky ideas.

[spurraider21]

The (2+2) is a distraction. The (2+2) in parentheses always gets done first. 8/2*4 is the ambiguity.

its not ambiguous though. when there's a lack of parenthesis, you go left to right. if they wanted to put the 4 in the denominator, it would be 8/(2*4). if they didnt, they wouldn't

[spurraider21]

it should be noted that for anyone reading the article both the mathematician and the theoretical physicist agree the answer is 16. The doctoral statistics student declined to answer.

most importantly the lawyer said its 16

[Chucho]

Andy's W is rescinded and given to the Lawyer in North Carolina.

[DMC]

Blake, who really gives a , well?

All those numbers reminded me of this.

Larry, the Ghetto Pedo

[spurraider21]

Andy's W is rescinded and given to the Lawyer in North Carolina.

Virginia tbh

[DAF86]

16. Why the would it be 1?

[spurraider21]

16. Why the would it be 1?

because they are treating 8/2*2 and 8/4. for some reason deciding to go right to left for one step

next they'll tell you 6-4 = -2

[DAF86]

So I guess you could say if the question is asked to a bunch of babies, the answer is 16, but if the question were asked to adults with decent math knowledge the answer is 1.

Imagine trying to act like smart-ass but coming up as just an ass.

[DAF86]

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

lol

[spurraider21]

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

this was literally the most re ed comment in the thread

[SpursforSix]

this was literally the most re ed comment in the thread

I like the "Okay?" at the end. Old Pedo does that time to time.

[pgardn]

its 16, and should be pretty unambiguous. trainwreck laid it out perfectly.

when you have 8/2*4, you dont arbitrarily decide to multiply the 2 with the 4. you go left to right when there is any ambiguity.



to me this just smells like the dumb facebook clickbait you'll see: "CAN YOU SOLVE THIS? ONLY 1 IN 50 ARE ABLE TO SEE IT!" and then its a basic order of operations issue

And this is the real issue if you wanted everyone to get it correct and not become a thing. You would not use the / division symbol. You would use the dot above a horizontal line with a dot below a horizontal line symbol. And I cant even make one of those with my keyboard (unless I guess I look up holding weird keys down while typing in....)

[pgardn]

Press and hold alt while pressing 2 4 6

And I cant do this as I dont have a numeric keyboard in front of me.
Damn this is leading to some major suckage.

[spurraider21]

And this is the real issue if you wanted everyone to get it correct and not become a thing. You would not use the / division symbol. You would use the dot above a horizontal line with a dot below a horizontal line symbol. And I cant even make one of those with my keyboard (unless I guess I look up holding weird keys down while typing in....)

but the / division symbol and the dots with line mean exactly the same thing. its different if it was written in a vertical fraction form, but here it isn't. you cant assume that parentheses are implied or else it all falls apart

if i said 8/4-2 how would you proceed? you'd use the order of operations and go 4-2 = 2. you wouldn't go 8/2 = 4

[Blake]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/s...as-bedmas.html

Spurraider does in fact get the w

[pgardn]

but the / division symbol and the dots with line mean exactly the same thing. its different if it was written in a vertical fraction form, but here it isn't. you cant assume that parentheses are implied or else it all falls apart

if i said 8/4-2 how would you proceed? you'd use the order of operations and go 4-2 = 2. you wouldn't go 8/2 = 4

Yes it does.

So why are there two symbols for division linearly?

And why are there 2 symbols and one implied for multiplication?

x * a(b) or a x b and by the way this also means a as a function of b.

I also found where that calculator picture came from and the video.
My contention is still the same.

How come this became a thing? Because of mistakes. why? the author of the video wants to know.
The author says something about text(s) using this incorrectly and to notify him. So its really kind of cool.

[Mitch]

People don't solve left to right for some reason and get weird answers, tbh. I made the mistake as a kid, but any educated adult should have corrected the habit by now

[pgardn]

There is more to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaitsBUyiNQ

Blake typing the / instead of the symbol with the two dots above and below the line imo caused the confusion on this board, and this was not even the internet form. so now I am really curious after the video and the way some calculators work.

I think this is what got M and M.... mostly because of the /
...and got me wondering. About linear and fractional forms.

I think M and M gets it correct if the dot above and below the horizontal line is used.
Lets see what he thinks...

[Blake]

There is more to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaitsBUyiNQ

Blake typing the / instead of the symbol with the two dots above and below the line imo caused the confusion on this board, and this was not even the internet form. so now I am really curious after the video and the way some calculators work.

I think this is what got M and M.... mostly because of the /
...and got me wondering. About linear and fractional forms.

I think M and M gets it correct if the dot above and below the horizontal line is used.
Lets see what he thinks...

Man when an Ivy League professor lays it out in the NYT, that's pretty much it for me