Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101
  1. #76
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    Post Count
    31,317
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    8÷2(2+2) = 16

    8/2(2+2) = 1


    Okay?
    Forget my previous message.
    His own post makes it clear.

  2. #77
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Post Count
    83,846
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    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.
    i agree that the author was sloppy (likely intentionally) but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to approach it. its completely absurd to assume that everything after the / is in the denominator. consider the expression:

    2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

    do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator? there's a reason why parentheses are used, and if you've ever had to input a reasonably long function into a TI83 or 89 calculator, you had to be very precise with parentheses placement

  3. #78
    絶対領域が大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    Post Count
    83,168
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    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
    If you're a computer programmer that's a great way to get bugs in your program that might only show up years later when you're relying on undefined behavior that can change later on when some other part of your library's implementation has changed. Or maybe your compiler changed. The only reasonable way to write those expressions would be (8/2)(2+2) or 8/(2(2+2)).

  4. #79
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    Post Count
    41,316
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Folks emphasizing the ambiguity of the equation are just trying to rationalize the fact they didn't get the answer right, tbh.

    Just give it a rest. There's only one right answer, you didn't get it. It's not the end of the World.

  5. #80
    Derrick White fanboy FkLA's Avatar
    Post Count
    24,563
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners

    8
    ____________
    2(2+2)

    =

    8
    ___________
    2(4)

    =

    8
    _
    8


    = 1
    There's an argument that it could be 1. Especially if you look at it the way Andy did^. That's how I first looked at it too.

    I hate when the internet thinks dumb stuff like this is cute though. Just use the appropriate parentheses to make it clear or GTFO.

    i.e. 8/[2(2+2)] or (8/2)(2+2)

  6. #81
    絶対領域が大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    Post Count
    83,168
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    I hate when the internet thinks dumb stuff like this is cute though. Just use the appropriate parentheses to make it clear or GTFO.

    i.e. 8/[2(2+2)] or (8/2)(2+2)
    this.

  7. #82
    絶対領域が大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    Post Count
    83,168
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    consider the expression:

    2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

    do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator?
    No. Addition has lower precedence than division does.

  8. #83
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    Post Count
    31,317
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    i agree that the author was sloppy (likely intentionally) but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to approach it. its completely absurd to assume that everything after the / is in the denominator. consider the expression:

    2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

    do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator?
    agree And...

    I just did this my wife and she said both. Yes she can see it as a huge denominator. I said why?, she said math books.

    So Im thinking you will rarely see your form in a math book and if you do...

    2*4+1-3 dot over dash under dot 4+7*2-6*8*3 for clarity that we are testing just your numerical endurance


    And if you really wanted to divide make the whole thing which one?

    2*4+1-3 dot line dot (4+7*2-6*8*3) very rare

    2*4+1-3/(4+7*2-6*8*3) common

    this is my working hypothesis using my partner as the sole human subject.
    If you watch the video, I think we on this site just added something by just using / Blake did it because he did not make dot dash over dot
    Your fault Blake you see what you wrought?

    I think more people get it wrong with / rather that dot dash over dot
    Not discussed in the video. Need to get this to a math teacher who works with real kids.
    Not an adult who acts like a kid (me)

  9. #84
    Derrick White fanboy FkLA's Avatar
    Post Count
    24,563
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    You just know it's the people that never did much maths that turn it into a big deal, tbh.

  10. #85
    絶対領域が大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    Post Count
    83,168
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    You just know it's the people that never did much maths that turn it into a big deal, tbh.
    I should have never got drawn into this stupid thread.

    Though talking with trainwreck was interesting and made me go back and read Cantor's diagnolization proof again since it's one of the coolest pieces of mathematics ever written. If you ever want to see an interesting development of the real numbers Baby Rudin is a really cool book, though challenging as since he writes everything as slickly as possible and doesn't use any diagrams. Plus the exercises are really hard. Terry Tao has some lecture notes he posted where he very carefully constructs the reals starting from only the Peano axioms for his real analysis class (wish he was teaching it when I took the class). Or it might be a textbook now.

  11. #86
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    Post Count
    31,317
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    I find it interesting.

    It provides some insight.

    People think a / automatically implies a fraction.
    Numerator everything to the left, denominator everything to the right.
    Possible because of the problem of type being more difficult to put things on the top and the bottom.

    a/b

    a
    --
    b

    Now

    2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

    Ask someone to read this in English.
    When they get to the one... Do the say "one minus three divided by four", or "one minus three fourths"?
    It works out the same, but if there is other crap around and its vertical and linear, especially with parenthesis and brackets, you gots to be careful.
    I dont even know if parenthesis and brackets are the correct terms in math.

  12. #87
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Post Count
    83,846
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    It’s the P in Pemdas

  13. #88
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    Post Count
    39,365
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    I should have never got drawn into this stupid thread.

    Though talking with trainwreck was interesting and made me go back and read Cantor's diagnolization proof again since it's one of the coolest pieces of mathematics ever written. If you ever want to see an interesting development of the real numbers Baby Rudin is a really cool book, though challenging as since he writes everything as slickly as possible and doesn't use any diagrams. Plus the exercises are really hard. Terry Tao has some lecture notes he posted where he very carefully constructs the reals starting from only the Peano axioms for his real analysis class (wish he was teaching it when I took the class). Or it might be a textbook now.
    I was ing shocked that M M was so confident in his answer and then someone my man LaMarcus Bryant agreed with him. The argument for it doesn't even make sense.

  14. #89
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    Post Count
    31,317
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    When a large number of people get something wrong it is possibly a symbol problem, and or the rules thereof.

    I remember speaking to a kid doing physics and helping him.
    And I understood why he messed up:

    x(t) = Vo*t + 1/2gt^2

    I asked him to read it in english.

    He said:

    x times time equals initial velocity times time plus one half times time times the acceleration due to gravity times t squared

    Instead of x as a function of time...

    He explained the parenthesis (pedemas) meant multiply by...

    I was shocked, BUT it made sense. And I learned something. The poor kid must have been driven nuts.
    And he did not say velocity times zero, he understood the o was a subscript.

  15. #90
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    Post Count
    29,122
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    8/2(2+2) = cucked

  16. #91
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    Post Count
    68,173
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Tech Red Raiders
    ^ so angry

  17. #92
    44 / 50 Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    Name
    Andrew
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Post Count
    18,436
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    North Texas Mean Green
    you responded, so confirmed... triggered

  18. #93
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    Post Count
    68,173
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Tech Red Raiders
    you responded, so confirmed... triggered
    Oh ok

  19. #94
    44 / 50 Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    Name
    Andrew
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Post Count
    18,436
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    North Texas Mean Green
    10 times more posts no life

  20. #95
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    Post Count
    31,317
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    I learned something about people and symbols yet again.

  21. #96
    faggy opinion + certainty Mark Celibate's Avatar
    Post Count
    3,155
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    College
    Texas Tech Red Raiders
    8÷2(2+2) = 16

    8/2(2+2) = 1


    Okay?
    That still doesn't make sense if your going by PEMDAS ....

    8÷2(2+2) ---> PEMDAS Parenthesis 2+2 = 4 PEMDAS

    8÷2(4) ----> PEMDAS Multiplication 2(4) = 8

    8÷8 = 1 PEMDAS

  22. #97
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    Post Count
    68,173
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Tech Red Raiders
    10 times more posts no life
    Oh post counting.

  23. #98
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    Post Count
    6,417
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    That still doesn't make sense if your going by PEMDAS ....

    8÷2(2+2) ---> PEMDAS Parenthesis 2+2 = 4 PEMDAS

    8÷2(4) ----> PEMDAS Multiplication 2(4) = 8

    8÷8 = 1 PEMDAS
    I was confused by this in like the 6th grade, tbh. Multiplication and Division are on the same hierarchy so you go from left to right, same with addition and subtraction


  24. #99
    faggy opinion + certainty Mark Celibate's Avatar
    Post Count
    3,155
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    College
    Texas Tech Red Raiders
    I was confused by this in like the 6th grade, tbh. Multiplication and Division are on the same hierarchy so you go from left to right, same with addition and subtraction

    I’m aware of the actual rule just calling out Andrew’s re ed logic

  25. #100
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    Post Count
    6,417
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    I’m aware of the actual rule just calling out Andrew’s re ed logic


    Can't really expect much from Andy, tbh

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •