MrGray
Honorary Master
OMG - I hadn't truly realized the damage outcomes based education had done until I read this thread...
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
48÷2 (9+3) argument
- Thread starter Helghast
- Start date
Archer
Honorary Master
48/2x
24/x
Edit: and tell me what laws if any I have broken in my first example?
You did the divide action, and then you added in another divide action...
nakedpeanut
Expert Member
Archer
Honorary Master
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
I favour 2 (and I'm not going to brag about my background), but I'm not going to say that 288 is wrong either. If there is ambiguity, then there is a problem with the expression. Show me a mathematician who writes equations like this and I will show you a liar.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Archer
Honorary Master
nakedpeanut
Expert Member
Ahh knew you would
being a programmer 48/2(9+3) is an invalid equation.You have to manually add the * which I assume they are doing.
Re post: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...-3)-argument?p=8635217&viewfull=1#post8635217
Certainly explains university professors complaining about students being unable to do basic mathematics.
Most often the examples are of this form - 5 + 6(2+4). That may be why some people erroneously start to think of the 6(2+4) part as somehow unique. Only a teacher who is clueless would teach them that 6(2+4) is not exactly the same as 6*(2+4).
MrGray
Honorary Master
Um, no. The fantastic thing about mathematics is that there is no room for opinion (well at least anywhere below theoretical maths PHD level). I very much doubt any serious mathematician, physicist or engineer is going to "favour" going against the established order of calculating precedence. They would not have gotten as far as passing their exams if they did.
Anyway, I see now that this is a common trolling meme, so I guess I'll consider myself trolled.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Hhe did say that it's his view. WhyTF are we even arguing over this? Write the thing over 2 lines, end of story. He says so himself.
Archer
Honorary Master
Ahh knew you would
You have to manually add the * which I assume they are doing.
Re post: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...-3)-argument?p=8635217&viewfull=1#post8635217
48*0.5(9+3)
Go...
And then explain to me how its different from the equation in the OP when you reach the answer of 288
In a mathematical equation a(b+c) is shorthand for a*(b+c). And that, as my maths professor always said, is because mathematicians are lazy.Ahh knew you would
You have to manually add the * which I assume they are doing.
Re post: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...-3)-argument?p=8635217&viewfull=1#post8635217
nakedpeanut
Expert Member
It is a troll because the equation is not complete it require parenthesis. Any programmer will tell you this.
The expression is not syntactically well formed and hence open to interpretation, notably "implied multiplication".
Archer
Honorary Master
And we're back to the argument of "math is like a woman" - you never know what she means
MrGray
Honorary Master
Except this isn't programming it is mathematics. A programming language basically follows an arbitrarily agreed upon syntax convention.
As lazy or as bad as the notation may be multiplication is ALWAYS assumed in the absence of operators or brackets - e.g.: 2x = 2 * x OR 48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2*(9+3)
Last edited:
MrGray
Honorary Master
Even though it may not be the best expression, it is still not open to interpretation mathematically because there is nothing other than multiplication that would be "implied". You can't decide what the lack of an operator means, it is always multiplication.
Last edited: