- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bizarre Math Question and Answer breaks the internet - Sorry if already posted
Posted on 4/16/15 at 6:21 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 4/16/15 at 6:21 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
How many engineers got 288?
Not a one worth his salt.
Rather than teaching PEMDAS, math students should be taught to state problems clearly and to recognize ambiguity.
Any rational reading of this 'problem' would assign precedence to the 2(9+3) notation rather than blindly following PEMDAS.
The only time this problem would make any sense is in a discussion of how to clearly write a problem statement to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.
and that's the troof
You're making an additional assumption by solving the 2(9+3). Pretending things exist that don't is not the most "rational" solution. As explicitly stated that answer is 288. Therefore, fewer assumptions = more logical approach.
2
Posted on 4/16/15 at 6:31 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You're making an additional assumption by solving the 2(9+3).
nope.
288 is the correct answer to this question = "what is the result of applying the PEMDAS algorithm to the statement 48/2(9+3) ?"
It has no value elsewise.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 10:18 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You're making an additional assumption by solving the 2(9+3). Pretending things exist that don't is not the most "rational" solution. As explicitly stated that answer is 288. Therefore, fewer assumptions = more logical approach.
2(9+3) isn't explicit multiplication, it is multiplication by juxtaposition which is the exact same thing as 2X and no one would solve that as 2*X.
quote:
My problem with the answer 2 is to come to that answer either you have to make an assumption of implied parantheses--which is defensible--or you misapply the order of operations--which is not defensible.
There isn't implied parenthesis, the argument is that multiplication by juxtaposition always takes precedence.
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 10:21 am
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News