- 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 8:02 am to ell_13
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:02 am to ell_13
quote:
Why is there multiplication privilege here?
What the hell did division do to anybody?
If we can get the SJWs on it, I may support their cause for a change.
1
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:04 am to KosmoCramer
Do you even order of operations, bro?
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:05 am to buckeye_vol
As simple as this is, it's hilarious that so many people are adamant about 2.
But really, it's partly a syntax issue that doesn't make it as clear as it should. That being said, I've seen problems written like this in algebra I textbooks.
But really, it's partly a syntax issue that doesn't make it as clear as it should. That being said, I've seen problems written like this in algebra I textbooks.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:09 am to snoggerT
quote:That's not how it's written though, given the limitation of the symtax. It would have to be written like (2(9+3)).
- Then go input the following equation exactly how you read it:
48
2(9+3)
you would get 288 in any math program if you just read it as is (48 divided by 2(9+3)) without using any logic.
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 8:12 am
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:11 am to ell_13
quote:Exactly. But given the syntax the answer is 288. If using syntax with software like Maple, the problem can be written in clearer form, but since that is not the case, and there is no applied context, one should just solve what is in front of them.
But really, it's partly a syntax issue that doesn't make it as clear as it should. That being said, I've seen problems written like this in algebra I textbooks.
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 9:20 am
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:12 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
Bizarre Math Question and Answer breaks the internet - Sorry if already posted
If that easy assed problem "broke the internet" it's because America is populated by fricking math idiots who never learned the simple phrase "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally"
Good fricking lord. Do the parenthesis then work left to right. SIMPLE.
If you got this wrong, you're a math failure.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:14 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Well shite.
PEMDAS MEANS NOTHING.
I pretty much thought that everyone understood that the MD and the AS parts were equal.
Guess not.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:33 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Good fricking lord. Do the parenthesis then work left to right. SIMPLE.
If you got this wrong, you're a math failure.
- what if you want to work right to left?
6=5+(-2)+3=6
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:40 am to snoggerT
addition and subtraction don't work the same as multiplication and division.
12/2*3
LtoR = 18
RtoL = 2
12/2*3
LtoR = 18
RtoL = 2
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:47 am to ell_13
quote:
Posted by ell_13
addition and subtraction don't work the same as multiplication and division.
12/2*3
LtoR = 18
RtoL = 2
- if you did math correctly, it does. You're implying that LtoR the 3 is a whole number, but RtoL it's a fraction. Those aren't the same equations. In other words, you're saying:
12/2 *3 =18
Then
1/3 * 12/2 = 2
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:48 am to ell_13
quote:It actually would work if the division is written as multiplying a fraction, similar to him turning subtraction into an addition problem.
addition and subtraction don't work the same as multiplication and division.
12/2*3
LtoR = 18
RtoL = 2
12*(1/2)*3 = 6*3 = 18
3*(1/2)*12 = (3/2)*12 = 18
Posted on 4/16/15 at 8:53 am to snoggerT
quote:Every number is a fraction, fwiw.
You're implying that LtoR the 3 is a whole number, but RtoL it's a fraction
There is no "implying" here. It's three whole numbers which, when worked one way, get one result and when worked the opposite way, get another.
quote:That's the whole damn point.
Those aren't the same equations
quote:Which is why syntax matters. Are you trolling?
12/2 *3 =18
Then
1/3 * 12/2 = 2
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 8:54 am
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:06 am to ell_13
quote:
Which is why syntax matters. Are you trolling?
- No, because you that's not how math works. If an equation is written properly, then it doesn't matter which way you go. You can't claim the equation shows a 3 one way and 1/3 the other, then it's not the same equation. I get that you're arguing syntax, but I guess that's my whole argument...if an equation is written properly, then it doesn't matter which way you go. So, maybe we're arguing the same thing?
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:10 am to ksayetiger
quote:They lied. Google and every other math system in the world will give you 288 with the equation as written. Some of the engineers in here, who are extremely smart, are trying to "assume" how the equation was supposed to be written. That is not logical. Solve the equation exactly as written, and it is 288 all day everyday. Here is the google proof
I did this and someones post on facebook said it was 48.
So I say 48.
Final answer, regis.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:11 am to buckeye_vol
quote:This this this this this. I have no idea why people arent just doing this
If using syntax with software like Maple, the problem can be written on clearer form, but since that is not he case, and there is no applied context, one should just solve what is in front of them.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:27 am to snoggerT
quote:OK think of it this way.
- No, because you that's not how math works. If an equation is written properly, then it doesn't matter which way you go. You can't claim the equation shows a 3 one way and 1/3 the other, then it's not the same equation. I get that you're arguing syntax, but I guess that's my whole argument...if an equation is written properly, then it doesn't matter which way you go. So, maybe we're arguing the same thing?
48*(1/2)(9+3) = 48*(1/2)(12) = 24(12) = 288
OR
(9+3)(1/2)*48 = (12)(1/2)*48 = 6*48 = 288
This post was edited on 4/16/15 at 9:28 am
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:34 am to snoggerT
quote:If you "want" to? Math isn't a fricking grab bag.
- what if you want to work right to left?
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:44 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
OK think of it this way.
48*(1/2)(9+3) = 48*(1/2)(12) = 24(12) = 288
OR
(9+3)(1/2)*48 = (12)(1/2)*48 = 6*48 = 288
- Well, that was my point. If written properly, an equation can be solved either way because the numbers are defined with an exact purpose in the equation. As long as you don't change that numbers purpose in the equation, you can solve it any way you want.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 9:56 am to snoggerT
quote:Yeah. I mean I think we can all agree that it could have been written to leave out any room to interpet it different. My point has been as written it comes to 288. 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.
- Well, that was my point. If written properly, an equation can be solved either way because the numbers are defined with an exact purpose in the equation. As long as you don't change that numbers purpose in the equation, you can solve it any way you want.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 10:17 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Yeah. I mean I think we can all agree that it could have been written to leave out any room to interpet it different. My point has been as written it comes to 288. 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.
I don't completely agree, because the way it is written isn't exactly defined, so it can be solved 2 ways and if you went RtoL, it's an all together different equation.
I asked my old calculus teacher his thoughts on it, and he said: "48/2(9+3) is ambiguous. one should write it either as (48/2)(9+3) or 48/(2(9+3)). "
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News