http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2x%C3%B72x

2x/2x = 1

!= x^2

I'm so glad you decided to use wolframalpha.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29

It gives 288.

NAILED IT!

Nicely done!

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2x%C3%B72x

2x/2x = 1

!= x^2

I'm so glad you decided to use wolframalpha.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29

It gives 288.

NAILED IT!

Nicely done!

Either the machince is right or wrong. It cannot be both.

If you're going to use that as your proof you also have to accept the answers it gives.

You only need OoO to solve 48/2(9+3). you don't need to know or use anything else.

The fact that wolframalpha shows x/ab = x/(ab) is because of the use of variables. When you enter variables into the equation ab becomes a factor by itself. But that's not the case that's going on right now.

48/2(9+3) is the same thing as saying x(a+b) where x= 48/2, a=9, and b=3

It is NOT x/ab where x=48, a =2, and b=(9+3)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2Fa%28b%29

48/a(b)

= 2

The fact of the matter is that your assertion rests upon the assumption that implied multiplication doesn't exist.

your simplified equation does away with the ÷ making the problem have no denominator.

the most basic form of the equation is

x/a(b)

And as the above link demonstrates, wolfram spits out x/(ab)

Of course implied multiplication exists. You're just using it wrong. The implied multiplication is (48/2)(9+3) NOT 48/[2(9+3)]. Also the ÷ makes no difference.

See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%C3%B72%289%2B3%29

Still gives 288 which debunks all your nonsense about "/" and "÷" being different.

Also the most basic form of this equation is x(a+b) you don't need division.

Edited by rand0m#1596 on 6/12/2012 11:49 AM PDT

By the way, Sinew, care to post the highest math class you have completed?

Wolfram Alpha computes via programming language. Every programming language has slightly different input stipulations.

Just like there are languages that say -3^2=(-3)(-3) = 9, and some that say -3^2 = -(3*3) = -9 which is technically correct because its -1 * 3^2, for it to be 9 it would have to be (-3)^2. Just because of the way the programmer decided to incorporate a particular form of shorthand in a particular way to enhance user accessibility doesn't make it totally correct.

Unless he realized it was causing accuracy issues with this sort of situation and fixed it.

Because the straight up reality is:

x*y = y*x = x X y = y X x = (x)(y) = x(y) = (x)y = x OF y = y OF x = x dot y = y dot x

etc, etc

Notation doesn't matter. Multiplication is multiplication straight up

Unless he realized it was causing accuracy issues with this sort of situation and fixed it.

Because the straight up reality is:

x*y = y*x = x X y = y X x = (x)(y) = x(y) = (x)y = x OF y = y OF x = x dot y = y dot x

etc, etc

Notation doesn't matter. Multiplication is multiplication straight up

it's giving 288 becuase it is the correct answer.

06/12/2012 11:45 AMPosted by Grimravensinew and the rest of you fools who are getting an answer 2 - I feel bad for you, because on the math test, if you encounter similar problem and use the same logic as the one for getting 2 in this particular problem , you will all fail

huh... thats funny.. I remember getting A's in all three Calculus, Differential Equations, and Finite Mathematics... its not the level of math that you have taken to take into your point of view on this, its the way you have done all your life.

Was in joint comp sci/ psyc program up until 3rd year. Switched to cognitive science. Currently taking my MBA.

You can take a look at the calenders here for specifics regarding curriculum:

http://calendar.carleton.ca/undergrad/courses/

http://schulich.yorku.ca/client/schulich/Schulich_LP4W_LND_WebStation.nsf/page/MBA!OpenDocument

Not that this is relevant.

Well then, I am literally shocked. Perhaps the level of math is irrelevant to this problem...

Actually, I met stupid people even in higher level math classes, just not very often

Edited by Grimraven#1853 on 6/12/2012 12:16 PM PDT

By the way, Sinew, care to post the highest math class you have completed?

Was in joint comp sci/ psyc program up until 3rd year. Switched to cognitive science. Currently taking my MBA.

You can take a look at the calenders here for specifics regarding curriculum:

http://calendar.carleton.ca/undergrad/courses/

http://schulich.yorku.ca/client/schulich/Schulich_LP4W_LND_WebStation.nsf/page/MBA!OpenDocument

Not that this is relevant.Of course implied multiplication exists. You're just using it wrong. The implied multiplication is (48/2)(9+3) NOT 48/[2(9+3)]. Also the ÷ makes no difference.

See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%C3%B72%289%2B3%29

Still gives 288 which debunks all your nonsense about "/" and "÷" being different.

See my deconstruction of this on the first page. Implied multiplication happens at the parenthesis or where 2 values are beside each other with no sign... how does implied multiplication imply parenthesis around (48/2)

if this were true then:

2x/2x = (2x/2)x = 2*x ÷ 2 * x = x^2

Which.. is wrong

2x/2x = 1

I put the parenthesis around 48/2 to highlight that 48/2 is a factor by itself. by that I mean it is (9+3)'s coefficient. The implied mulitiplication is between (9+3) and it's coefficient, in this case 48/2.

Also if you were in comp. sci for the first 3 years you should have zero problems understanding what we have all been saying. Why did you switch majors may I ask?

Edited by rand0m#1596 on 6/12/2012 12:14 PM PDT

Yes, implied multiplication exists. It's denoted obviously by the parenthesis.

What I don't understand is where you people are getting that implied multiplication is a special type of multiplication.

By basic OoO, 48÷2*(9+3) = 288. So why would 48÷2(9+3) = 2? The multiplication is implied, so the * is essentially redundant, unneeded, but still has the same meaning when it's there.

There seem to be a group of people that think implied multiplication supercedes the laws of OoO, and is basically a super multiplication.

Implied multiplication is multiplication, implied by parenthesis. There is nothing in there that makes the multiplication able to defy logic.

Unless of course you're trolling. Then defying logic makes sense.

That's what we call bad form.

What I don't understand is where you people are getting that implied multiplication is a special type of multiplication.

By basic OoO, 48÷2*(9+3) = 288. So why would 48÷2(9+3) = 2? The multiplication is implied, so the * is essentially redundant, unneeded, but still has the same meaning when it's there.

There seem to be a group of people that think implied multiplication supercedes the laws of OoO, and is basically a super multiplication.

Implied multiplication is multiplication, implied by parenthesis. There is nothing in there that makes the multiplication able to defy logic.

Unless of course you're trolling. Then defying logic makes sense.

See my deconstruction of this on the first page. Implied multiplication happens at the parenthesis or where 2 values are beside each other with no sign... how does implied multiplication imply parenthesis around (48/2)

if this were true then:

2x/2x = (2x/2)x = 2*x ÷ 2 * x = x^2

Which.. is wrong

2x/2x = 1

That's what we call bad form.

Edited by SweetWilly#1217 on 6/12/2012 12:15 PM PDT

2x/2x = (2x/2)x = 2*x ÷ 2 * x = x^2

Which.. is wrong

2x/2x = 1

2x/2x is not equal to 1.

2x/2x = x^2

Edited by Grimraven#1853 on 6/12/2012 12:48 PM PDT

Threats of violence. **We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.**

Posts containing personal information about other players. **This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.**

Harassing or discriminatory language. **This will not be tolerated.**