Diablo® III

48÷2(9+3) = ? cont.

Posts: 125
The parentheses around (9+3) implies that 48/2 is a fraction and (9+3) is not a part of that fraction. If 9+3 was in the denominator it would be typed 48/[2(9+3)]. The parentheses frees it from the denominator and is used as a tool to put numbers back in the numerator, this is why the website gives 288.
Edited by Windscar#1524 on 6/12/2012 12:24 PM PDT
Reply Quote


2x/2x is not equal to 1.
2x/2x = 2x^2


either way you swing it 2 is cancelled. And the second conclusion is wrong (x^2). The parenthesis are not implied as:

(2x/2)x

they are implied as

(2x)/(2x)


(2x)/(2x) =/= 2x/2x

The parenthesis have meaning here. 2x/2x does not have parenthesis, there is no "assumed" parenthesis.
Reply Quote
Wolfram was programed to give priority to juxtaposed multiplication for simplicity purposes, so I'm not sure why it's giving 288. That doesn't make sense.

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.


Yeah I know that but it doesn't make sense with the way Wolfram|Alpha is programmed because the language it uses does (or maybe did?) give priority to juxtaposed multiplication. Not saying this is correct, just that this is how it was originally established. It may have changed since then. I do agree 288 is the correct answer.



2x/2x is not equal to 1.
2x/2x = 2x^2


either way you swing it 2 is cancelled. And the second conclusion is wrong (x^2). The parenthesis are not implied as:

(2x/2)x

they are implied as

(2x)/(2x)


Again, sir, your reasoning is fallacious. Technically, the terms are 2 * x / 2 * x which you would compute from left to right as order of operations dictates resulting in ((2x)*x)/2 which gives x^2. The reason some applications (or anyone in general) would think that 2x/2x=1 is simply for ease of entry in single line functions in that the fraction bar cannot properly express a multi-level expression like it would if you were to write it correctly, and so the / in place of the fraction bar generally carries with it implied parenthetic connotation for juxtaposed elements following the /. Again, this is not technically correct, this is just to facilitate user input, and is generally accepted when dealing with very specific and predefined equations like 1/dT (which should technically be written as 1/(dT)); or if, for example, I was to say m/s(s) you would probably take that as an expression for the metric unit for acceleration even though technically I would be saying (m*s)/s = m.

Just because people do it doesn't make it right.
Reply Quote
Posts: 125


either way you swing it 2 is cancelled. And the second conclusion is wrong (x^2). The parenthesis are not implied as:

(2x/2)x

they are implied as

(2x)/(2x)


(2x)/(2x) =/= 2x/2x

The parenthesis have meaning here. 2x/2x does not have parenthesis, there is no "assumed" parenthesis.
The entire value 2x is in the denominator in this case. If it wasn't it would be typed 2x/2(x). That would be the same as (2x)/2(x).
Reply Quote


(2x)/(2x) =/= 2x/2x

The parenthesis have meaning here. 2x/2x does not have parenthesis, there is no "assumed" parenthesis.
The entire value 2x is in the denominator in this case. If it wasn't it would be typed 2x/2(x). That would be the same as (2x)/2(x).


No, 2x is not the denominator. 2 is the denominator. There are no parenthesis denoting that 2x is a single term. For that to be correct the expression would have to be 2x/(2x) or (2x)/(2x). These minor math rule tricks (like order of operations) are the simplest ways to get students to bomb standardized testing, and are a major contributor to why someone who is generally proficient at math test terribly. It makes you want to think that since there is no separating operator, but a implicit = explicit as far as math operators are concerned.
Reply Quote
Posts: 125
The entire value 2x is in the denominator in this case. If it wasn't it would be typed 2x/2(x). That would be the same as (2x)/2(x).


No, 2x is not the denominator. 2 is the denominator. There are no parenthesis denoting that 2x is a single term. For that to be correct the expression would have to be 2x/(2x) or (2x)/(2x). These minor math rule tricks (like order of operations) are the simplest ways to get students to bomb standardized testing, and are a major contributor to why someone who is generally proficient at math test terribly. It makes you want to think that since there is no separating operator, but a implicit = explicit as far as math operators are concerned.
I see now why they made me take algebra 6 times, even though I aced it everytime. Just like how I said adding parentheses after a value is given in the denominator frees it from the denominator, the lack thereof includes variables that are together in the denominator.
Reply Quote
either way you swing it 2 is cancelled. And the second conclusion is wrong (x^2). The parenthesis are not implied as:

(2x/2)x

they are implied as

(2x)/(2x)


if you write it on paper you would write:

2x
__
2x

Then yes, that is equal to 1.
However, on these forums you have no way of doing so in a feasible manner, so you have to write it in line, such as (2x)/(2x) to make it absolutely clear that you mean

2x
__
2x

IF you write 2x/2x, then the order of operations read as following: 2 times x, divided by 2, multiplied by x which gives you x^2 ( I made a mistake in my previous post saying that it was 2x^2 and have corrected myself )
Edited by Grimraven#1853 on 6/12/2012 12:49 PM PDT
Reply Quote
I see now why they made me take algebra 6 times, even though I aced it everytime. Just like how I said adding parentheses after a value is given in the denominator frees it from the denominator, the lack thereof includes variables that are together in the denominator.


Now you're just trolling. The lack thereof does not include the x in the denominator. If you meant it to include it, then you're using bad form. What your advocating is implied division, which, if it existed, would be completely ambiguous with implied multiplication and wouldn't logically make sense.

(2x)/(2x) = 2x/2/x, 2x/2x does not imply the x is in the denominator.
Edited by SweetWilly#1217 on 6/12/2012 12:52 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 204
either way you swing it 2 is cancelled. And the second conclusion is wrong (x^2). The parenthesis are not implied as:

(2x/2)x

they are implied as

(2x)/(2x)


if you write it on paper you would write:

2x
__
2x

Then yes, that is equal to 1.
However, on these forums you have no way of doing so in a feasible manner, so you have to write it in line, such as (2x)/(2x) to make it absolutely clear that you mean

2x
__
2x

IF you write 2x/2x, then the order of operations read as following: 2 times x, divided by 2, multiplied by x which gives you x^2 ( I made a mistake in my previous post saying that it was 2x^2 and have corrected myself )


100% this.
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 12:55 PMPosted by Sinew
Implied multiplication takes precedence over multiplication and division.


Please show me a valid postulate, theorem, etc. that leads to this conclusion.

Also, you "evidence" assumes ease of input and not pure "logic."
Edited by SweetWilly#1217 on 6/12/2012 12:58 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 204
06/12/2012 12:56 PMPosted by SweetWilly
Implied multiplication takes precedence over multiplication and division.


Please show me a valid postulate, theorem, etc. that leads to this conclusion.


And not a program that someone has programmed to do it. As in some type of paper ect that has been shown, proven, and accepted in the math community. We'll be waiting because you won't find anything.
Reply Quote
Posts: 125
(2x)/(2x)=2x/2x

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2x%2F2x

see for yourself you get 1. Are you guys aliens or something? Trying to translate our mathmatical form? I don't see how anyone that has done mathmatics here on Earth could think 2x/2x would not equal 1.
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 12:55 PMPosted by Sinew
48/xb != 48 ÷ x * b


again if you wrote

48
___
xb

then yeah that is not equal to 48 ÷ x * b

However, you write 48/xb, which reads as: 48 divided by x, multiplied by b, in turn that is the same as

48b
___
x
Reply Quote
And not a program that someone has programmed to do it. As in some type of paper ect that has been shown, proven, and accepted in the math community. We'll be waiting because you won't find anything.


Exactly, WolframAlpha was designed for ease of use. User friendly. So of course it's going to assume by 2x/2x you meant 2x/(2x).
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 01:00 PMPosted by Sinew
Why should I repeat myself if you are unwilling to read.


Oh, I read your post in full, and did not find one shred of valid evidence proving your point. Try again.
Edited by SweetWilly#1217 on 6/12/2012 1:02 PM PDT
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 01:01 PMPosted by SweetWilly
Exactly, WolframAlpha was designed for ease of use. User friendly. So of course it's going to assume by 2x/2x you meant 2x/(2x).


Correct. Using WolframAlpha to prove yourself is invalid way of doing so.
Reply Quote
Posts: 103
The fact that people are still trying to argue that this answer is 2, is just idiotic.
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 01:06 PMPosted by iPhobia
The fact that people are still trying to argue that this answer is 2, is just idiotic.


oh I know, we are just trying to fight the stupid, that's all
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

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.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]