Diablo® III

48÷2(9+3) = ? cont.

Posts: 1,318
06/12/2012 01:47 PMPosted by random

That's right. That is why you should be adhering to the standard convention that juxtaposed multiplications take precedence over divisions and other multiplications.

Too bad that is NOT the standard convention. Everyone that has been saying this has yet to provide evidence of such.

I gave evidence on page two of this thread--the American Mathematical Society adheres to just such a convention.
Posts: 354
View profile
06/12/2012 01:46 PMPosted by Speusippus
That's right. That is why you should be adhering to the standard convention that juxtaposed multiplications take precedence over divisions and other multiplications.

Why not just use proper form and use parenthesis instead?
Posts: 903
View profile
This boils down to simply what is "accepted" and what is "correct." For the general masses, assumed operations are generally sufficient. But you're still wrong. For a mathematician, there is one very, very specific way to do things, and people that don't play by the rules drive us nuts.

It's like people who say "irregardless". Or "unthaw". They're not words, they don't make sense, but they are so prevalent in colloquial usage that the general populace has come to accept them. Doesn't make it right.
90 Worgen Hunter
10420
Posts: 1,214
06/12/2012 01:47 PMPosted by random

That's right. That is why you should be adhering to the standard convention that juxtaposed multiplications take precedence over divisions and other multiplications.

Too bad that is NOT the standard convention. Everyone that has been saying this has yet to provide evidence of such.

Are you religious? This is relevant.
Posts: 126
Who are you guys kidding? I couldn't even teach you how to cheat correctly. You should all just drop out and let someone that has better understanding of math than a 10 year old take your place. I never had any trouble with order of operations untill now, reading this thread will only confuse people about the proper way to do it. I see why they allowed the use of calculators, you couldn't even get the right answer using one anyways. Have fun paying all the college expenses when you get fired the moment you argue this to your boss.

If you think (ab)/(ab) is any different than ab/ab then there is just no hope for you or any way to explain it differently. If your going to cheat your way through life trust your calculator, if not stop playing diablo and do your homework!
Posts: 354
View profile
Who are you guys kidding? I couldn't even teach you how to cheat correctly. You should all just drop out and let someone that has better understanding of math than a 10 year old take your place. I never had any trouble with order of operations untill now, reading this thread will only confuse people about the proper way to do it. I see why they allowed the use of calculators, you couldn't even get the right answer using one anyways. Have fun paying all the college expenses when you get fired the moment you argue this to your boss.

If you think (ab)/(ab) is any different than ab/ab then there is just no hope for you or any way to explain it differently. If your going to cheat your way through life trust your calculator, if not stop playing diablo and do your homework!

Are you done trolling yet?
Posts: 1,318
Just to match anecdote with anecdote, multiple math teachers have explicitly told me that when you multiply by juxtaposition, you treat the multiplicands as though they had a pair of parentheses around them. I've always done this, and I have always been very good at math and received A's in all my math coursework. You guys are saying you're good at math and do it your way--but this holds little force for me becuse I've always done it my way and I'm good at math.
Posts: 2,020
View profile
06/12/2012 01:52 PMPosted by Windscar
If you think (ab)/(ab) is any different than ab/ab

then use your calculator on your computer and verify this by using numbers in place of a and b
then come back here and tell me (ab)/(ab) is equal to ab/ab

I will be waiting
Posts: 16
View profile
ok so for everyone that thinks 2/4 is any different than 2 divided by 4 then you need to grow up and get past 2nd grde. They showed you how to divide to prepare you to the future of fractions and fractions is what is shown in any other level math.
90 Worgen Hunter
10420
Posts: 1,214
The 288 camp are seriously daft.

sin2x != 2sinx

Actually sin(2x) = 2sin(x) whenever x = nπ where n is an integer
Posts: 204

Too bad that is NOT the standard convention. Everyone that has been saying this has yet to provide evidence of such.

I gave evidence on page two of this thread--the American Mathematical Society adheres to just such a convention.

"Formulas. You can help us to reduce production and printing costs by avoiding excessive or unnecessary quotation of complicated formulas. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display

$${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$
is likely to be converted to
$(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt$
in our production process. "

You should quote the whole thing. They do that to reduce production and printing costs . This has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The only reason their code does this is to simplify the process of their code and thus save money. This does not mean it is a standard among mathematicians. Taking sentences out of context is fun ya?
Posts: 354
View profile
06/12/2012 01:55 PMPosted by Speusippus
Just to match anecdote with anecdote, multiple math teachers have explicitly told me that when you multiply by juxtaposition, you treat the multiplicands as though they had a pair of parentheses around them. I've always done this, and I have always been very good at math and received A's in all my math coursework. You guys are saying you're good at math and do it your way--but this holds little force for me becuse I've always done it my way and I'm good at math.

To each their own, but thank you for providing good debating points.

The 288 camp are seriously daft.

sin2x != 2sinx

Sin is something where parenthesis are pretty much required. If you don't include them, you're doing everyone trying to read it a disfavor.
Posts: 903
View profile

Too bad that is NOT the standard convention. Everyone that has been saying this has yet to provide evidence of such.

I gave evidence on page two of this thread--the American Mathematical Society adheres to just such a convention.

AHHHHHHH YOU'RE WRONG!

The "convention" you claim it adheres to you pulled out of an abstract about alternative loop algebra in which the author states juxtaposition will take precedence over dot multiplication for the purpose of CONVENIENCE to denote the order of multiplication in a NONASSOCIATIVE PRODUCT.

ABSTRACT.

JOURNAL.

LOOP ALGEBRA.

CONVENIENCE.

NONASSOCIATIVE PRODUCT.

This isn't a !@#$%^- discussion about loop algebra and nonassociative products. This is a basic math equation following the fundamental laws of mathematics, and adheres to the associative property. WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG. Stop trying to look smart by spreading false information. Posts: 2,020 View profile 06/12/2012 01:56 PMPosted by chefm123 ok so for everyone that thinks 2/4 is any different than 2 divided by 4 no one is disagreeing with you on that one The issue appears when you involve more operations such as 2*3/4*5 which is not equal to (2*3)/(4*5) Like I wrote in my earlier post, there will not be any confusion on paper because you will just write (2*3)/(4*5) as 2*3 ___ 4*5 but on forums we don't normally write it that way, that's why clarification is needed. Try doing it on your calculator and you will see that 2*3/4*5 will not give you the same result as 2*3 ___ 4*5 Posts: 126 06/12/2012 01:55 PMPosted by Grimraven If you think (ab)/(ab) is any different than ab/ab then use your calculator on your computer and verify this by using numbers in place of a and b then come back here and tell me (ab)/(ab) is equal to ab/ab I will be waiting I got 1, what did you get? Looks over at your paper.... Anything divided by itself is equal to 1, you shouldn't get anything other than that, if you are you are doing it wrong! You need to turn your calculator on scientific mode, it has two settings! Posts: 903 View profile The 288 camp are seriously daft. sin2x != 2sinx TECHNICALLY sin2x = xsin2, but that's a whole different discussion entirely. If you don't write sin(2x), then you're saying xsin2. But whatever. Posts: 2,020 View profile I got 1, what did you get? Looks over at your paper.... Anything divided by itself is equal to 1, you shouldn't get anything other than that, if you are you are doing it wrong! You need to turn your calculator on scientific mode, it has two settings! okay, let's break it down, what numbers did you use instead of a and b? did you do both of them? ab/ab and (ab)/(ab) Did you use your windows calculator on your computer? Posts: 1,318 I gave evidence on page two of this thread--the American Mathematical Society adheres to just such a convention. "Formulas. You can help us to reduce production and printing costs by avoiding excessive or unnecessary quotation of complicated formulas. We linearize simple formulas, using the rule that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. For example, your TeX-coded display $${1\over{2\pi i}}\int_\Gamma {f(t)\over (t-z)}dt$$ is likely to be converted to$(1/2\pi i)\int_\Gamma f(t)(t-z)^{-1}dt\$
in our production process. "
You should quote the whole thing. They do that to reduce production and printing costs . This has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The only reason their code does this is to simplify the process of their code and thus save money. This does not mean it is a standard among mathematicians. Taking sentences out of context is fun ya?

So you think they just pulled the convention they use out of thin air?

I wasn't intentionally taking anything out of context--the "context" you provide does not appear to me to be relevant.
Posts: 204
Lol these guys are great stating math that's incorrect and quoting things out of context. Anyway I'm done with it. You guys keep thinking the answer is 2 doesn't change the fact that its wrong.

48/2(9+3) = 288

done.

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.

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

[Close]