Diablo® III

48÷2(9+3) = ? cont.

Posts: 1,324


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.


Huh?

I don't know what you're talking about. The thing I'm referring to isn't an abstract of a journal article, it's a guideline for submission for articles for AMS's journal.
Reply Quote
Unless 48÷2(9+3) suddenly became a problem of Lie algebra than you assume standard ma thematic conventions which means associate operators which means order of operations which means 288.

All I see are people trolling each other and I have yet to single a single response to anything I've provided disproving the possibility of "2" being an answer.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Hunter
10420
Posts: 1,216
Yo, what's the multiplicative inverse of 2? 0.5 right?

So 48÷2(9+3) = 48*0.5(9+3) = 24(9+3) = 288

holy !@#$

Now someone prove why it's wrong to do that if you're assuming 48÷2(9+3) = 2

this is an exercise guys
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324
2x/3y = 1/3
4x/3y = 2/3

There is no way any practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) sees the above, and thinks the solution is anything other than x=1 and y=2.

This I maintain would be true even if the '/'s to the left of the '='s were replaced with division symbols.

Anyone who can produce a verified practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) who contradicts me here gets a very special and incredible boon from me: An admission of defeat.

There are at least a few dozen practicing mathematicians at various universities in the US and Europe. Perhaps a few elsewhere, even. Should be easy to contact a few... Surely at least one will be willing to go on the record.
Reply Quote
Posts: 126
06/12/2012 02:03 PMPosted by Grimraven
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?
No, I just decided that (a) times (b) would be the same as (a) times (b) and then if you divided that number by itself you would get 1. So in effect I solved every possible value that could have been put into that equation in my head all at the same time, just to impress you simpletons. If you don't have your calculator on scientific mode or have a scientific calculator you will not get that same answer. I suggest you start out by tring numbers that are evenly divisible by each other.
Reply Quote


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.


Huh?

I don't know what you're talking about. The thing I'm referring to isn't an abstract of a journal article, it's a guideline for submission for articles for AMS's journal.


It is very explicitly stated that you only assign preferential order to like modifiers when dealing with nonassociative products, as you would in loop algebra, programming, or Lie algebra. You do not do this as a general rule of mathematics. The convention, when dealing with nonassociative products (which is a very, very extreme and unique case, 99% of the time you're dealing with associative products) is to treat implied multiplication as having precedence over explicit (dot) multiplication. That's not an all-the-time rule.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324
Yo, what's the multiplicative inverse of 2? 0.5 right?

So 48÷2(9+3) = 48*0.5(9+3) = 24(9+3) = 288

holy !@#$

Now someone prove why it's wrong to do that if you're assuming 48÷2(9+3) = 2

this is an exercise guys


Wait, earlier you seemed to be taking an admirably neutral stance here, advocating for the view that it's a mere notational dispute and that's all that needs be said.

Of course the reply against your post quoted above is that it's illicit to replace "divided by 2" with "times 0.5" as you did, since on the way of reading the expression that you disagree with, nothing is being divided by two.
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 02:09 PMPosted by Windscar
No, I just decided that (a) times (b) would be the same as (a) times (b) and then


STOP!
so in other words you didn't do what I suggested. Your opinion is mute.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324

It is very explicitly stated that you only assign preferential order to like modifiers when dealing with nonassociative products, as you would in loop algebra, programming, or Lie algebra. You do not do this as a general rule of mathematics. The convention, when dealing with nonassociative products (which is a very, very extreme and unique case, 99% of the time you're dealing with associative products) is to treat implied multiplication as having precedence over explicit (dot) multiplication. That's not an all-the-time rule.


Lemme go check, brb.
Reply Quote
2x/3y = 1/3
4x/3y = 2/3

There is no way any practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) sees the above, and thinks the solution is anything other than x=1 and y=2.

This I maintain would be true even if the '/'s to the left of the '='s were replaced with division symbols.

Anyone who can produce a verified practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) who contradicts me here gets a very special and incredible boon from me: An admission of defeat.

There are at least a few dozen practicing mathematicians at various universities in the US and Europe. Perhaps a few elsewhere, even. Should be easy to contact a few... Surely at least one will be willing to go on the record.


I already did, but here it is again:

I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.
The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.
6÷2(3)
(6) ÷(2)(3)
6÷2*3,
or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)
(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)
are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or
3*3= 9

Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.

The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:
(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))
From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.

If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.

HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.

Once and for all, the answer is 9.

Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.

End of debate... hopefully.
Source(s):
Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.


Different numbers, same principle.

EDIT: In case you're rusty on associative properties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property
Edited by Mayde#1748 on 6/12/2012 2:14 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324
The link I provided on page two (http://web.archive.org/web/20011201061315/http://www.ams.org/authors/guide-reviewers.html) doesn't contain the string "associ" in it according to Internet Explorer.

Are you sure you're reading the document I linked to and not something else?
Reply Quote
2x/3y = 1/3
4x/3y = 2/3

There is no way any practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) sees the above, and thinks the solution is anything other than x=1 and y=2.

This I maintain would be true even if the '/'s to the left of the '='s were replaced with division symbols.

Anyone who can produce a verified practicing mathematician (recognized as such by his peers) who contradicts me here gets a very special and incredible boon from me: An admission of defeat.

There are at least a few dozen practicing mathematicians at various universities in the US and Europe. Perhaps a few elsewhere, even. Should be easy to contact a few... Surely at least one will be willing to go on the record.


I already did, but here it is again:

I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.
The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.
6÷2(3)
(6) ÷(2)(3)
6÷2*3,
or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)
(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)
are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or
3*3= 9

Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.

The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:
(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))
From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.

If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.

HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.

Once and for all, the answer is 9.

Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.

End of debate... hopefully.
Source(s):
Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.


Different numbers, same principle.

EDIT: In case you're rusty on associative properties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property


excellent post, thank you!
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324
Not a verified PhD in math. And I suspect it's not real as he says some things that appear plainly false independently of the present dispute.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Hunter
10420
Posts: 1,216
Wait, earlier you seemed to be taking an admirably neutral stance here, advocating for the view that it's a mere notational dispute and that's all that needs be said.

Of course the reply against your post quoted above is that it's illicit to replace "divided by 2" with "times 0.5" as you did, since on the way of reading the expression that you disagree with, nothing is being divided by two.


!@#$

I suck at math trolling what can I say
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Hunter
10420
Posts: 1,216
-4² = -16
Reply Quote
The link I provided on page two (http://web.archive.org/web/20011201061315/http://www.ams.org/authors/guide-reviewers.html) doesn't contain the string "associ" in it according to Internet Explorer.

Are you sure you're reading the document I linked to and not something else?


I am just providing information about when it is appropriate to use preferential operators (which you have to define if you plan on doing). I thought the loop algebra abstract was what you were referring to, since he says he will use that convention for convenience purposes.

Read the context of your article very carefully. It very explicitly states they linearize simple formulas to reduce production and printing costs by avoiding unnecessary quotation. Saying that they consider x/y(z) = (x)/(y*z) simply because the reduced quotation (read: parenthetic notation) equates to reduced production and printing costs. That's why. Again, it's a convenience thing and something you have to clearly define.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,324
Actually, I misread him, so I no longer think he said anything plainly false. (Still not quite sure what he means when he says the fraction bar is equal in rank with parentheses though, tbh.)

But AFAIK the poster has not been verified as a practicing mathematician, and has not been asked about the system of equations I mentioned (ideally independently of prompts concerning the present dispute of course, as my claim is about what mathematicians' trained instincts prompt them to do on the spot).
Reply Quote
06/12/2012 02:19 PMPosted by Kennyloggins
-4² = -16


I bet you that "2" camp thinks it should be 16, lol
Reply Quote
Posts: 126
I will give you guys a hint if you have abcdefg/gfedcba you can just mark all of them out and say it is one... Maybe some of you college professors have forgot about this one...
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]