Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you are here with all the rest of the peons to add yet one more post to "the friggin pages." Ironic!
Everyone slows to watch a train wreck...
What outcome do you want, do you think you have any chance of getting that outcome, how can you best accomplish that? This thread is more like watching a husband/wife team with a car stuck in the mud. "Forward!" "NO, Backward!"
I said it before, the form is sloppy. It may be correct, but it doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. If I write a manual, and I say "Insert flibberjibber 42 in blahblah 27, but before that remember to remove the case on the flibberjibber" I have set up a situation where the people reading my manual will have correct instructions, but if they didn't remember on their own to remove the case on the flibberjibber, or read through the entire manual first, they will have a problem. The math problem, the way it is written, expects the reader to remember an arcane rule, when the problem can easily be written more simply and clearly so that EVERYONE gets it on the first try.
A mathematician might consider himself smart for knowing the arcane rule. In business, such intentional obtuseness would get him fired. Along the way, his boss would call him a smartoss and other epithets.
What outcome do you want, do you think you have any chance of getting that outcome, how can you best accomplish that? This thread is more like watching a husband/wife team with a car stuck in the mud. "Forward!" "NO, Backward!"
I said it before, the form is sloppy. It may be correct, but it doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. If I write a manual, and I say "Insert flibberjibber 42 in blahblah 27, but before that remember to remove the case on the flibberjibber" I have set up a situation where the people reading my manual will have correct instructions, but if they didn't remember on their own to remove the case on the flibberjibber, or read through the entire manual first, they will have a problem. The math problem, the way it is written, expects the reader to remember an arcane rule, when the problem can easily be written more simply and clearly so that EVERYONE gets it on the first try.
A mathematician might consider himself smart for knowing the arcane rule. In business, such intentional obtuseness would get him fired. Along the way, his boss would call him a smartoss and other epithets.
I agree...it is not apparent at first...however, if you set the equation to x there is no debate!
All you have shown is that you get 288 if you follow pemdas, and 2 if you do it the way that looks right visually. That doesn't make the latter correct.
In your example of 48 ÷ 2x, that's 48/2x, which translates to 48 halves times x. Just how 1/2x = 0.5x.
Your entire unit/base/qty thing of 1+1=3 is not related to this at all. That's just examples of someone who doesn't understand math at all. Atleast here, people who are getting 2, have a general understanding of math, but are making a simple mistake.
You are correct with the above, however, I don't think you are seeing it the other way. Yes, if you need to know the quantity of 48 halves multiplied by x, then you are correct. All I am saying is that it can be viewed in another light. And that is if you need to find the quantity of how many times the product of 2 times x can go into 48.
It all boils down to what you are trying to quantify, and the best way to go about it. Which, depending on what/how you are trying to quantify something, would dictate how you write the equation.
As I said, math is a philosphy, and there was a point in time many centuries ago when mathematicians were philosophers and artists. While there are hard-fast rules, when it comes to using mathematical equations, there are times when more than one method can be applied.
My 1+1 does not equal 2 was geared towards Charles, and it's point was that if think abstractly, the answer is not 2.
I could have used the more classical example of how 1=0.999999.....but figured my examples would be easier to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcity
This is simply not the case. Show any higher-level math textbook or college course materials that prove it. Higher-level math still uses the basic building blocks of algebra (P,then E, then M/D, then A/S).
My example is enough. supposedly
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangles
(48 ÷ 2) *(9+3)
or
48 ÷ (2 (9+3))
both will obviously give different results. As sun zu said, if people get the question wrong, one must question how clear the directions were. your directions were, frankly, awful. State the question correctly and maybe people will get it.
(I have a masters in engineering)
So, this is what I am talking about. Or tried to, anyways. This problem posed by the OP is a meme that is making the rounds on many Internet forums, including physics, engineering and computer programing forums. Those who "argue" that the answer is 288, cite your top example as the reason, while those who say it is 2, cite the bottom example. I don't put much stock into what people claim to be on the Internet (not suggesting that you do not hold a Masters in Engineering...but I will never know), but supposedly this meme is being argued by people with advanced courses in math.
And, as the OP mentioned, even the person with the Math Ph.D. and dozens of engineers say the answer is 2.
Which is why the answer is both 2 and 288 depending on how you read the equation.
So, this is what I am talking about. Or tried to, anyways. This problem posed by the OP is a meme that is making the rounds on many Internet forums, including physics, engineering and computer programing forums. Those who "argue" that the answer is 288, cite your top example as the reason, while those who say it is 2, cite the bottom example. I don't put much stock into what people claim to be on the Internet (not suggesting that you do not hold a Masters in Engineering...but I will never know), but supposedly this meme is being argued by people with advanced courses in math.
And, as the OP mentioned, even the person with the Math Ph.D. and dozens of engineers say the answer is 2.
Which is why the answer is both 2 and 288 depending on how you read the equation.
PEMDAS be dammed!
I totally agree with you too.
The OP didn’t prove how dumb people are, he proved that if a question is ambiguous, you shall get different answers. If you follow order of operations, something we learned in 3rd grade, you’ll get 288. Its not rocket science. However, if you opt to use some operators, than leave others out, you are opening yourself up to the variety in answers that was observe. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. He wanted to prove that people smarter than he could be dumber..
The opening to sun zu’s art of war ( the one I read) - Sun zu was called upon to train a fighting battalion of women. When he arrived, he told these women commands, stances and the like. For the most part , they didn’t listen or take him seriously. Some laughed. Sun zu did not blame them for it, and instead looked at himself and said ‘ if the army does not follow commands, it is the fault of the commander for being unclear’. He then proceeded to cut off one of the heads of the women, and then the fell in line. ‘If the directions are clear and they do not follow them, than it is the fault of the army’ . Suffice to say, he was clear and they followed him perfectly.
All the OP did was ask an unclear question. It is not the fault of the people answering.
I wonder if we really put a man on the moon? How could we have possible done this?
My guess is that the men responsible for putting their colleague on the moon were more interested in writing formulas in such a way that they would not be easily misinterpreted than in proving how everyone else is a rube for misinterpreting a poorly written expression.
Oh and by the way Mr. I'm Smarter Than You Simpletons Who Think The Answer is Two.... it's "possibly," not "possible."
Even when you have addition and multiplication the order of operations applies.
You do multiplications and divisions before additions and subtractions. I taught Algebra.
Good grief! Are you trying to tell me that 5 + 10*3 does not equal 35. It does.
Perhaps you misread what I was saying? You always do multiplication and division first from left to right.
I agree with YOUR problem too.
I was giving examples of ways to be wrong as well as the correct ways to solve the problems I showed.
Read it again, apparently you didnt understand...
5+10*3= 35, left to right rule only applies when you have more then one multiplication and divisions, and when you have multiple addition and subtractions
I'm confused...I could have sworn 6*5 was multiplication...well that's what I learned in elementary school.
Do you even see of what a I am talking about...
The quote is right above it...
Quote:
Here's another 15 + 45/3 - 6*5
If you go left to right, you get 60/3 - 30 or 20 - 30 = -10 which is wrong.
If you do the order of operations, you get 15 + 15 - 30 = 30 - 30 = 0 which is correct.
here you start by the division first,
15+15-6*5,
Then 15+15-30
then you add left to right
30-30, result 0
Clearly I am talking about the equation of 15+45/3-6*5
here you start by the division...
Maybe going back to school is a good choice...
Please read of the whole post before you just pic a small part and opinion on it...
Left to right rule here applies ....
5+10*3*5=
5+30*5=
5+150=
155
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
