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.
Well isn't that interesting. Going from a stark "itis2" to "It's ambiguous" in one post flat. How peculiar.
Also, links are easier to read than a badly done copy and paste from here and here.
The former being an opinion pieces with a single reference point for juxtaposition > regular multiplication and the response being "never heard of that before". Yet with that, something interesting caught my eye. There are numerous claims of "multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division" referencing a single publishing of the AMS - with no rhyme or reasoning as to why they place a form of multiplication higher than others... other than "it looks prettier when printed".
Well looky looky, there are links. So we have web sites expressing opposing opinions. Hence the YEC website's opinion analogy. Still no 'official' ruling body.
Quote:
Either way, this is the full statement regarding juxtaposition:
So we're back to exactly where we started: Juxtaposition/implied multiplication/"distributive property of multiplication" and where it sits in regards to the Order of Operations. The way I see it "all multiplication is multiplication with equal weight" because additional "except in cases where x,y, and z, then you do this" clauses for math seems like a silly idea. This is Math, not poetry. Strict Order of Operations with no wiggle room makes the most sense to me.
Yes, to you, I have know that all a long. As for me I'll stick with two. It's a better convention. I think you are getting it.
You do that. Pray you never get audited. If you're having an issue performing simple math, then I am sure doing your taxes is far more complex, unless you have hired someone else. If so, ask them to solve this equation for you.
Refer to the Chemical Engineer who posted earlier,
Quote:
I had to think on this one, but my first thought was "Easy its 2". Then looking at the comments, 288 is correct. The contents of the parentheses come first, then multiplication/division left to right. Full disclosure: Graduate and Employed as a Chemical Engineer.
You do that. Pray you never get audited. If you're having an issue performing simple math, then I am sure doing your taxes is far more complex, unless you have hired someone else. If so, ask them to solve this equation for you.
Refer to the Chemical Engineer who posted earlier,
Why would you say I am having an issue with simple math? Are you trying insults? Since I am not, I probably would not need to refer to the Chem E. Reread my post above. It discusses the two divergent conventions and the poorly written form of the equation, constructed soley for the purposes of exploiting the two conventions in one expression. That was my contention near the beginning of this thread. I would simply rewrite the equation to remove the ambiguity.
Why would you say I am having an issue with simple math? Are you trying insults? Since I am not, I probably would not need to refer to the Chem E. Reread my post above. It discusses the two divergent conventions and the poorly written form of the equation, constructed soley for the purposes of exploiting the two conventions in one expression. That was my contention near the beginning of this thread. I would simply rewrite the equation to remove the ambiguity.
I said it because I consider it simple Math. No insult was intended. Someone showed it to me yesterday and I provided the correct answer in about ½ second.
The proof that 1=2 utilizing the sum and dif squared/ but relying on the equal division by zero on both sides of the equation is a lot more difficult and actually garnered a 2 week discussion in my math concept class back in the 70's, and required algebra MUCH more involved than this simple equation.
More serious math was a defined function with multi dimensioned variables while programming a hard drive secure access system with three pass encryption for C2 classified computers in the military.
Whether or not the equation is written poorly or not, divergent conventions notwithstanding, it's still simple math when all is said and done. Perform the addition inside the paren, and perform the rest if the equation step by step, from left to right.
You do that. Pray you never get audited. If you're having an issue performing simple math, then I am sure doing your taxes is far more complex, unless you have hired someone else. If so, ask them to solve this equation for you.
Refer to the Chemical Engineer who posted earlier,
i hold a masters and bachelors degree in petroleum engineering and have a 800/800 score in GRE quant and i can tell you the answer is 2, thank you.
I guess wolframalpha is wrong as well? It says the answer is 288..... oh wait it is 288. It sure can help me when I get stuck on my Calculus III homework but I'm supposed to believe that it's incorrect with basic algebra? lmao
Last edited by GunnerTHB; 09-26-2011 at 09:10 PM..
no thanks my millions as a petroleum engineer mean i dont need small change back.
and yea the correct answer is 2, sorry to shatter your world view
Please let me know which company's seismic logs you're reading so I can make sure I don't own any of their stock...
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.
