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.
lol geologists read logs not engineers, go back to school son
"Son", my brother was a petroleum engineer with Dresser for 30 years and free-lanced as a log analyst after retirement. He worked with geologists that worked at locating promising formations. At 67, it's probably a tad late for me to return to school. I already have all the degrees I need anyway, thanks. So, you're telling me that as a petroleum engineer you've never had to interpret a seismic log? What then do you do exactly? Sales engineer? Take prospective clients on deer hunts?
Fes up: I'm guessing you're probably still in school studying to be a Petroleum Engineer, taking the required geology, and don't really know as yet what a Petroleum Engineer actually does on the job.
"Son", my brother was a petroleum engineer with Dresser for 30 years and free-lanced as a log analyst after retirement. He worked with geologists that worked at locating promising formations. At 67, it's probably a tad late for me to return to school. I already have all the degrees I need anyway, thanks. So, you're telling me that as a petroleum engineer you've never had to interpret a seismic log? What then do you do exactly? Sales engineer? Take prospective clients on deer hunts?
Fess up: I'm guessing you're probably still in school studying to be a Petroleum Engineer, taking the required geology, and don't really know as yet what a Petroleum Engineer actually does on the job.
I feel for you, In my 2nd ½ century of life I am probably a bit long in the tooth to go back to school also. <G>
And here we are trying to educate some of these young puppies in something that we learned 45-57 years ago..
Gotta love this thread. Everyone who was taught a different convention from you is a moron, an idiot, a hopeless example of everything that is wrong about the education system, etc. The facts are that some people are indeed taught a different approach to solving these sorts of equations. The system that I was taught was that multiplication "attached" to parenthesis is carried out before other multiplication and division. Some people were apparently taught a strict left to right approach which leads to a different answer. Obviously the problem here is not that half the rest of the world is too stupid to do basic algebra, but that the expression is ambiguous and can be approached in different ways. The way to fix this is to add more parentheses so that it is clear which way it is intended to be solved, not to ridicule other people for having been taught a different approach than you.
Gotta love this thread. Everyone who was taught a different convention from you is a moron, an idiot, a hopeless example of everything that is wrong about the education system, etc. The facts are that some people are indeed taught a different approach to solving these sorts of equations. The system that I was taught was that multiplication "attached" to parenthesis is carried out before other multiplication and division. Some people were apparently taught a strict left to right approach which leads to a different answer. Obviously the problem here is not that half the rest of the world is too stupid to do basic algebra, but that the expression is ambiguous and can be approached in different ways. The way to fix this is to add more parentheses so that it is clear which way it is intended to be solved, not to ridicule other people for having been taught a different approach than you.
The problem in people's minds is expresseD as this
48
___ x(9+3)
2
vs
48
___
2(9+3)
The problem is within the actual writing of the equation, is it actually
2(9+3)
or (2(9+3))
The end result however, is after careful study of the problem, we must understand that due to not having a 2nd set of paren to encompass the 2*(9+3), that it is simple multiplication, and because multiplication carries the same weight as division, being the inverse to each other, have equal status in this equation. Since both have equal status, and neither are significant in having a paren to establish a precedence in order of operation, operation is performed from left to right.
we get 24(9+x) Now we find X=3, and the completion of the equation = 288.
The question of is it
48
___ x(9+3)
2
vs
48
___
2(9+3)
Is answered by the fact that there are no second paren, establishing that the 2*(9+3) has a higher order of precedence. Since it doesn't it has to be be performed left to right, Order of operation.
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.
In case you missed it, the first three links are to your posts where you adamantly say the answer is two - in response to your post that it's too ambiguous to solve.
Theeeeen, just pointing out your copy-pasta. Luckily I have a script that checks people's posts for copy-pasta and provides me a list of source websites (if applicable) so I didn't need to hunt it down.
Quite amusing that you'd use a Tripod-based website as fact, while refuting .edu websites.
The good thing is, anyone willing to actually read/comprehend will see that your "evidence" is a single website posting an opinion piece referencing a now-removed posting from the AMS that merely says what they do to make printing look pretty without rhyme or reason. Then of course, a horde of google results that point to this single opinion piece touting it as absolute fact.
Unless you can provide more links and not just copy-pasta thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
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.
First two, then ambiguous, then two. Are we flipping pancakes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli
The system that I was taught was that multiplication "attached" to parenthesis is carried out before other multiplication and division.
And here's the fun of the debate: People were taught different systems. You were taught the above method; I was taught strict order of operations. The thread shouldn't be about telling people they need a refund on their tuition, touting degrees and money as signs of intelligence, or "grading" each other's work.
It's in discussing why we were taught different conventions and actually understanding the concepts behind them.
So my question to you is simple: Why do you think you were taught to give multiplication attached to parenthesis a higher weight than other forms of multiplication.
So my question to you is simple: Why do you think you were taught to give multiplication attached to parenthesis a higher weight than other forms of multiplication.
Why do I think they taught it that way? I'd guess that it was the system used by the approved textbook. Why do you think?
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.
