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.
There's hundreds of posts saying it's 2 and hundreds of posts saying it's 288. At this point, you must do more than simply state your answer, but also support it.
Well, my calculus teacher and my mathematical concepts teacher would both disagree.
Interesting enough, even the google calculator comes up with 288.
You see multiplication and division, being the inverse of each other have equal priority.
Since both are equal in priority, the proper execution of the problem takes place from left to right, with the sole exception of the addition which are in the paren, and is accomplished before the multiplication is accomplished.
Maybe if you took less time attempting to insult your betters, and stuck to utilizing proper technique, you wouldn't end up becoming the object of the idiom, "It's better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt".
Well, my calculus teacher and my mathematical concepts teacher would both disagree.
Interesting enough, even the google calculator comes up with 288.
You see multiplication and division, being the inverse of each other have equal priority.
Since both are equal in priority, the proper execution of the problem takes place from left to right, with the sole exception of the addition which are in the paren, and is accomplished before the multiplication is accomplished.
Maybe if you took less time attempting to insult your betters, and stuck to utilizing proper technique, you wouldn't end up becoming the object of the idiom, "It's better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt".
I like that they explained why people get the answer 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
You don't know convention.
Noticing a trend here where you claim others are wrong without reference or source material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcsteiner
Actually, I think a classic infix to postfix conversion program (pushing operators and operands on a stack and popping them off in the correct order) would arrive at 288. Operations inside parenthesis are performed first as the closing paren is popped off the stack. Multiplication and division are equal in priority. Standard parsing and resolution is left to right.
It's an interesting puzzle, tho, and shows why ambiguity can cause issues for even "simple" problems.
Oh wait...
It's too late in the day. I punt. It might be 2. I need to write the code in several languages and see how they handle it.
The presence or absence of an implied multiplication is the turning point. I was always taught that a number adjacent to a right paren was implied multiplication, but a calculator generally needs explicit operators to be specified, so a lot will depend on how the parser is coded.
The usage of implied multiplication and its weight in regards to the Order of Operations is the biggest issue. If you code the implied multiplication to have more weight than standard multiplication eg 5 * x versus 5x, then the result will be two. But if you code all multiplication - implied or explicit - to have the exact same weight, the result will be that it completes the division first.
For giggles, I ran both methods side-by-side (implicit > explicit and implicit = explicit) through C#, VB.Net, and PERL. The former gets the answer of "2", the latter gets "288".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
There's hundreds of posts saying it's 2 and hundreds of posts saying it's 288. At this point, you must do more than simply state your answer, but also support it.
Pretty much. Simply stating that somebody is wrong or "grading" their work, more people should look at actually supporting their argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
As much as a blog. Got to admit, they had pretty graphics. But it is still 2.
Good thing I can provide links to support my argument all day long.
When you have a bunch of operations of the same rank, you just operate from left to right. For instance, 15 ÷ 3 × 4 is not 15 ÷ 12, but is rather 5 × 4, because, going from left to right, you get to the division first.
I like that they explained why people get the answer 2.
Noticing a trend here where you claim others are wrong without reference or source material.
The usage of implied multiplication and its weight in regards to the Order of Operations is the biggest issue. If you code the implied multiplication to have more weight than standard multiplication eg 5 * x versus 5x, then the result will be two. But if you code all multiplication - implied or explicit - to have the exact same weight, the result will be that it completes the division first.
For giggles, I ran both methods side-by-side (implicit > explicit and implicit = explicit) through C#, VB.Net, and PERL. The former gets the answer of "2", the latter gets "288".
Pretty much. Simply stating that somebody is wrong or "grading" their work, more people should look at actually supporting their argument.
Good thing I can provide links to support my argument all day long.
I could send you links that say the earth is only 6000 years old. So what? It doesn't really matter if they are wrong. Allthough, they do have some very pretty pictures, and even some "science teachers" that say the earth is only 6000 years old. But it still doesn't hold any weight.
I could send you links that say the earth is only 6000 years old. So what? It doesn't really matter if they are wrong.
> Claims "They are wrong"
> Sites are about Order of Operations
Do you, by chance, have any evidence or links of your own to show how the Order of Operations listed in these websites is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
Allthough, they do have some very pretty pictures,
> Looks at pictures
> Doesn't read lessons
Whelp. Now we know the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
and even some "science teachers" that say the earth is only 6000 years old. But it still doesn't hold any weight.
Yet another claim with no evidence. ((For those who can't be bothered to click the link, it's a google search of "earth 6000 years old" with a limit for .edu sites. The hits shown are discussing the concept as something that some people "believe", not science teachers actually teaching it as a fact))
Seven Dolphin Twelve equals?
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 09-26-2011 at 08:03 AM..
I could send you links that say the earth is only 6000 years old. So what? It doesn't really matter if they are wrong. Allthough, they do have some very pretty pictures, and even some "science teachers" that say the earth is only 6000 years old. But it still doesn't hold any weight.
There is a difference between people saying the earth is 6000 years old, and proof that the earth is 6000 years old. We know from carbon dating the earth is in fact much older.
There is however proof and explanations behind the proof concerning the solution of this equation. I guess it's easier to kvetch that no one else knows what they are talking about than it is to learn why the answer you provided is inaccurate.
Quit trolling.
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.
It might be 2. I need to write the code in several languages and see how they handle it. 
