University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management.
Although I don't know what that has to do with anything... many other posters have talked about how their universities put multiplication by juxtaposition at a higher priority...
Forum Index > General Forum |
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
April 09 2011 01:03 GMT
#1781
On April 09 2011 10:01 Chaosu wrote: Show nested quote + On April 09 2011 09:55 Insanious wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On April 09 2011 09:47 Pufftrees wrote: Show nested quote + On April 09 2011 09:35 Supamang wrote: People who say its 2 consider multiplication by juxtaposition to have priority. This is also perfectly reasonable. Why are people still arguing here? Because if you interpret the answer as 2, you are wrong. Nothing ambiguous lol. If that was on an international exam, or any sort, or any exam of any sort, there is one answer, 288. Why are you here defending people who don't understand Math? I have exams where multiplication by juxtaposition takes priority over simply division and multiplication. In my business school, multiplication by juxtaposition takes priority 100% of the time. This is how it is being done with my financial equations as well. Its just how my UNIVERSITY teaches it. It seems like a bunch of Universities work this way to, while others do not... Name of your university please? University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management. Although I don't know what that has to do with anything... many other posters have talked about how their universities put multiplication by juxtaposition at a higher priority... | ||
FindMeInKenya
United States797 Posts
April 09 2011 01:04 GMT
#1782
| ||
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
April 09 2011 01:07 GMT
#1783
On April 09 2011 10:04 FindMeInKenya wrote: Again, read that long post on page 62, which basically explains why there's no priorities for real numbers. Maybe your Uni and work has some rules for the sake of simplification, but for a theoretical mathematician, 288 is the only agreeable answer. how about no. A mathematician would see that the question is phrased poorly and whoever did it has failed to make his intentions clear, therefor arguing any side is pointless. | ||
yellowmoe
Canada59 Posts
April 09 2011 01:07 GMT
#1784
On April 09 2011 09:07 tpir wrote: Just to make things confusing not all calculators do it the same! (Credit to econ and dukemagic at twoplustwo for these links!) Pic of TI-85 vs. TI-86: http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9549/headasplode.jpg Screen grab of pertinent order of operations section: http://i.imgur.com/aP7Gg.jpg Source: http://math.ucsd.edu/~ashenk/Calculators/Getting_Started_TI-86.pdf holy crap, I just wanted to to say, I didn't know they made TI calculators into the 86. I still use the TI-83. I am studying engineering and I chose 2, is this bad? | ||
FindMeInKenya
United States797 Posts
April 09 2011 01:08 GMT
#1785
| ||
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
April 09 2011 01:14 GMT
#1786
On April 09 2011 10:08 FindMeInKenya wrote: i'm not arguing that the question is phrased poorly, but if we look it as is, the answer is 288. so you claim that there is no ambiguity? and sticking to it? I am done in this thread i guess, it's starting to feel like a religious argument. both sides keep arguing over something without any real claims to back up either side and not changing positions in the slightest. | ||
Leath
Canada1724 Posts
April 09 2011 01:16 GMT
#1787
But then I realized it was the wrong answer. Obviously you treat whatever is inside the parenthesis first, so, 48÷2 (12) = But now you have the same as: 48 ÷ 2 × 12 And the way to solve is from left to right, so, 24 × 12 = 488 It is so tempting however to solve the whole 2(9+3) first and obtain 24. I guess it does depend on the system, like others have mentioned. Some system place priorities on the multiplication sign over the division. | ||
Ace
United States16096 Posts
April 09 2011 01:16 GMT
#1788
| ||
L3gendary
Canada1469 Posts
April 09 2011 01:18 GMT
#1789
| ||
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
April 09 2011 01:25 GMT
#1790
| ||
DiamondTear
Finland165 Posts
April 09 2011 01:30 GMT
#1791
I see 1/2 as ½. So my answer would be 0.5x. However, if the problem was 2/4x, I might go for the 2 divided by 4x train of thought which seems to be the favorite amongst TL users. When I was in starting learning algebra I actually had a lot of trouble with this because in grades 3-6 we could use either fractions or : to mark dividing. I used : because it was neater so I had to get used to using fractions later. I wish no one was taught"÷". On April 09 2011 09:07 tpir wrote: Just to make things confusing not all calculators do it the same! (Credit to econ and dukemagic at twoplustwo for these links!) Pic of TI-85 vs. TI-86: http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9549/headasplode.jpg Screen grab of pertinent order of operations section: http://i.imgur.com/aP7Gg.jpg Source: http://math.ucsd.edu/~ashenk/Calculators/Getting_Started_TI-86.pdf Always be careful when using a calculator. I usually use extra parentheses to make sure I get the correct result. Casio FX 1.0 PLUS gives the result 2. I'm a bit shocked by this because I've been using this calculator for 8 years and I assumed the result would be the correct 288. It would seem that the calculator considers 2(9+3) to be the denominator but if you input it as 2*(9+3) it's calculated correctly with only 2 as the denominator. I think this is retarded. Another option is to use the fraction button instead of the divide button. When input like this, the result is the correct 288. I suspect this is the case with http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6273/ducy.jpg, only with the problem that you can't see that he used a different button (unlike with my Casio). | ||
Severedevil
United States4795 Posts
April 09 2011 01:36 GMT
#1792
On April 09 2011 10:04 FindMeInKenya wrote: Again, read that long post on page 62, which basically explains why there's no priorities for real numbers. Maybe your Uni and work has some rules for the sake of simplification, but for a theoretical mathematician, 288 is the only agreeable answer. No. You are ignorant, and willfully so, and in your false invocation of authority, you may mislead others. There are multiple conflicting 'standard' conventions for parsing the sequence of symbols depicted. In one of them, multiplication by juxtaposition takes precedence over multiplication/division by explicit symbol. In the other (of the ones we're considering), it does not. | ||
hifriend
China7935 Posts
April 09 2011 01:42 GMT
#1793
On April 09 2011 10:18 L3gendary wrote: I'm quite saddened 44% of people actually think it's 2. The problem is just set up in a way so that a large amount of people are bound to misinterpret it. Doesn't necessarily mean they are worse at algebra than the other 56%. | ||
fishball232
United States90 Posts
April 09 2011 01:42 GMT
#1794
| ||
RevLesMis
United States23 Posts
April 09 2011 01:42 GMT
#1795
| ||
reprise
Canada316 Posts
April 09 2011 01:45 GMT
#1796
On April 09 2011 10:42 RevLesMis wrote: i dont get this shit ive always been told it was PEMDAS why is it just in order? where are you guys getting this? PEMDAS is not the end-all-be-all answer. It is an elementary tool used to teach order of operations, but shouldn't be referenced upon as complete proof. Read the last couple pages and you'll see where the argument stands, which is whether or not multiplication by juxtaposition has priority. | ||
Rtran10
Canada78 Posts
April 09 2011 01:46 GMT
#1797
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54341.html | ||
quiggy
Canada58 Posts
April 09 2011 01:46 GMT
#1798
1-1+1-1+1-1 . . . =1 0=1 /this thread | ||
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
April 09 2011 01:47 GMT
#1799
If you don't define the problem accurately, some people can fumble through it; But you're the moron who can't spell. Is this a good analogy? | ||
fishball232
United States90 Posts
April 09 2011 01:52 GMT
#1800
1-1+1-1+1-1 . . .=0 1-1+1-1+1-1 . . . =1 0=1 /this thread you are adding a one more term, you get 1 or 0. essentially it'd the difference between the number of terms you have. this is a geometric series where r=-1 so it diverges. no answer so 0=/1 calculate this 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16..... | ||
| ||
Next event in 5h 24m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv15795 summit1g6480 Grubby3608 FrodaN2131 shahzam397 Hui .274 NuckleDu129 Mew2King78 PPMD32 ViBE4 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Hupsaiya 42 StarCraft: Brood War• musti20045 22 • Gussbus • Poblha • Migwel • Laughngamez YouTube • aXEnki • LaughNgamez Trovo • intothetv • IndyKCrew • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Zhanhun vs DragOn
Dewalt vs Sziky
CSO Cup
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
|
|