This topic is locked
The fact that you have never even heard of it and that blazer has never even heard of yours is the essence of thei issue here.
The Order of Operations: PEMDAS
There it is. Straight operations based order.
On page two The Order of Operations: More Examples it deals with this exact issue using blazers method and multeplys first. To be clear, they are just as right as the other anwer becasue the problem was created for this set of rules.
Math Problem
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned 
- #201
- 12 April 2011 - 05:51 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
It it that confusing esalaka?
Think of it as a totaly different system(which it is).
Ever heard of hexidesimal math? Go an learn that. It don't know it myself, but you should get some prespective from it.
Think of it as a totaly different system(which it is).
Ever heard of hexidesimal math? Go an learn that. It don't know it myself, but you should get some prespective from it.
- #203
- 12 April 2011 - 05:56 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
Craft aids, on 12 April 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:
It it that confusing esalaka?
Think of it as a totaly different system(which it is).
Ever heard of hexidesimal math? Go an learn that. It don't know it myself, but you should get some prespective from it.
Think of it as a totaly different system(which it is).
Ever heard of hexidesimal math? Go an learn that. It don't know it myself, but you should get some prespective from it.
I eat hexadecimal for breakfast. It's incredibly useful for stuff like bitmasks 'cause each digit is half a byte.
I just mean this whole thing. It's not confusing, it's just silly.
- #204
- 12 April 2011 - 06:00 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
It is silly.
It's a silly little crack in all of mathmatics.
It's a silly little crack in all of mathmatics.
- #205
- 12 April 2011 - 06:02 PM
- JHawkNH
- Member
Craft aids, on 12 April 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:
The fact that you have never even heard of it and that blazer has never even heard of yours is the essence of thei issue here.
The Order of Operations: PEMDAS
There it is. Straight operations based order.
On page two The Order of Operations: More Examples it deals with this exact issue using blazers method and multeplys first. To be clear, they are just as right as the other anwer becasue the problem was created for this set of rules.
The Order of Operations: PEMDAS
There it is. Straight operations based order.
On page two The Order of Operations: More Examples it deals with this exact issue using blazers method and multeplys first. To be clear, they are just as right as the other anwer becasue the problem was created for this set of rules.
The system I know and use is PEMDAS.
The other system that Blazer used where either Multiplication is a high priority then Division or Multiplication with a Parentheses is a high priority then Division is what I am looking for. The link to the second page does not have anything like this. It follows the PEMDAS system.
If there is another standard system that is taught that uses Blazer's method, I would like to know what it is called and get a link to it's rules.
The truth is that I do not believe there are two standards as this would cause conflics in mathamatics.
- #206
- 12 April 2011 - 07:00 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Quote
This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
Copyed right off of the page.
Quote
The truth is that I do not believe there are two standards as this would cause conflics in mathamatics.
You mean, like this one?
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 12 April 2011 - 07:11 PM
- #207
- 12 April 2011 - 07:06 PM
- JHawkNH
- Member
Doh! How did I miss that. 
That said I don't like that method from mathimatical standpoint. It breaks the equivilency rule.
Here is what I mean:
Lets take it from this spot
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 =
Because mathimaticly we can multiply insted of divid if you use the inverse..
÷ 2 = *(1/2) = *.5
therfore
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
PEMDAS method:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
8[2] + 1 = 8[2] + 1
16 + 1 = 16 + 1
17 = 17
PEMDAS method with perenthisy multiplication priority:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
16 ÷ 4 + 1 = 16 * 1 + 1
4 + 1 = 16 + 1
5 = 17
The logic does not work for the second method.
Therefore this method can't be valid.
That said I don't like that method from mathimatical standpoint. It breaks the equivilency rule.
Here is what I mean:
Lets take it from this spot
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 =
Because mathimaticly we can multiply insted of divid if you use the inverse..
÷ 2 = *(1/2) = *.5
therfore
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
PEMDAS method:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
8[2] + 1 = 8[2] + 1
16 + 1 = 16 + 1
17 = 17
PEMDAS method with perenthisy multiplication priority:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
16 ÷ 4 + 1 = 16 * 1 + 1
4 + 1 = 16 + 1
5 = 17
The logic does not work for the second method.
Therefore this method can't be valid.
- #208
- 12 April 2011 - 07:44 PM
- Valumior
- Member
Craft aids, on 12 April 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:
Also, here is the other proof in your method.
48/2*12
48/24
48*0.0416666667
2
48/2*12
48/24
48*0.0416666667
2
This...
...
ummm...
Go to elementary school please, because you just scored a 0.
Division and multiplication are on equal priority because they represent the same operation differently. Same goes for addition and subtraction.
What we have here is
48/2*12
NOT
48/(2*12)
Unless you're reading that from right to left which makes you score an (EPIC FAIL)^2.
Checked with a math teacher to make sure.
Also don't forget about this little gem http://en.wikipedia....i/Commutativity
- #210
- 12 April 2011 - 09:07 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Could you plese read the rest of the thread?
- #211
- 12 April 2011 - 09:13 PM
This is on know your meme now. I believe this is a sign that you should stop arguing about it and move on with your lives.
This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 12 April 2011 - 09:16 PM
- #212
- 12 April 2011 - 09:14 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
JHawkNH, on 12 April 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:
Doh! How did I miss that.
That said I don't like that method from mathimatical standpoint. It breaks the equivilency rule.
Here is what I mean:
Lets take it from this spot
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 =
Because mathimaticly we can multiply insted of divid if you use the inverse..
÷ 2 = *(1/2) = *.5
therfore
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
PEMDAS method:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
8[2] + 1 = 8[2] + 1
16 + 1 = 16 + 1
17 = 17
PEMDAS method with perenthisy multiplication priority:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
16 ÷ 4 + 1 = 16 * 1 + 1
4 + 1 = 16 + 1
5 = 17
The logic does not work for the second method.
Therefore this method can't be valid.
That said I don't like that method from mathimatical standpoint. It breaks the equivilency rule.
Here is what I mean:
Lets take it from this spot
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 =
Because mathimaticly we can multiply insted of divid if you use the inverse..
÷ 2 = *(1/2) = *.5
therfore
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
PEMDAS method:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
8[2] + 1 = 8[2] + 1
16 + 1 = 16 + 1
17 = 17
PEMDAS method with perenthisy multiplication priority:
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1
16 ÷ 4 + 1 = 16 * 1 + 1
4 + 1 = 16 + 1
5 = 17
The logic does not work for the second method.
Therefore this method can't be valid.
See, you keep trying to solve the other system using your systems methosd when they are in fact different systems with slightly different languages and require slightly different operations. What you are doing is like trying to solve a normal equation uing hexedesimal. You would have to do the whole thing differently.
So, under PE(MD)(AS)
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 * .5[2] + 1 . . 8[2] + 1 = 8[2] + 1 . . . 16 + 1 = 16 + 1 . . . . . 17 = 17
Is correct like you said
Under PEMDAS the problem(Being a totaly differetn problem from a different language) would look like this.
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 = 16 ÷ [4] + 1 . .8÷[4] + 1 = 8[.25] + 1 . . . 2 + 1 = 2 + 1 . . . . . .3 = 3
Also, I talked to two college level math teachers today.
They were ver sure as to the answer of this problem.
However, they never were able to present any reasoning and instead became more and more flustered when I attempted to introduce them to the idea that their valued math could have an issue.
In the end, I gave up and pretended to agree and while walking away(I had mentioned this thread) one of them yelled"just tell them they are wrong." like that would help.
The key here, they were unable to present even one reason as to why it should be the way they think it is.
Even after saying "Well then they were taught wrong." the teachers were unable to consider the idea that either of them might be wrong long enough to prove to themselfs that they were right.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 12 April 2011 - 09:30 PM
- #213
- 12 April 2011 - 09:26 PM
- Valumior
- Member
Kaxbe, on 12 April 2011 - 01:00 PM, said:
Linking to Know Your Meme is a banable offense.
I DID IT FOR SCIENCE!!!
And thank whatever gods you worship that I didn't link to TvTropes
Craft aids, on 12 April 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:
Could you plese read the rest of the thread?
I did. You're still...
...
See this is why fraction bars were invented.
Lets Take A Third Option
I'll quote my friend on this one:
"I refuse to solve this because the equation is improperly written"
Problem solved THE NOTATION IS WRONG.
=48/(2(9+3))=2
=(48/2)(9+3)=28848/2(9+3)=ERROR
Rawrdinosaur, on 12 April 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:
This is on know your meme now. I believe this is a sign that you should stop arguing about it and move on with your lives.
It's math, so not a chance.
This post has been edited by Valumior: 13 April 2011 - 08:09 AM
- #214
- 12 April 2011 - 09:55 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
It is with out a doubt made just to exploit us but it is still a problem that should be solved somehow.
I think that the mothod being used should be spesifyed or the problem should be written in a way that makes the answer the same in both methods. ie; 48/(2(9+3)) and(48/2)(9+3) would do just fine.
a lable of PE(MD)(AS)
or PEMDAS
would be ok too.
I think that the mothod being used should be spesifyed or the problem should be written in a way that makes the answer the same in both methods. ie; 48/(2(9+3)) and(48/2)(9+3) would do just fine.
a lable of PE(MD)(AS)
or PEMDAS
would be ok too.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 12 April 2011 - 10:55 PM
- #215
- 12 April 2011 - 10:52 PM
RedJack, on 12 April 2011 - 11:13 PM, said:
Question. Why do people care about this actually? What good will it do in the future? Cause not every single math problem is going to be this one. And it also seems the world has yet to determine which of method of solving is the correct one.
Why do you care that they care so much? Its not like its effecting you in any way.
- #220
- 13 April 2011 - 12:19 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
I stilll like the idea that every paper with a language on it should be headed by that language type like PE(MD)(AS) or PEMDAS or reverse polish notation or HTML or English right at the top of the paper.
- #222
- 13 April 2011 - 12:31 AM
- Valumior
- Member
As I don't have any of those strange acronyms in my language (I know what they mean though) and was taught that there is only one order of operations in which multiplication and division are treated with equal priority due to the being inverse operations (PE(MD)(AS) by your standards I think).
Never heard of implicated multiplication priority before so I'll go along with saying (Along with everyone in my school and probably the whole country) that it's some far-fetched bullshit
Nevertheless the way our problem is written makes things confusing and unclear. The reason I support writing division only with the use of a fraction bar.
I still stand by that this is the proper notation:
=288
Never heard of implicated multiplication priority before so I'll go along with saying (Along with everyone in my school and probably the whole country) that it's some far-fetched bullshit
Nevertheless the way our problem is written makes things confusing and unclear. The reason I support writing division only with the use of a fraction bar.
I still stand by that this is the proper notation:
=288
This post has been edited by Valumior: 13 April 2011 - 08:13 AM
- #223
- 13 April 2011 - 08:12 AM
Valumior, on 12 April 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
I'll quote my friend on this one:
"I refuse to solve this because the equation is improperly written"
Problem solved THE NOTATION IS WRONG.
=48/(2(9+3))=2
=(48/2)(9+3)=288
48/2(9+3) = ERROR
"I refuse to solve this because the equation is improperly written"
Problem solved THE NOTATION IS WRONG.
=48/(2(9+3))=2=(48/2)(9+3)=28848/2(9+3) = ERROR
This post has been edited by Migrant: 13 April 2011 - 12:43 PM
- #224
- 13 April 2011 - 12:20 PM
Also, this is hilarious:
- #225
- 13 April 2011 - 12:42 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
It is the job of the language to give sets of numbers and operations meaning.
It is failing in this and none of the rules for creating a problem have been broken.
Unless you would jsut write an exeption into a language.
Haveing a correct gramamtical structure is kind of like keeping tinker bell alive.
If everyone beleives and claps their hands the same, it exists.
PE(MD)(AS)
Is the more popular and more accepted method.
Can we all agree to using it instead of PEMDAS?
I request that op adds anouther poll.
It is failing in this and none of the rules for creating a problem have been broken.
Unless you would jsut write an exeption into a language.
Haveing a correct gramamtical structure is kind of like keeping tinker bell alive.
If everyone beleives and claps their hands the same, it exists.
PE(MD)(AS)
Is the more popular and more accepted method.
Can we all agree to using it instead of PEMDAS?
I request that op adds anouther poll.
- #226
- 13 April 2011 - 04:57 PM
- (nameless)
- *heavy sigh*
Member 
PE(MD)(AS) Brings me all the way back to 5th & 6th grade...
- #228
- 13 April 2011 - 05:00 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Kaxbe, on 13 April 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:
WATCH ME CLAP MY HANDS TO A DIFFERENT RHYTHM JUST TO SPITE YOU.
Well, if we manage vast majority then we can jsut call you wrong and move on with life.
Let's saaaaay, 75% with at least 25 votes?
- #229
- 13 April 2011 - 06:53 PM
PEMDAS or PE(MD)(AS) makes no difference as long as you ignore the whole "read it left to right" nonsense. Maths has never been left to right and never will be. I think it was valumior that linked Commutativity?
Try not to write math in one line, people, and when you do, use brackets to eliminate ambiguity. You want to figure out who is right and who is wrong? The person who first wrote the expression was wrong and so was everyone trying to solve it.
edit - and just how the hell did you get that subtitle craft aids???
Try not to write math in one line, people, and when you do, use brackets to eliminate ambiguity. You want to figure out who is right and who is wrong? The person who first wrote the expression was wrong and so was everyone trying to solve it.
Quote
48/2(9+3) = ERROR
edit - and just how the hell did you get that subtitle craft aids???
This post has been edited by Migrant: 13 April 2011 - 08:19 PM
- #230
- 13 April 2011 - 08:18 PM
Yes, the whole point of the expression is to troll people. Doesn't mean we have to fall for it.
[citation needed] - http://en.wikipedia....i/Commutativity (not a straight out example, but showing that solving left to right is nonsense).
Also, from experience, no, a lot ofpeople highschoolers, unfortunatelly, don't know how to use brackets properly.
[citation needed] - http://en.wikipedia....i/Commutativity (not a straight out example, but showing that solving left to right is nonsense).
Also, from experience, no, a lot of
This post has been edited by Migrant: 13 April 2011 - 08:37 PM
- #233
- 13 April 2011 - 08:36 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
Migrant, on 13 April 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:
Also, from experience, no, a lot of people highschoolers, unfortunatelly, don't know how to use brackets properly.
I like what you're implying with that.
Regardless, you can always solve in the left-to-right order, and sometimes I just reorder the parts of an equation to do so, because I can, due to commutativity. Which does not have anything to do with this, apart from the fact that I used commutativity as a part of one of my examples in this thread I think.
- #234
- 13 April 2011 - 08:43 PM
I thought it was clear that solving from left to right applies only to operators of the same level of precedence.
- #235
- 13 April 2011 - 08:55 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
wacko, on 13 April 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:
I thought it was clear that solving from left to right applies only to operators of the same level of precedence.
Me too.
I also thought it always applies in every convention, but this thread explains that it in fact does not.
- #236
- 13 April 2011 - 08:57 PM
if commutativity does not apply, the expression is flawed. It's like dividing by zero, or asking the what the colour of blue is. Since commutativity applies to all valid expressions you never need to solve left to right.
This post has been edited by Migrant: 13 April 2011 - 09:04 PM
- #237
- 13 April 2011 - 09:03 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
Migrant, on 13 April 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:
if commutativity does not apply, the expression is flawed. It's like dividing by zero, or asking the what the colour of blue is. Since commutativity applies to all valid expressions you never need to solve left to right.
Division and subtraction are not commutative.
However, you could always express them as multiplying by the multiplicative inverse and adding the additive inverse. Which means all basic arithmetical operations are commutative, yeah.
But who said commutativity does not apply? I said I was assuming silly things like dropping the multiplication marks from equations don't suddenly change the meaning of the calculation, like some think they do here.
- #238
- 13 April 2011 - 09:09 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHA too easy. Try some boolean algebra or something.
P.S. every time someone says PEDMAS I want to say "No, it's BEDMAS". And then I realize that I took junior high math in french. Goddammit.
P.S. every time someone says PEDMAS I want to say "No, it's BEDMAS". And then I realize that I took junior high math in french. Goddammit.
- #239
- 13 April 2011 - 09:50 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Communitive property?
sigh
3*2=6
2*3=6
1+2=3
2+1=3
1-2=-1
2-1=/=-1
However,
1+(-2)=-1
(-2)+1=-1
As you see, it only works with possitives.
48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
48÷2*12
This is the base formula we should be dealing with.
If we multeply first, we can switch the 2 and 12 all we want.
48÷2*12=48÷24=2
48÷12*2=48÷24=2
If we devide first, it looks like there could be a problem, but then the basics of this problem kick in.
If we devide first,
Your lack of understanding the base of what you toss in my face makes you a discrace so get back in your place because in this case you just waste the time of the rest of your race.
sigh
3*2=6
2*3=6
1+2=3
2+1=3
1-2=-1
2-1=/=-1
However,
1+(-2)=-1
(-2)+1=-1
As you see, it only works with possitives.
48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
48÷2*12
This is the base formula we should be dealing with.
If we multeply first, we can switch the 2 and 12 all we want.
48÷2*12=48÷24=2
48÷12*2=48÷24=2
If we devide first, it looks like there could be a problem, but then the basics of this problem kick in.
If we devide first,
48÷2*12 =24*12=288 48*(1/2)*12=24*12=288
Your lack of understanding the base of what you toss in my face makes you a discrace so get back in your place because in this case you just waste the time of the rest of your race.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 14 April 2011 - 01:38 AM
- #240
- 14 April 2011 - 01:36 AM
I never got taught any of those fancy acronyms.
- #243
- 14 April 2011 - 03:01 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Migrant, on 13 April 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:
if commutativity does not apply, the expression is flawed. It's like dividing by zero, or asking the what the colour of blue is. Since commutativity applies to all valid expressions you never need to solve left to right.
Uh, and asking what the color of blue is....
One moment, let me get out my fancy clackulator gizmo.
x=x
1=1
blue=blue
Thank you for playing.
- #244
- 14 April 2011 - 03:14 AM
- matty_batty0
- Member
Yes, but how could we possible tell that through our eyes blue looks the same as it does through your eyes? It is like trying to describe colour to a blind person.
- #245
- 14 April 2011 - 03:18 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
matty_batty0, on 14 April 2011 - 03:18 AM, said:
Yes, but how could we possible tell that through our eyes blue looks the same as it does through your eyes? It is like trying to describe colour to a blind person.
As we are still presiving the same frequency, it is still physicaly blue no matter how we see it.
Blue is a WAVELENGTH and while perseption differs, that is always the same.
- #247
- 14 April 2011 - 03:20 AM
- matty_batty0
- Member
Light doesn't have colour until it is seen by someone, sure it has blue wavelength which means once it is processed by our brains it will look like "blue". Seeing colour is part of the brain process so it is completely a matter of perspective as to what "blue" really looks like.
- #248
- 14 April 2011 - 03:33 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Either way, it is still blue.
Blue=Blue no matter what each person sees in the place of blue.
If you are going to question what color you see, whatever color you see, the blue object will still be a blue object.
Think off blue like a variable.
Blue could = 5
Blue could = 7
However, it will still be blue.
x could equle anything but x would still = x.
You see, x has no value until it is related to other things being presived by someone which could always be totaly different from what a different person is pprecived.
Originaly point, no matter what happens when blue enters your eye, the wavelength is still blue.
Blue=Blue no matter what each person sees in the place of blue.
If you are going to question what color you see, whatever color you see, the blue object will still be a blue object.
Think off blue like a variable.
Blue could = 5
Blue could = 7
However, it will still be blue.
x could equle anything but x would still = x.
You see, x has no value until it is related to other things being presived by someone which could always be totaly different from what a different person is pprecived.
Originaly point, no matter what happens when blue enters your eye, the wavelength is still blue.
- #249
- 14 April 2011 - 03:51 AM
- Purin
- BCI Member
Craft aids, on 14 April 2011 - 03:51 AM, said:
Either way, it is still blue.
Blue=Blue no matter what each person sees in the place of blue.
If you are going to question what color you see, whatever color you see, the blue object will still be a blue object.
Think off blue like a variable.
Blue could = 5
Blue could = 7
However, it will still be blue.
x could equle anything but x would still = x.
You see, x has no value until it is related to other things being presived by someone which could always be totaly different from what a different person is pprecived.
Originaly point, no matter what happens when blue enters your eye, the wavelength is still blue.
Blue=Blue no matter what each person sees in the place of blue.
If you are going to question what color you see, whatever color you see, the blue object will still be a blue object.
Think off blue like a variable.
Blue could = 5
Blue could = 7
However, it will still be blue.
x could equle anything but x would still = x.
You see, x has no value until it is related to other things being presived by someone which could always be totaly different from what a different person is pprecived.
Originaly point, no matter what happens when blue enters your eye, the wavelength is still blue.
...wtf? (on a multitude of levels)
- #250
- 14 April 2011 - 03:58 AM