Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Ok, I think Migrant was talking about describing how we perceive a colour to be though.

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 14 April 2011 - 04:00 AM

Purin, on 14 April 2011 - 03:58 AM, said:

Just BACK UP Pruin. We getting to exestential in here for you and keep in mind, I do this everywhere I go.
This isn't even a new consept globaly and it is one I thought of on my own at the age of 14 and finished within a few days.


Perseption is not an adiquet definition. however, If I must find a way to describ the color blue that everyone can agree on, and keep in mind that this may not be what you had in mind to start with, Blue is the color that causes a particular reaction in the constitution of color sensitive testing papers.

This post has been edited by Craft aids: 14 April 2011 - 04:10 AM

(nameless), on 13 April 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

I love your observation also applies to non-transferable math courses in college

CA: I'm not sure which is more hilarious: your distracting spelling errors, your thought process, or the fact that you are jumping from a simple math problem debate, which that dead horse has been dragged long enough, to talk about colors and x = the moon.

*CA thought process*
Blue could be 7
Blue could be retarded
But in the end, all that matters is that Blue = x

Do you equal x?

Whow whow whow, who said blue=x?
We have no idea if blue=x.

Oh, and just get over the spelling already would you people?

Wait a second, x= the moon?
It very well could but GTFO and take your exaduration with you.
We will debate as long as we have the slightest interest.

Sorry but philosophy has no place in math.

And there's no work for people with a degree in humanities.

Only sith deal in absolutes.

Quite a few math professors I know are very philosophical about their work.

Ok, either way, I got matty to agree on the phylisofical point that blue does in fact = blue.
NEXT ISSUE.

Annyone?
Come on, I don't want to get bored and start posing things for the hell of it again.

Hold on a second! Don't you dare act like you got one up on me, fair enough if you did, but you didn't

True I admitted that blue=blue due to it's wavelength, I never did disagreed with that. But what Migrant was asking was not how do we define blue, it was more of what is blue. Blue is what each individual makes of it.

Rape is what we make of it. Whether it be surprise sex or an unlawful gesture.

Well, really, no matter what it is a thing of the mind.
If you didn't opject, a dick would be a dick.
If you don't object to this sudnen sex and it is still bad the rapist is just also really bad at sex.

If you do object and they are doing it anyway, the rapist is violating the will of anouther living thing sexualy and the following corse of action is to toss that guy into a court and see how much life he loses.


@matty, well, he is gone now and according to you it only matters what he thinks so we need a new question or something.

This post has been edited by Craft aids: 14 April 2011 - 04:37 PM

Craft aids, on 14 April 2011 - 03:14 AM, said:

The context of what he was saying sort of does matter, because you were saying he was wrong.

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 14 April 2011 - 04:45 PM

Right, but he isn't here.

He is always here! watching...

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 14 April 2011 - 04:50 PM

I remember talking about this in a first year philosophy class I needed for a breadth requirement in my degree... it went by the name the inverted color spectrum problem.

It's really a fascinating thing to think about.

Hold on!.
Blue does not simply equal blue.

It equals #0000FF and #0000A0

And also:
#5E5A80 #4E387E #151B54 #2B3856 #25383C #463E41 #151B8D #15317E #342D7E #2B60DE #306EFF #2B65EC #2554C7 #3BB9FF #38ACEC #357EC7 #3090C7 #25587E #1589FF #157DEC #1569C7 #153E7E #2B547E #4863A0 #6960EC #728FCE #488AC7 #56A5EC #5CB3FF #659EC7 #41627E #737CA1 #737CA1 #C6DEFF #ADDFFF #BDEDFF #77BFC7 #AFDCEC #82CAFA #A0CFEC #87AFC7 #82CAFF #79BAEC #566D7E #6698FF #736AFF #95B9C7 #5E767E

Too long didn't read.

48÷2(9+3) = ?

I see it as 48÷24=2 as I naturally multiply everything inside the brackets by what is outside the brackets. Pretty much for the same reason as how 7y = 7 multiplied by y.

Anialator, on 14 April 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:

And the other view is that since ab is just shorthand for a*b, it should be read as (48/2)(9+3)

Let's not start this again please

Stay on topic, bitches.

matty_batty0, on 14 April 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

Yes. Yes I am. fear me! FEEEAAAR MEEEEE!!!!!

Craft aids said:

Dude, it was just an analogy, don't look that deeply into it.

Craft aids, on 14 April 2011 - 01:36 AM, said:

look, there aren't technically 4 basic operations. If you really overanalyse it, the only real operation is addition, but lets stick with addition and multiplication for simplicity here. Subtraction is commutative because it is an addition of a negative number. 3 - 2 = -2 + 3. That's how the commutativity of subtraction works. Think about longer expressions such as:
2 + 5 + 7x - 24 + 91x + 9 - 5x - 2x + 3 + 12
To simplify it you can add or subtract the numbers in any order as long as you keep their signs. I for example, tend to group numbers that add up to ten together when doing large sums in my head, for ease, or numbers that cancel out. So here i would first add 2 + 5 + 3 to make one group of ten, then cancel out +7x with -5x and -2x, etc. You don't NEED to go left to right. you do it in any order you wish, as long as you keep the signs.

With multiplicatin and division it is slightly less straightforward, as you need to show nominators and denominators. But division is the same as multiplying by the inverse. 24 divided by 8 equals 24 that multiplies one eigth. [i.e.: (24/8) = 24 * (1/8)]

The trouble arrises when having to write things in the same line because of simplistic digital text editors. But if I were to give another example, i could give you this expression to simplify:

That could be re-written as:
8 * 5 * x * 3^-1 * 13 * 5^-1 * 7 * 4 * x * 11^-1 * x^-1
Again, this expression can be solved in any desired order - such as eliminating the 5 with the inverse of five or one of the x with the inverse of x - before calculating the others.

This is how subtraction and dividion ARE, indeed, commutative. You have to keep the signs and the NUMBERS the same when moving things around, but that is simply a condition and does not negate the commutativity of these operations.

TL;DR: you suck Craft Aids! (JK! I LOVE YOU, BRO! and kaxbe too! <3 <3)

This post has been edited by Migrant: 15 April 2011 - 04:14 AM

These are all things I know.

Putting [bunch of crap] is bull shit.
I used the sommunitive proberty to describe the math you thought it disproved.
Understand, or try again, or ask but don't just put
[bunch of crap]
and re-explain what I just explained.

I used the communitive proberty.
Better yet, let me go back and show it again and maybe, this time, you won't just go "boy that's confusing, I'll just call it crap and explain how math it's self works".

This post has been edited by Craft aids: 15 April 2011 - 03:44 AM

Communitive property?
sigh
(explenation of the communitive property removed)

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

Awww, don't feel so offended, crafty! It was just a little joke to lighten moods and reduce the size of the quote. You know how i LOVE to edit quotes!

Come here, crafty, who needs a hug? Who needs a hug?

You do! You need a hug. Yes you do! Come here crafty! D'awwwww, that's right, we love you, you know we do!

Also, Crafty, it's commutative. Communitive is possibly something relating to communism, he he he.

This post has been edited by Migrant: 15 April 2011 - 04:09 AM

Riiiiiiiight, so then you are done with debating in an even slighly serios manner.
glad to know.

Going on about the commutative problem in the original expression 48÷2(9+3)

Here the problem is the ÷ sign, which is actually used very, very rarely when calculating something yourself. It translates as "divided by", but doesn't explicit what is being divided by what. Some might not even consider it a valid mathematical symbol to be used in expressions. So if we have 48÷2*12, it migh be analogous to writting "Goעבריתto you". The phrase doesn't make sense because it is mixed in two different languages. The only reasonable response is "ERROR".

And here's an interesting experiment for all the lovers of PEMDAS or whichever acronym you use instead of mathematical logic.

Quote

This post has been edited by Migrant: 15 April 2011 - 04:38 AM

Ther is an issue.
x*x was orriginaly one term that was going to have an operation done to it and so if you seperate it in would need brackets so that it would still be treated as one term in the equation which is what it was to start with.

Durp dee durp durp hurp durp. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Craft aids, you really need to start figuring out when people are joking. Usually saying "Problem Solvezd!!" in the end might be a strong clue.

I would rather find the little error thank you.
I enjoy it.

Really!!?!?!

Lemme send you 1000 lines of my code that keep segfaulting! Help me to find the one place where I've gone out of bounds on an array!

YES.

The only question is, do I know the language?

Haha I was joking.

I know basic C/C++, Java and sometimes I write scripts in Python for work during summers.

I know basic java, html, css, javascript, and a laughably tiny amount of C++ from this handy giant manual of everything C++ that is under my bed.

I wasn't joking.

Quote

CREEEEEEEEEEEPEEEEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!

well it would be dishonest, the only code that I write at the moment is for university.

Thanks for the offer though.

Migrant, on 15 April 2011 - 05:26 AM, said:

There is nothing creeper about being willing to help someone else out in a way that is totaly platonic and requires no personal information from either of them.

Except part of their thesis

Also:

Quote

This post has been edited by Migrant: 15 April 2011 - 05:35 AM

[thesis?
He never said it was his thesis.

And regardless of the fact that you were clearly joking, I still feal the need to defend myself.

Craft aids, on 15 April 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:

No... Just no...
Seriously, you can't do that. And stop spamming your fancy acronyms. We already know your teacher was a retard and thought it was better to teach you a retarded acronym rather than proper math. If you insist on swapping things you can do it like that:
48÷2*12
48*12÷2
12÷2*48

In the end it would look like this... errr... Any LaTeX editor/generator around? Nevermind, I'll improvise.

48*12
--------- = 24*12 = 48*6 = 288
2

There's no such thing as multiplication before division or division before multiplication because you're supposed to do them at same time (theoretically speaking).

The answer to this piece of trolling bullshit is not 2 and will never be 2, unless there's a bracket explicitly stating that. Do you see one? Cause I DON'T.

AND FOR FUCKS SAKE THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE ORDERS OF OPERATION THERE IS ONLY ONE, IF THERE WERE IT WOULD DEFY THE VERY THING MATH STANDS FOR.

If you really believe there is another order of operations then I must unfortunately say that you are clinically retarded.

Europe still stands for 288. Cause instead of using stupid acronyms WE USE MATH.

Quote

Take a first year compsci class. There are at least 2 alternatives in common usage!

Postfix notation
Prefix notation

That's a different kind of notation completely. And we're talking about our standard notation in which we have just one order of operations. Don't mix those two things.

Unless you suddenly prove me that 48÷2(9+3) is written in polish or reverse polish notation. Which is not the case as far as I can tell.

Wwhy would anyone use Polish notation anyway :v

It's mainly useful because it's a shitload easier to parse than infix.
Especially reverse Polish.

Valumior, on 15 April 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

Show me the difference, and why do you get to say that we only have one order of operations here? That's the claim you're trying to defend - you need a reason for that to be true. So far, it seems that people have at least 2 different conventions for order of operations. Besides that, it doesn't look like the one you're using is "standard" at all - because other people use different conventions.

How is prefix vs infix vs postfix any different than PEMDAS vs PEDMAS or whatever they were using? They're just different systems and conventions, and there is definitely more than one to choose from.

esalaka, on 15 April 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

It lets you see intermediate results. If I use brackets I have to type the entire expression in and evaluate it all at once. Using the stack and RPL, I can build it up piecewise and keep the parts of it. At the end, I can bring them together to the final result. This is great for catching errors half way through a calculation.

And before someone says this: I'm well aware of the ANS key or whatever on normal calculators. If I use that I have to store the parts of my expression in my memory and remember where to use the ANS key and what is currently stored there. With RPL, the stack keeps track of everything, and I can see the things stored there on my display.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 15 April 2011 - 03:18 PM

Starwatcher, on 15 April 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

/facepalm
If you haven't noticed we are using our standard infix notation here (by standard I mean that which we all were taught before high school and everyone is familiar with), which has only one proper order of operations.

Starwatcher, on 15 April 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Because prefix, infix and postfix are ways you write down equations while PEMDAS and PEDMAS are some stupid acronyms. Notation and order of operations ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Please stop confusing those two.

And that's beyond the fact PN and RPN have absolutely nothing to do with our problem.

Quote

Quote

Yes, you're using infix.

Quote

Really? If that were true, then why is 1/2 the population here using one convention and the other a different one? We've had at least 2 incidents of people reporting that they were taught different ways in highschool.

Quote

PEMDAS and PEDMAS are ways of interpreting equations that are written down. RPN, PN, infix, they all come packaged with an interpertation - how I choose to write down the equation and how I choose to read it aren't separate, they're both part of the definition. If you read my links on PN and RPN, they're both defined, they mean something when someone uses them.

Quote

So are you saying that there is some god-given order of operations that we should use all the time, everywhere, and for everything? Why this particular one? What stops me from using a different system? Furthermore, I think notation and order of operations are both parts of the same object. We need a definition, a language to express these things and we've invented several. Each one comes with notation, which includes order of operations (if such a concept is even needed) in it's definition!

You use the words "proper", "correct" and so on to describe the one you're using (which is PEMDAS or PEDMAS, I forget). What makes yours "better" than mine? As long as we're clear which one we're using when we write something down, I don't see any problem with using one or the other.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 15 April 2011 - 05:32 PM

If you must insist on using those retarded acronyms that cause so much confusion in the first place then FINE. I'm using PE(MD)(AS) or PE(DM)(AS) or PE(MD)(SA) or PE(DM)(SA). Choose one of those. Doesn't matter actually.

The problem is that people forget that Division AND Multiplication are on equal priority, and in that case we do operations from left to right. There is no other order of operations in infix. If anyone thinks otherwise THEY'RE SIMPLY WRONG.

And lets lay off with those acronyms. They're what causes this troll to work in the first place. People get confused by the poorly written equation and remember the rule wrong. Good thing I live in a country without those acronyms. Anyone I asked around with this answered 288.

Ehhh...
Gdyby nie fakt, że nie za bardzo znam terminy matematyczne po angielsku to już dawno by się ta farsa skończyła. Tracimy czas na jakieś durne akronimy i nie mające nic z naszym problemem wspolnego Notacje Polskie. Nawiasy -> Potęgi/Pierwiastki -> Mnożenie/Dzielenie -> Dodawanie/Odejmowanie do jasnej cholery. Nie zapominać o przemienności. Zastrzelić się tutaj można.

If you don't understand carry on... Totally unimportant... Nothing to worry about... </sarcasm>

This post has been edited by Valumior: 15 April 2011 - 06:17 PM

Starwatcher, on 15 April 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

Their high schools are wrooooooooong.

As far as I know there's a standard convention and then there's people's own conventions. Just like with anything.

Google translate has what you wrote as:

Quote

Isn't this just what you wrote before in english? Why start using polish?

I guess this really isn't worth a huge argument or people getting hurt feelings.

At the end of the day, if we were building a passenger jet and needed that formula for the wing loading or something, we'd know what the terms meant and which ones should be divided or multiplied.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 15 April 2011 - 11:29 PM

I already showed communativity for both of them.
There is no need for you or anyone else to say "Do not forget about commutativity."
here, I will include brackets so that my work will be right in both systems.

48/(2*12)=48*(1/(2*12))=48*(1/(12*2))=48*(1/24)=(1/24)*48=(1/24)*48=2

(48/2)*12=(48*(1/2))*12=((1/2)*48)*12=24*12=12*24=288

In the problem, the issue has no hints as to which order should be used exept "My teacher told me to and so, the rest of you are wrong."

This is an entirly different system.

Telling me I am wrong for recognising the system which results in two is like telling someone they are speaking garbage because you were taught english and they were taught japanes.

Quote

This is only true if the equation is the same in both systems or if the person who put the equation togeather and knows how the numbers are meant to relate is the one solving it.

Ther is absolutly no issue until the problem goes from one person to anouther with no background information.

Craft aids, on 15 April 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:

My issue is with this one mostly. Because this is not how communativity works. Division is not communative unless you convert it to multiplying by the inverse. Making the above switch wrong.

Craft aids, on 15 April 2011 - 11:44 PM, said:

Brackets of course make everything much clearer but still, our problem is about the form without brackets 48/2*12 which equals 48*(1/2)*12 thus making the answer 288 unless you add brackets (and by it, changing it into a different equation than the original).

However I won't change my mind that with math being math there cannot be two different orders of operations in the same notation.