This topic is lockedAlso: Holy shit! 7 pages and 300 posts on this trolling! We're all idiots :S
This post has been edited by Migrant: 17 April 2011 - 05:23 AM
Math Problem
But Valumior, I thought we had already agreed that 48 ÷ 2 * 12 = ERROR ???? I am dissapoint.
Also: Holy shit! 7 pages and 300 posts on this trolling! We're all idiots :S
Also: Holy shit! 7 pages and 300 posts on this trolling! We're all idiots :S
- #301
- 17 April 2011 - 05:23 AM
Heavrisk, on 17 April 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:
48 ÷ 2 * 12 = a good horrible forum thread.
- #303
- 17 April 2011 - 07:08 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned 
Migrant, you just have a lose complex on this topic now.
If xabe had never claimed to be trolling then you wouldn't think of yourself as stupid for this.
If xabe had never claimed to be trolling then you wouldn't think of yourself as stupid for this.
- #304
- 17 April 2011 - 08:58 AM
Man i realized this was trolling when I first posted here, but I wanted to play along anyhow. Don't get me wrong, it's not unentertaining, it's just very, very stupid.
- #305
- 17 April 2011 - 10:36 AM
- Valumior
- Member
Migrant, on 17 April 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:
But Valumior, I thought we had already agreed that 48 ÷ 2 * 12 = ERROR ???? I am dissapoint.
No. We agreed on this:
Valumior, on 12 April 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
48/2(9+3)=ERROR
48/2*12 is legit and equals 288.
48/2(9+3) is plain confusing because we get mindfucked whether to treat it as 48/(2(9+3)) or (48/2)(9+3). One of the reasons we should always use fraction bars for any division.
- #308
- 17 April 2011 - 04:01 PM
- Taeshi
- one hot bitch
Administrator 
SCREW YOU GUYS I THINK IT'S 2 >8(
Also I remember in my school there was a sequence.. addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.. it was addition or subtraction, multiplication or division, so that's probably why I think it's 2. OH WELL GUESS I WAS TAUGHT WRONG :U
Also I remember in my school there was a sequence.. addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.. it was addition or subtraction, multiplication or division, so that's probably why I think it's 2. OH WELL GUESS I WAS TAUGHT WRONG :U
- #311
- 17 April 2011 - 11:18 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Did you jsut say you were taught that addition comes before multiplication?
This one agrees in both languages and even in the language tae said she was taught.
2(9+3)/48=
Brackets first, no matter what.
2*12/48
The multiplication is also on the left so it comes first either way.
24/48
Only one operation left
0.5
Heavrisk, on 17 April 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:
What about this... 2(9+3)/48=
This one agrees in both languages and even in the language tae said she was taught.
2(9+3)/48=
Brackets first, no matter what.
2*12/48
The multiplication is also on the left so it comes first either way.
24/48
Only one operation left
0.5
- #312
- 17 April 2011 - 11:29 PM
- WTF
- Member
Taeshi, on 17 April 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:
SCREW YOU GUYS I THINK IT'S 2 >8(
Also I remember in my school there was a sequence.. addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.. it was addition or subtraction, multiplication or division, so that's probably why I think it's 2. OH WELL GUESS I WAS TAUGHT WRONG :U
Also I remember in my school there was a sequence.. addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.. it was addition or subtraction, multiplication or division, so that's probably why I think it's 2. OH WELL GUESS I WAS TAUGHT WRONG :U
That wouldn't change your answer you have to do the problems like how you read, from left to right in the order of PEMDAS
- #313
- 17 April 2011 - 11:30 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
RedJack, on 17 April 2011 - 11:31 PM, said:
I think she meant that between addition and subtraction it doesn't matter which comes first, just like it doesn't matter with multiplication and division.
The difference between multiblication and division is aobut 286 right now.
- #315
- 17 April 2011 - 11:34 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Addition and subtraction have no prevalence over each other. Multiplication and division have none, either. But both multiplication and division go before the first two.
The problem with this equation is that people encounter difficulties with how to treat the brackets. What comes first or afterwards really does not enter into it - if 2(9+3) means 2*9+2*3 (24), then the answer is 2. If 2(9+3) means 2*12, then the result will be 288. Hence why it is confusingly written - the order of operations is the same either way.
The problem with this equation is that people encounter difficulties with how to treat the brackets. What comes first or afterwards really does not enter into it - if 2(9+3) means 2*9+2*3 (24), then the answer is 2. If 2(9+3) means 2*12, then the result will be 288. Hence why it is confusingly written - the order of operations is the same either way.
- #316
- 18 April 2011 - 07:54 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
ILB, on 18 April 2011 - 07:54 PM, said:
Addition and subtraction have no prevalence over each other. Multiplication and division have none, either. But both multiplication and division go before the first two.
The problem with this equation is that people encounter difficulties with how to treat the brackets. What comes first or afterwards really does not enter into it - if 2(9+3) means 2*9+2*3 (24), then the answer is 2. If 2(9+3) means 2*12, then the result will be 288. Hence why it is confusingly written - the order of operations is the same either way.
The problem with this equation is that people encounter difficulties with how to treat the brackets. What comes first or afterwards really does not enter into it - if 2(9+3) means 2*9+2*3 (24), then the answer is 2. If 2(9+3) means 2*12, then the result will be 288. Hence why it is confusingly written - the order of operations is the same either way.
But... 2*9+2*3 is equivalent to 2*12
And in here it would obviously go in brackets anyway, wouldn't it?
- #317
- 18 April 2011 - 08:58 PM
- Hen Barrison
- Member
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
24*12
288
This is how I was taught.
PEMDAS, folow the steps, *and/ from left to right.
now Ill see if I can get two.
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/24
2
Hmm... Getting two for this problem on a test will result in getting makred wrong.
Whats the f***ing answer?
Ah! but wait! What if i distribute??
48/2(9+3)
48/18+6
48/24
2
hmmm. but distributing would be wrong because your suposed to simplify (9+3)
wait thats wrong too.
48/18+6
2.666...+6
8.6667
48/2*12
24*12
288
This is how I was taught.
PEMDAS, folow the steps, *and/ from left to right.
now Ill see if I can get two.
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/24
2
Hmm... Getting two for this problem on a test will result in getting makred wrong.
Whats the f***ing answer?
Ah! but wait! What if i distribute??
48/2(9+3)
48/18+6
48/24
2
hmmm. but distributing would be wrong because your suposed to simplify (9+3)
wait thats wrong too.
48/18+6
2.666...+6
8.6667
This post has been edited by Hen Barrison: 19 April 2011 - 03:24 AM
- #319
- 19 April 2011 - 03:22 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
While I support the PE(MD)(AS) method myself, what pisses me off about this discussion is that everyone and their mother is willing to jump in and show the "correct" way to do it and they do that sort of and some of the people even show solid math for whatever system they are using by no one under any conditions has been able to show one good reason why their answer is right beyond
or simply stating the opinion yet again If no one can give even one good reason then none of us have a reason to post here again. Anyone have an ACTUAL argument as to why they are right beyond the blind stupididty of the "They are wrong so jsut tell them they are wrong" method? And if you yourself are unable to explain things past that then you should consider that you don't know what you are talking about just like everyone else here. This is the reason I have chosen the middle ground. I can't find a reason to favor one system over the other but at least I know that and work with it.
Quote
"This is how I was taught."
Quote
Addition and subtraction have no prevalence over each other. Multiplication and division have none, either. But both multiplication and division go before the first two.
Quote
48/2*12 is legit and equals 288.
- #320
- 19 April 2011 - 04:19 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Well, the argument "this is how mathematics define it" really ought to be enough, no? ^_^
It is like a debate on "will this ball fall to the ground if I drop it", if we are arguing about the order of operation. Any other troubles are caused by the equation.
It is like a debate on "will this ball fall to the ground if I drop it", if we are arguing about the order of operation. Any other troubles are caused by the equation.
- #321
- 19 April 2011 - 05:36 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
There are no more issues with the equation.Most everyone seems to understand the duel consept math.
- #322
- 19 April 2011 - 05:51 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Said long ago, repeated many times, and still avoiding the subject but at least it's true.
- #324
- 19 April 2011 - 07:09 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
I have no idea what that means.
- #327
- 19 April 2011 - 08:19 PM
I have no clue where the hell people got the whole "maths is left to right" thing from. But looking around the internets it seems relatively common. This is highly counter-intuitive and irrational to me and creates a deep flaw in everything mathematics I have done to date. But since I can't really prove that it's bullcrap (not without effort i'm not willing to make anyway), I guess craft aids is right and the thread is over.
And yeah Kaxbe, wait a while then ressurect it, and the WHOLE discussion will start over. We can only hope people will be smarter (i.e.: agree with me more) when the time comes.
And yeah Kaxbe, wait a while then ressurect it, and the WHOLE discussion will start over. We can only hope people will be smarter (i.e.: agree with me more) when the time comes.
- #328
- 20 April 2011 - 12:27 PM
- esalaka
- Banned
I don't think anyone here has claimed math works left-to-right, just that the operators with the same precedence are applied left-to-right.
Or can be applied left-to-right because of commutativity and shit, but you could just as well group the numbers in your head if you want to do that.
Or can be applied left-to-right because of commutativity and shit, but you could just as well group the numbers in your head if you want to do that.
- #329
- 20 April 2011 - 05:38 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Well, if you were to read right to left it would makd the problem
5-4+1
Have the same problem s the original issue.
Oh danm, I think I found it.
5-4+1=1+1=2
5-4+1=5-5=0
Wait, nevermind. Then communitivity still works for the second one as well as the first one.
5+(-4)+1=2
5-(4+1)= 5+(-4)+(-1)=0
Once everything is expressable in same possative operators(+and*) order doesn't matter anymore. Is seems like we are so close to finding a reason why PEMDAS is a load of bull and PE(MD)(AS) is right but we just can't seem to find it.
Also, can we stick with the new and simpler question?
5-4+1
5-4+1
Have the same problem s the original issue.
Oh danm, I think I found it.
5-4+1=1+1=2
5-4+1=5-5=0
Wait, nevermind. Then communitivity still works for the second one as well as the first one.
5+(-4)+1=2
5-(4+1)= 5+(-4)+(-1)=0
Once everything is expressable in same possative operators(+and*) order doesn't matter anymore. Is seems like we are so close to finding a reason why PEMDAS is a load of bull and PE(MD)(AS) is right but we just can't seem to find it.
Also, can we stick with the new and simpler question?
5-4+1
- #330
- 20 April 2011 - 06:09 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
Quote
5+(-4)+1=2
5-(4+1)= 5+(-4)+(-1)=0
5-(4+1)= 5+(-4)+(-1)=0
Wrong.
You forgot that in distributing the negative to the 4 and 1 group, you have to switch the 1 around as well.
You said 5-4+1=5-(4+1). This is wrong. you must distribute the "-" to group them in a parentheses: 5-4+1=5-(4-1).
Addressing pretty much everyone:
It's not that hard. Quit arguing. This is how math is, period. If you dweebs can't wrap your puny minds around such a simple concept, please jump off the nearest bridge and rid the gene pool of your idiocy.
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:17 PM
- #331
- 20 April 2011 - 06:15 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
5-4+1=5-5
If you add first, this is true.
So, the adding has the highest prioraty and in the system 5-4+1 does = 5-5 and 5-(4+1)
You seem unable to grasp the consept that this is a different language of math and that trying to operate on it with the language you usualy use and then telling us we are wrong does not work.
Yeah, not good enough.
If you can't provide a reason or at least try rather then jsut saying
I'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go die
Well, then don't provide a reason.
If you add first, this is true.
So, the adding has the highest prioraty and in the system 5-4+1 does = 5-5 and 5-(4+1)
You seem unable to grasp the consept that this is a different language of math and that trying to operate on it with the language you usualy use and then telling us we are wrong does not work.
Quote
It's not that hard. Quit arguing. This is how math is, period
Yeah, not good enough.
If you can't provide a reason or at least try rather then jsut saying
I'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go dieI'm right go die
Well, then don't provide a reason.
- #332
- 20 April 2011 - 06:25 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
5 - 4 + 1 is the same as 5 + (-4) + 1
If you add first, you get 2.
You want to see people garble math?
Multiply Zero times Zero.
Listen: 2x3 means two threes, right?
So 0x0 must mean no nothings, which inevitably produces something, right?
so 0x0=anything you want!
/Trololololo~
If you add first, you get 2.
You want to see people garble math?
Multiply Zero times Zero.
Listen: 2x3 means two threes, right?
So 0x0 must mean no nothings, which inevitably produces something, right?
so 0x0=anything you want!
/Trololololo~
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:28 PM
- #333
- 20 April 2011 - 06:26 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Multiplication can be expressed geometricaly.
Therefore, it would be nothing long and nothing wide.
That is nothing.
Therefore, it would be nothing long and nothing wide.
That is nothing.
- #334
- 20 April 2011 - 06:29 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
Still didn't answer 5 - 4 + 1 is the same as 5 + (-4) + 1
If you add first, you get 2.
What you did was a misuse of the distributive property.
If you want to group -4+1, by removing a -1 you get -1x(4-1), or -(4-1). NOT -(4+1)
I said:
Craft aids, on 20 April 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:
5-4+1=5-5
If you add first, this is true.
If you add first, this is true.
If you add first, you get 2.
What you did was a misuse of the distributive property.
If you want to group -4+1, by removing a -1 you get -1x(4-1), or -(4-1). NOT -(4+1)
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:35 PM
- #335
- 20 April 2011 - 06:32 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
In the system where you work things from right to left when they are the same presidence, you would subtract by four first leaving yourself with a remainder of one and an addition of one.
In the system where you do addition and then subtraction you would add one and four leading to five minus five. So, the numbers being added togeather are effectively all a single negative.
In the system where you do addition and then subtraction you would add one and four leading to five minus five. So, the numbers being added togeather are effectively all a single negative.
- #336
- 20 April 2011 - 06:35 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
You are ignoring the properties of mathematics.
I said:
What you did was a misuse of the distributive property.
If you want to group -4+1, by removing a -1 you get -1x(4-1), or -(4-1). NOT -(4+1)
If you want to group -4+1, by removing a -1 you get -1x(4-1), or -(4-1). NOT -(4+1)
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:37 PM
- #337
- 20 April 2011 - 06:36 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
You are unable to provide a reason why the propertys of mathmatics you beleive are the most correct.
Oh!
Found the broken math.
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
We have now found a way in which the second system is broken.
Praice be to whoever.
Oh!
Found the broken math.
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
We have now found a way in which the second system is broken.
Praice be to whoever.
- #338
- 20 April 2011 - 06:40 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
I fail to understand your question.
These properties (Additive, Distributive, Commutative, etc...) are what makes up math. They are correct as are Newton's laws. They ARE intrinsically math.
What you are saying is like, "How can you prove oranges are oranges?" An orange is an orange. End.
These properties (Additive, Distributive, Commutative, etc...) are what makes up math. They are correct as are Newton's laws. They ARE intrinsically math.
What you are saying is like, "How can you prove oranges are oranges?" An orange is an orange. End.
Spoiler
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:50 PM
- #339
- 20 April 2011 - 06:40 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Dr. Klaus, on 20 April 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:
I fail to understand your question.
These properties (Additive, Distributive, Commutative, etc...) are what makes up math. They are correct as are Newton's laws. They ARE intrinsically math.
What you are saying is like, "How can you prove oranges are oranges?" An orange is an orange. End.
These properties (Additive, Distributive, Commutative, etc...) are what makes up math. They are correct as are Newton's laws. They ARE intrinsically math.
What you are saying is like, "How can you prove oranges are oranges?" An orange is an orange. End.
An oarnge is a lable that was created uisng inductive reasoning that linked a set of objects togeather under the observations and then assumption that they have the same charictureistics.
To prove an oarnge is an oarnge you would observe it for the qualitys that make it an oarnge.
- #340
- 20 April 2011 - 06:44 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
I'm saying that, ignoring the label, what you and I have been arguing over regarding math and recently oranges is this:
How do we prove something is?
The ultimate question of existence. Is what this has degraded down to.
I counter: Cogito ergo sum.
How do we prove something is?
The ultimate question of existence. Is what this has degraded down to.
I counter: Cogito ergo sum.
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 06:49 PM
- #341
- 20 April 2011 - 06:47 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Craft aids, on 20 April 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:
Oh!
Found the broken math.
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
We have now found a way in which the second system is broken.
Praice be to whoever.
Found the broken math.
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
We have now found a way in which the second system is broken.
Praice be to whoever.
Uh, no.
The issue has been solved.
And it was a question of how things that we know exist should be expressed.
- #342
- 20 April 2011 - 06:49 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
It whouldn't matter but I am sure you jsut want to cheer that your team "won" so I will tell you that I disproved the pure operations order system.
It could not be done with the other problem because
/2*12 doesn't mean anything but -4+1 does.
It could not be done with the other problem because
/2*12 doesn't mean anything but -4+1 does.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 20 April 2011 - 06:53 PM
- #344
- 20 April 2011 - 06:52 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
See how you are backed up against an invisable wall?
Yeah, that.
Anywho, time to see if the proof is translatable.
What is -4+1?
Yeah, that.
Anywho, time to see if the proof is translatable.
What is -4+1?
- #346
- 20 April 2011 - 06:56 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Dr. Klaus, on 20 April 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:
Craft aids said:
See how you are backed up against an invisible wall?
Yeah, that.
Yeah, that.
*blinks*
...What?
Quote
nobody is on my side.
Now then, can we get back to the math?
- #348
- 20 April 2011 - 06:59 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
It was a LotR quote, uncultured one. (JK. I suppose the reference was rightly esoteric)
Yes, math.
So we've agreed:
5 - 4 + 1 is the same as 5 + (-4) + 1
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
Are we trying to prove some system wrong or something?
Yes, math.
So we've agreed:
5 - 4 + 1 is the same as 5 + (-4) + 1
4+1=5
-4=(-4)
-4+1=-3
-4+1=/=-5
Are we trying to prove some system wrong or something?
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 07:03 PM
- #349
- 20 April 2011 - 07:01 PM
