This topic is locked
Right, we need to keep it simple.
what is
-4+1?
You know what?
I am just going to assume that you agree with everything you quoted without a quote box and say -3.
It is because 4 is a negative value, not a possitive value that is going to be subtracted.
While -4+1=-3
/2*12 has no meaning.
This is why the old problem was unresolvable.
The key thing was that subtraction is not really an operation of it's own but quickhand for a negative value.
Devision on the otherhand, is not quite so relatable.
Math Problem
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned 
- #351
- 20 April 2011 - 07:11 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
-4+1=-3
true dat.
now, for the original problem.
48÷2(9+3)
Step one: Clarify the relationships between each part of the equation:
48 x .5 x (9+3)
Simplify that horrid (9+3)
48 x .5 x 12
Now, multiply!
48 x .5 = 24
24 x 12 = 288
That is the correct answer, is it not?
So what was the original issue? People just don't know how to do it right, is it?
true dat.
now, for the original problem.
48÷2(9+3)
Step one: Clarify the relationships between each part of the equation:
48 x .5 x (9+3)
Simplify that horrid (9+3)
48 x .5 x 12
Now, multiply!
48 x .5 = 24
24 x 12 = 288
That is the correct answer, is it not?
So what was the original issue? People just don't know how to do it right, is it?
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 07:14 PM
- #352
- 20 April 2011 - 07:14 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
The original issue was that the multplication was being done before the devision.
The order of operations most were using made this problem
48/(2*(9+3))
Which, as presented, is a perfectly logical problem.
After all, aht brackets do is mess with the order of things.
The order of operations most were using made this problem
48/(2*(9+3))
Which, as presented, is a perfectly logical problem.
After all, aht brackets do is mess with the order of things.
- #354
- 20 April 2011 - 07:18 PM
- Kaxbe
- Member
In basic arithmetic, the obelus is used to express division between only two terms. It is not read as a fraction. hoo frickin' yay. said this shit before.
I feel like I'm the only one who is actually doing research on this as opposed to only sticking by what he was taught.
I feel like I'm the only one who is actually doing research on this as opposed to only sticking by what he was taught.
- #355
- 20 April 2011 - 07:19 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
I don't care about your fancy simbole kabe. It could still have been argued that anything on on half of a fraction is being treated as a single term.
And yes, we proved logicaly that PEMDAS does not work.
PE(MD)(AS) is now proven to be more correct.
And yes, we proved logicaly that PEMDAS does not work.
PE(MD)(AS) is now proven to be more correct.
- #357
- 20 April 2011 - 07:29 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Oh well. I opened this topic at least twenty minutes ago, so I should have expected this.
Quote
Multiply Zero times Zero.
... One? ^_^
- #358
- 20 April 2011 - 07:30 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
We were talking about adding to a negative number ilb.
Try again.
Try again.
- #359
- 20 April 2011 - 07:32 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
Craft aids, on 20 April 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:
I don't care about your fancy simbole kabe. It could still have been argued that anything on on half of a fraction is being treated as a single term.
And yes, we proved logicaly that PEMDAS does not work.
PE(MD)(AS) is now proven to be more correct.
And yes, we proved logicaly that PEMDAS does not work.
PE(MD)(AS) is now proven to be more correct.
Technically, dividing can be written as multiplying by the reciprocal, and subtraction is adding a negative, so we could shorten to PEMA. Where M encompasses mult/div and A encompasses add/sub.
PEMA
If you want brackets, you get BEMA, which resembles a jewish word.
Huzzah!
ILB, on 20 April 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:
Quote
Multiply Zero times Zero.
... One? ^_^
Heh heh yes.
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 07:50 PM
- #361
- 20 April 2011 - 07:49 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Quote
3-6 would be 3 rather than -3.
You were subtracting from a posetive.
- #363
- 20 April 2011 - 08:08 PM
- ILB
- secretly a man
Member
Yes. Subtracting from a positive has the same result as subtracting from a negative. Similarly, if we add to a negative that is the same as adding to a positive. This is interconnecting - 3-2 is 1, -3-2 is -5, 3+2 is 5, -3+2 is -1. If we change any one of these (such as in the original issue: -4+1 meaning 5 (the wrong option) rather than 3 (which is correct)), then the others will also change their properties. So if -4+1 was correct, then 3-6 would be 9 and not -3.
That said, I am afraid (and aware) I miscalculated in the example I provided.
That said, I am afraid (and aware) I miscalculated in the example I provided.
- #364
- 20 April 2011 - 08:17 PM
Calculus, by Tom Apostol, Volume 1 is a great book for this. Chapter 1 starts with what a number is, and the author builds absolutely everything off of that.
Apostol's Calculus
If anyone wants a complete, correct, and modern construction of basic mathematics I'd suggest reading this book, or at least the beginning.
Apostol's Calculus
If anyone wants a complete, correct, and modern construction of basic mathematics I'd suggest reading this book, or at least the beginning.
This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 20 April 2011 - 09:18 PM
- #365
- 20 April 2011 - 09:17 PM
Is this really being discussed?
- #366
- 20 April 2011 - 09:32 PM
Craft aids, on 20 April 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:
5-4+1=1+1=2
5-4+1=5-5=0
5-4+1=5-5=0
I'm sorry craft aids, but I think I just lost the last little thread of respect I still held for you here. I know you corrected yourself, but still... unless you claim to be 10 years old or something... I don't think there's anything you could do to redeem yourself.Kaxbe, on 20 April 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:
In basic arithmetic, the obelus is used to express division between only two terms. It is not read as a fraction. hoo frickin' yay. said this shit before.
Yeah, I agree with that. ÷2 =/= 0.5
The expression 48÷2(9+3) does not make it clear whether it simplifies 2 or 288.
Btw, Care to share some of your sources Kaxbe?
As for 0 x 0... I guess I can see the philosophical explanation as to why it must be something. But 0x0 would probably be better expressed as "None of nothing" rather than "not nothing", as "not" indicates a negative (gramatically, i.e. an opposite) rather than an absence. That way it could be seen to be 0.
According to some douche on yahoo answers, in practical terms zero is a very small, neglectible value which is impractical to express in numbers. So it being squared gives you an even smaller value, therefore being also expressed as zero. But some calculators show the answer as infinity, apparently.
More interesting than 0 x 0 perhaps would be 0^0, hee hee hee. At least that one is a trick question.
- #367
- 20 April 2011 - 11:12 PM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
Ah. 0^0. I love this.
Take the rule " a^b * a^c = a^(b+c) "
Say 0^0=1. And, if 0^1=0, then 0^1 * 0^(-1) = 0^0.
But 0^(-1) = 1/(0^1) = 1/0, which is an impossibility.
So in 0^1 * 0^(-1), you get 0 * 1/0 = 1.
What the hell?
So you see, 0^0 cannot be equal to one, as many people might suggest.
Take the rule " a^b * a^c = a^(b+c) "
Say 0^0=1. And, if 0^1=0, then 0^1 * 0^(-1) = 0^0.
But 0^(-1) = 1/(0^1) = 1/0, which is an impossibility.
So in 0^1 * 0^(-1), you get 0 * 1/0 = 1.
What the hell?
So you see, 0^0 cannot be equal to one, as many people might suggest.
This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 20 April 2011 - 11:23 PM
- #368
- 20 April 2011 - 11:21 PM
- SapphCat88
- Member
Are we still on the same math problem? If we are, I have a simple solution. *grabs calculator* 288.
- #370
- 21 April 2011 - 12:40 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
SapphCat88, on 21 April 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:
Are we still on the same math problem? If we are, I have a simple solution. *grabs calculator* 288.
Uh, no.
Some calculators from the same companys say different things on this.
Read the thread or shut up.
- #371
- 21 April 2011 - 02:26 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Migrant, on 20 April 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:
Craft aids, on 20 April 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:
5-4+1=1+1=2
5-4+1=5-5=0
5-4+1=5-5=0
I'm sorry craft aids, but I think I just lost the last little thread of respect I still held for you here. I know you corrected yourself, but still... unless you claim to be 10 years old or something... I don't think there's anything you could do to redeem yourself.Really? Because you use the contradiction that I fell for in the very next part of the same post.
Migrant, on 20 April 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:
Kaxbe, on 20 April 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:
In basic arithmetic, the obelus is used to express division between only two terms. It is not read as a fraction. hoo frickin' yay. said this shit before.
Yeah, I agree with that. ÷2 =/= 0.5
The expression 48÷2(9+3) does not make it clear whether it simplifies 2 or 288.
÷2 =/= 0.5
÷2 = *0.5
0.5 is a measurable value. It can not be equle to half of a devision problem. It has to be *0.5 which is half of a multiplication problem. It is no longer unclear because we already found reasoning for it.
If the realationship between */ and +- are the same, the rules set for +- apply in part to */.
The posability that the problem should be read as 48/(2*12) instead of (48/2)*12 is exactly the same as the possability that the problem of 5-4+1 should be read as 5-(4+1) instead of (5-4)+1.
The difference in logic is that /2 is not a value and so it is hard to think that you should transfer devision like you transfer negativity.
5-4+1 actualy= 5-(4-1) or 5+(-4+1)
48/2*12 acualy= 48/(2/12) or 48*(.5*12)
Also, 0*0=0^2 or squared.
Being zero, 0*0=0*0*0
so, 0^2=0^3
- #372
- 21 April 2011 - 02:55 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Proof that a number to the zero power is one - math lesson from Homeschool Math
Annyway, so the reason why every number ever to the power of zero is 1 is because the pattern for each lower power is always devision by the base.
So, 3^4=81
3^3=27
3^4/3=27=3^3 or
3^4/3=3^3
So then, 3^0=3^1/3=1
This equates every number to the power of zero to that number devided by it's self, not directly to one.
This is why it is importaint to understand the reasoning behind your mathmatical systems instead of being taought and then jsut going with that or using a calculator.
So then, 0^0= 0/0 but this results in error.
The other way to get the answer is to multiply base^(-1) by base. Base^(-1)=1/base so 0^(-1) is also 1/0 or undefined. Undefined times zero is still undefined because undefined is not effected correctly by operations like(*/+-^()=) but even if it was, 1/0*0 would just be 0/0.
Annyway, so the reason why every number ever to the power of zero is 1 is because the pattern for each lower power is always devision by the base.
So, 3^4=81
3^3=27
3^4/3=27=3^3 or
3^4/3=3^3
So then, 3^0=3^1/3=1
This equates every number to the power of zero to that number devided by it's self, not directly to one.
This is why it is importaint to understand the reasoning behind your mathmatical systems instead of being taought and then jsut going with that or using a calculator.
So then, 0^0= 0/0 but this results in error.
The other way to get the answer is to multiply base^(-1) by base. Base^(-1)=1/base so 0^(-1) is also 1/0 or undefined. Undefined times zero is still undefined because undefined is not effected correctly by operations like(*/+-^()=) but even if it was, 1/0*0 would just be 0/0.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 21 April 2011 - 03:31 AM
- #373
- 21 April 2011 - 03:29 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Simplification, 0=nothing
The invers of nothing 1/0 is undefined
the number of nothings you can fit in a nothing is an odd number humping the doorway between nothing and undefined 0/0.
The invers of nothing 1/0 is undefined
the number of nothings you can fit in a nothing is an odd number humping the doorway between nothing and undefined 0/0.
- #374
- 21 April 2011 - 03:47 AM
- Valumior
- Member
Actually...
0/0 is an Indeterminate form.
That on a side note.
BTW. Craft aids. Use spell check please. You're starting to be painful to read.
0/0 is an Indeterminate form.
That on a side note.
BTW. Craft aids. Use spell check please. You're starting to be painful to read.
- #375
- 21 April 2011 - 11:05 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
OK fine, if we are going to think 0/0 out rather then just fixing the logic that led DR.Klaus to the conclusion that 0 * 1/0 = 1, no matter what you multiply zero by, it will always be zero. Therefor, 0/0=x can be translated into 0=x*0 and so 0/0 can be any value that has the normal reaction to being multiplied by zero or, any value except undefined which was constructed to be an exception to this rule but is not a number. 0/0 is any and all number concepts.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 21 April 2011 - 05:00 PM
- #376
- 21 April 2011 - 04:58 PM
Painfull...
÷2 =/= *0.5
x-4 = x+(-4) because -4 is a defined, real number (read as negative four, not minus four). ÷2 is an incomplete expression and has no meaning at all. A division is an operation between two numbers, there is no such thing as a "divided by" number, in the same way as there are negative numbers. ÷2 begs the question "What divided by two?" and is therefore not necessarily the same as "... times a half".
in your example of 5-4+1, the order in which you calculate has no effect on the result. -4+1=-3 and not -5. the minus sign merely indicates the addition of a negative number, and is not a true operation on itself. (and yes, i have read that you later realised this, but for you to have taken that long to see, already made me lose my resect for you). In no system i have ever encountered, however, does ÷2 mean half. 1/2 is how you would write it. There is a good reason for that, but it is hardly relevant. The system is what it is, and ÷2 had no meaning by itself.
÷2 =/= *0.5
x-4 = x+(-4) because -4 is a defined, real number (read as negative four, not minus four). ÷2 is an incomplete expression and has no meaning at all. A division is an operation between two numbers, there is no such thing as a "divided by" number, in the same way as there are negative numbers. ÷2 begs the question "What divided by two?" and is therefore not necessarily the same as "... times a half".
in your example of 5-4+1, the order in which you calculate has no effect on the result. -4+1=-3 and not -5. the minus sign merely indicates the addition of a negative number, and is not a true operation on itself. (and yes, i have read that you later realised this, but for you to have taken that long to see, already made me lose my resect for you). In no system i have ever encountered, however, does ÷2 mean half. 1/2 is how you would write it. There is a good reason for that, but it is hardly relevant. The system is what it is, and ÷2 had no meaning by itself.
- #377
- 22 April 2011 - 02:02 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Yeah, and *0.5 also has no meaning in and of it's self. They have identicle half meanings or identicle effects waiting for a number to operate on. No matter what you put in frount of both /2 and *.5 it will always be the same. I am not saything that they have value, only that they are equal.
- #378
- 22 April 2011 - 05:20 PM
- matty_batty0
- Member
Agreeing with Craft here...about the whole
÷2 = *0.5
thing anyway
÷2 = *0.5
thing anyway
This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 22 April 2011 - 05:28 PM
- #379
- 22 April 2011 - 05:23 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Oh, actualy, 1/0 wouldn't result in the same thing from those two because it was made to break the rules but other then that.
- #380
- 22 April 2011 - 05:25 PM
Craft Aids said:
identicle
In some cases they can be used alike, but not always. 1 * 0.5 * 4 = 2, But 1 /2 *4 = Error, has no meaning. Sorry to use the same example as always, but I can't really make a different one that would look convincing. Though I think even 1 /2 + 4 = Error, as it could be interpreted as (2+4)^-1. Basically, the / symbol does not clearly define whether everything after it is the denominator, or just the number immediatelly following it, or something in between.
Take a more real example when using units. One Pascal is equivalent to one Newton per meter squared, and one Newton is equivalent to one kilogram meter per second squared. So you can write one Pascal as 1 kg m-1 s-2, i.e. one kilogram per meter per second squared, or one kilogram per meter second squared. To clearly identify what is the nominator and what is the denominator in the units, we tend to write them using negative and positive powers, rather than using the "/" sign, but units are also very commonly written as km/h (i.e. kilometers per hour). Writing Pascal in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds, we could write kg/ms2. This is a very real and common example where the "/" sign is used and accepted to mean "everything on the left is the numerator and everything on the right is the denominator".
- #381
- 24 April 2011 - 03:13 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
1 /2 + 4 = Error
Uh, no. The issue was that multiplication and devision are on the same level but there is no one who would argue that addition should be done before devision. it = 4.5.
And if
1/2*4 = Error then
1-2+4 = Error
Uh, no. The issue was that multiplication and devision are on the same level but there is no one who would argue that addition should be done before devision. it = 4.5.
And if
1/2*4 = Error then
1-2+4 = Error
- #382
- 25 April 2011 - 04:14 PM
Quote
Basically, the / symbol does not clearly define whether everything after it is the denominator, or just the number immediatelly following it, or something in between.
- #383
- 26 April 2011 - 11:01 AM
- Dr. Klaus
Member
Migrant, on 26 April 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:
Quote
Basically, the / symbol does not clearly define whether everything after it is the denominator, or just the number immediatelly following it, or something in between.
I have never heard of the division symbol having implied brackets unless it is written as a fraction.
- #384
- 26 April 2011 - 11:11 AM
hence the inverted commas. what i mean is that the slash sign specifically can appear to be indicating a fraction. let me work on an image to clarify, give me a minute.
here.
this clearly means (5x + 11) / (2x - 4), and not 5x + (11/2x) - 4
a small change in writting, easily confused and common shorthand form, when writting by hand.
here.
this clearly means (5x + 11) / (2x - 4), and not 5x + (11/2x) - 4
a small change in writting, easily confused and common shorthand form, when writting by hand.
- #385
- 26 April 2011 - 11:32 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Migrant, on 26 April 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:
Quote
Basically, the / symbol does not clearly define whether everything after it is the denominator, or just the number immediatelly following it, or something in between.
Right, you know that this is a problem don't you? If you have a definition of writing a math problem that only implyes the meaning you have a flaw in your definition.
Unlike with the other problem, I feel that I can safely say that adhearing to an implied fraction is inconsistant.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 26 April 2011 - 03:59 PM
- #386
- 26 April 2011 - 03:56 PM
Craft, you're kinda dumb...
My whole argument was that usage of the "/" symbol if flawed.
Also, try giving better arguments and slash or examples with your answers. You're getting more repetitive than I am.
Also, try and find out what the verb "to imply" means before continuing.
My whole argument was that usage of the "/" symbol if flawed.
Also, try giving better arguments and slash or examples with your answers. You're getting more repetitive than I am.
Also, try and find out what the verb "to imply" means before continuing.
- #387
- 27 April 2011 - 08:27 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated
In other words, saying it whithout ever actualy saying it. A mear suggestion.
And what do you mean? I had yet to argue about the usage of the / symbole.
In other words, saying it whithout ever actualy saying it. A mear suggestion.
And what do you mean? I had yet to argue about the usage of the / symbole.
- #388
- 27 April 2011 - 04:10 PM
Craft aids, on 27 April 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:
saying it whithout without ever actualy actually saying it.
Craft aids, on 27 April 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:
A mear mere suggestion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004 said:
(ĭm-plī') pronunciation
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
This post has been edited by Migrant: 28 April 2011 - 12:27 PM
- #389
- 28 April 2011 - 12:25 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Migrant, on 28 April 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:
Craft aids, on 27 April 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:
saying it whithout without ever actualy actually saying it.
Craft aids, on 27 April 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:
A mear mere suggestion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004 said:
(ĭm-plī') pronunciation
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
Wouldn't you still say that that is a sub par definition for an operand? It's job is to say things, not imply them. To indirectly involve things by logical necessity is to force and assumption which is not it's job.
I suppose that is a sort of agreement. We seem to agree that the idea you have in your head for the meaning of / is not good enough.
Please restate your reasoning and backup for your idea of the difference between / and ÷ and any equivalent reasoning you may have involving the other operations.
This post has been edited by Craft aids: 28 April 2011 - 04:14 PM
- #390
- 28 April 2011 - 04:13 PM
Craft Aids said:
Please restate your reasoning and backup for your idea of the difference between / and ÷ and any equivalent reasoning you may have involving the other operations.
Migrant, on 27 April 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:
My whole argument was that usage of the "/" symbol if flawed.
Kaxbe said:
the obelus [ ÷ ] is used to express division between only two terms. It is not read as a fraction.
Example 1.
Example 2.
This post has been edited by Migrant: 29 April 2011 - 02:11 PM
- #393
- 29 April 2011 - 02:10 PM
This. Is. Insane!
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
- #394
- 29 April 2011 - 02:53 PM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
Starwatcher, on 29 April 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:
This. Is. Insane!
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
Yes. Very good starwatcher. You figured out the puzzle that a few people figured out on page one.
The issue up till about last page was getting people to recognise that there was more then one standard. After that, we disproved two of them. We now have one grammer set left and are done with this. Or, we would be.
The latest problem is that migrant and kabe seem to think that / is implying a fraction. Now, I had never heard of this before. As such, I have no input from an outside sorce to add but I do have this.
Both of migrants sorces are from things he learned on this page with no real backup but even if the idea is to be beleived we now once more have been set to two different languages. In one, the / symbol is not a devision symbol but an implied fraction symbol and in the other it is exactly the same as ÷, the symbol for devision between the numbers on the left and the right.
I am not sure that this one will hold up but we could go back to the calculators and call bulshit. the / is the same as the ÷ by that standard.
- #395
- 30 April 2011 - 12:18 AM
- Kaxbe
- Member
The reason "÷" is used on calculators is because it is generally understood to be division. However, my point still stands. It is used only in basic math because it implies math between the two numbers directly beside it. For example:
18÷9÷2
What does this equal? It equals 1. Because in basic, elementary grade math when all the processes are of equal value according to any order of operations, it is done left to right.
18÷9÷2
What does this equal? It equals 1. Because in basic, elementary grade math when all the processes are of equal value according to any order of operations, it is done left to right.
- #396
- 30 April 2011 - 12:56 AM
- Smash Genesis
- Member
Starwatcher, on 29 April 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:
This. Is. Insane!
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
Choose a stupid convention and use it! The ONLY problem here is that we have at least 3 groups with different conventions for when people write ambiguous statements.
Star, the whole thing is a troll meme. There's no point in getting worked up.
This post has been edited by Smash Genesis: 30 April 2011 - 01:02 AM
- #397
- 30 April 2011 - 01:01 AM
- matty_batty0
- Member
Craft aids, on 30 April 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:
Yes. Very good starwatcher. You figured out the puzzle that a few people figured out on page one.
You know, he has said it before in this thread, he was just restating a point, just like everyone else has been for the past seven pages.
This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 30 April 2011 - 01:01 AM
- #398
- 30 April 2011 - 01:01 AM
Quote
The issue up till about last page was getting people to recognise that there was more then one standard. After that, we disproved two of them. We now have one grammer set left and are done with this. Or, we would be.
Disproved is a word that describes the falsehood of a theorem. These are definitions.
You can't prove or disprove them. They are tools, a language, nothing more.
- #399
- 30 April 2011 - 01:01 AM
- Craft aids
- That doesn't sound like a rape. That sounds like suprise sex
Banned
We found holes in two of the the definitions. They don't work. It would be like being presented with the deefiition that "A cat is not a cat but is instead a rat as long as it is still a cat." As a definition, it is assumed to be true but it can then be turned on itself so it does not work.
So yes, defiinitions can be disproved.
Also, the fact that we are questioning them puts them back on the level of theory.
What the hell are you trying to sell us?
So yes, defiinitions can be disproved.
Also, the fact that we are questioning them puts them back on the level of theory.
What the hell are you trying to sell us?
- #400
- 30 April 2011 - 02:35 AM