/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3423262
I see what you did there.
That's generally a sensible interpretation, but what if you swap the multiplication for division instead?

>>3423244
this is going nowhere. See >>3423132
I didn't ask for a solution. I asked whether you read L->R,
>>3423253
L->R is convention, I'm almost certain. I've never seen a different order specified.

>>3423229
It matters. If you perform L->R then you get nine, if you perform R->L you get 1. Yes, the question is deliberately vague; its intended to catch you out. No, that doesn't invalidate it.

>>3423224
See
>>3423181
You didn't answer the question, despite the fact the question has an answer and the answer is vital.

>>3423205
it definitely matters. Look at the original question for an example of a time at which it does.

>>3423202
see >>3423141
This is easy. You should probably quit.

>>3423190
see
>>3423181

>>3423165
in what order would you perform 7*3/5?

>>3423164
>You run through performing operations in the most nested parentheses, then by multiplication and division
>performing operations in the most nested parentheses
>then by multiplication and division

>>3423168
see >>3423141

>>3423152
Linear notation. You run through performing operations in the most nested parentheses, then by multiplication and division with equal precedence, then addition and subtraction with equal precedence. Ask your teacher.

>>3423135
Too obvious.

When two operations of equal priority occur, you always read left to right. The answer is that you perform 1+2, then perform 6/2, then perform (6/2)(3)
There are no brackets, meaning you don't take the 2(1+2) as an object. I can't provide citation, but I've asked three math professors and they all agreed that, in the linear format, the sensible assumption was that the sum shouldn't be taken as 6/(2(1+2))

>>3423079
>Seriously, this thing is SOOOOOOO over budget
Agreed. It's so easily affordable though.
>And is filled with cherry picked data
[citation needed]
>And estimates that are outright lies.
[citation needed]
If you cite when you're making the original claim you look smart as fuck. People genuinely assume you're making a stronger argument, because you probably are.

>>3422454
>2011
>trying to run a successful campaign on a social network currently closed to outsiders

>>3422233
I think I have to make a fusor. It's not really optional. If there's some way I can work out of getting the memory wire I just got into it, all the better :D

>>3422211
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusion

I realise I'm probably making a serious mistake but it looks like this could be done with a fusor and a high powered electron gun that's well calibrated. If that's the case, I need a vacuum chamber

>>3422195
France probably.
Careful, vegans have a tendency of having non-coagulating blood and skeletons made of broccoli.

>>3422139
no, they're irresponsible reactionary idiots. It's just that they are in a position in which they could potentially do a great deal of good and it seems that they're unaware of the relevance of fusion. I wouldn't personally trust greenpeace with a battery charger.
>>3422151
indeed.
Li-6 can be injected and absorb some of them, I think, but neutrons would be a problem

>>3422108
>I deserve to be hated on because I disagree with the people you dislike but won't dismiss them
wat

>>3421934
>>3421941
haters gonna hate
are you really incapable of seeing that they have good intentions?

>>3421911
I see stable helium and a neutron.

>>3421859
these along with
newscientist.com
theregister.co.uk

not related, but I clicked a load of links and found this
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news165.html
>On October 8, 2009 about 03:00 Greenwich time, an atmospheric fireball blast was observed and recorded over an island region of Indonesia. The blast is thought to be due to the atmospheric entry of a small asteroid about 10 meters in diameter that, due to atmospheric pressure, detonated in the atmosphere with an energy of about 50 kilotons (the equivalent of 110 million pounds of TNT explosives).

>we would expect a fireball event of this magnitude about once every 2 to 12 years on average.