/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10120362]

Do /sci/ agree with this?

[Anonymous No.10120376]

Yea I also agree with 20/100 and am aware that 20/100 = 1 = 16

Even the teacher has no idea what’s going on

Imagine being a kid that learns 1=16

It’s like education is not even education anymore

Excuse the spacing
Fucking higher ed kiketards

[Anonymous No.10120440]

>>10120362
no. mathematical notation should be entirely unambiguous

[Anonymous No.10120841]

>>10120362
The hell I was tought to follow bidmas you can't have both being right without breaking bidmas.

[Anonymous No.10120845]

>>10120376
You're not even wrong

[Anonymous No.10120849]

>>10120362

[Anonymous No.10120853]

>>10120845
Explain the image please

[Anonymous No.10120859]

>preschool classes having proyectors
No

[Anonymous No.10120860]

>>10120853
wamyn studies

[Anonymous No.10120867]

>>10120849
There's a number line on the wall and they want these kids to work with imaginary numbers. Ok...

[Anonymous No.10120873]

>>10120860
It's scary that this is allowed to be taught.

[Anonymous No.10120954]

>>10120362
What's the right answer

[Anonymous No.10121146]

>>10120841
Doesn't the USA use PEMDAS? So in that case multiplication takes priority over division

[Anonymous No.10121215]

>>10120845
This one is kinda true though. Scientific facts are never facts, they are just the currently most reasonable falsifiable explanation. I.e. social constructs.

[Anonymous No.10121279]

>>10120860
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that americans actually have a major called "women studies" and that people actually waste money in it.

[Anonymous No.10121308]

>>10121215
>falsifiable
Stop reading popsci you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10121562]

>>10121146
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.10121585]

>>10121562
Which one, that US uses PEMDAS or that division goes before multiplication?

[Anonymous No.10121591]

>>10121585
I always thought whatever was first is more important. I mean if division is the opposite of multiplication they should be equal right?
t. barely graduated because of math

[Anonymous No.10121604]

>>10121591
I looked it up and that appears to be the case, that in situations like these you solve from left to right.

[Anonymous No.10121625]

>>10120362
If a math problem had syntactic ambiguity, the person who made the problem and the person who is administering the problem should both be ripped out of their homes and shot in the streets for all to see.

[Anonymous No.10121646]

it should still be 16 with pemdas. addition/subtraction and division/multiplication just go left to right. it goes grouping symbols, exponents, division/multiplication, addition/subtraction.
20/5*(2*2)=20/5*4=4*4=16.

[Anonymous No.10121663]

>>10121146
>>10121591
>>10121604
Division and multiplication are the exact same function so they have equivalent priority. Same with addition and subtraction.

[Anonymous No.10121670]

>>10121663
If the division symbol or a slash without a line break is used instead of a fraction bar, the problem is incomplete and does not have a unique solution.
You go up to the person who gave you the problem and ask for another one that isn't fucking trash.

[Anonymous No.10121953]

>>10120440
this desu

[Anonymous No.10122004]

>>10120362
I agree, inline division is ambiguous trash and should only be used on computers where brackets are mandatory.

[Anonymous No.10122007]

>>10121308
huwhat’s wrong with falsifiability as one of the criteria?

[Anonymous No.10122097]

The "old way" is incorrect and has never been taught to my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10122128]

You should convert the division in a multiplication so it would be multiplied by 1/5 and then it doesn't matter the order of multiplication,

[Anonymous No.10122200]

>>10121308
Psued

[Anonymous No.10122272]

>>10121279
colleges are printing money because of all those dumb degrees

[Anonymous No.10122282]

>>10121646
Get off this fucking board nigger

[Anonymous No.10122287]

>>10120362

The correct answer is 16. 1 is not correct.

[Anonymous No.10122297]

>>10121279
we have a course here called "feminist techno science", thinking of taking for a laugh.

[Anonymous No.10122330]

>>10122287
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

[Anonymous No.10122675]

>>10122097
This. Is the "old way" some obscure burger bullshit based on body parts?

[Anonymous No.10122692]

>>10120362
Which way is supposed to be the correct one

[Anonymous No.10122697]

20/(5(2*2))= 1

[Anonymous No.10122701]

>>10121146
Bidmas is taught in the UK

[Anonymous No.10122710]

>>10121215
Fuck off with this dribble.

[Anonymous No.10122761]

>>10121308
>>10122710
Not that guy, they're right in the sense that a theory or explanation of something is constructed by humans and is more a second-hand image of reality: at some point it's a product of interpretation.

That doesn't mean I agree with the whole "it's just a social construct, so therefore we can change it to suit our needs".

[Anonymous No.10122954]

>>10120362
Imagine you need to pick up your child from school and see this. What do you do?

[Anonymous No.10123209]

>>10120954
20/5*(2*2)
20/5*4
4*4
16

[Anonymous No.10123212]

>>10122697
>adding parenthesis at random places

[Anonymous No.10124170]

there isn't really anything wrong with that
some equations can have in fact two or even more answers
like
(x)^2=4
x=2 or -2

[Anonymous No.10124199]

Parenthesis
Exponent
Multiplication
Division
Addition
Subtraction
20/5*(2*2)
20/5*4
20/20
1

Is sci just trolling or what?

[Anonymous No.10124233]

>>10124199
it depends, you're not wrong but most mathematicians would say that multiplication and division are equally important and it should be done from left to right.

[Anonymous No.10124237]

Implicate multiplication is higher sometimes depending on context.

[Anonymous No.10124255]

>>10124237
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10124261]

>>10124233
>it depends
nope

>multiplication and division are equally important and it should be done from left to right
yup

[Anonymous No.10124282]

>>10124261
are you implying that the question itself is wrong in the first place?

[Anonymous No.10124285]

>>10124255
What would the result be if OP's pic showed [math]20[/math] [math]/[/math] [math]5[/math][math] \frac{2\cdot 2}{1}[/math]?

[Anonymous No.10124286]

>>10124199
Fucks sake.

There's no such thing as division as an operation. Division is just shorthand multiplicative inverse of scalars. We have division algorithms for calculating multiplicative inverses. /5 means *5^-1.
There's also no precedence for doing operations with factors adjacent to parentheses because the term(s) inside parentheses are considered as 1 factor and because multiplication is commutative and associative.

For those reasons...
20 / 5 (2 * 2) is identically equal to
(20)(5^-1)(2)(2). The answer is and always has been 16.

[Anonymous No.10124288]

>>10124255
>>10124285
Or better yet, what's the result of [math]20/5a[/math]? [math]4a[/math] or [math]4/a[/math]? Remember, 5a means 5*a

[Anonymous No.10124313]

>>10124286
so, PEMAS?

[Anonymous No.10124317]

>>10124285
flatline it, then we'll talk more

[Anonymous No.10124319]

>>10124288
insert 'a' as a number instead, then we'll talk more

[Anonymous No.10124321]

>>10120849

>white toddlers already learning polynomial manipulation

we third-worlders never had a chance

[Anonymous No.10124324]

>>10124233
This is correct

[Anonymous No.10124328]

>>10124313
PE(M/D)AS

[Anonymous No.10124330]

>>10124199
you got it wrong retard.
Parenthesis
Exponent
Multiplication Division
Addition Subtraction
20/5*(2*2)
20/5*4
4*4
16
1

[Anonymous No.10124332]

>>10124313
Yes. Technically, Exponentiation and Subtraction can be dropped too. 5^2 is really shorthand for (5*5) or (log(...)) if you're dealing with extended, non-integer exponentiation. So really, exponentiation is just an extension of P and M.

S also doesn't exist. Subtraction is just the additive inverse of scalars. We only know what the result of subtraction is because we define it in terms for what addition is. As such, 2 - 1 is equivalent to 1 + (-1), so it too is just a combination of P,M, and A.

So, you really only have PMA if you actually understand where these things come from.

[Anonymous No.10124337]

>>10120954
That you shouldn't teach ambiguous bullshit.
20/5 (2*2)=16 or 20 / (5*2*2)=1

[Anonymous No.10124340]

>>10124261
>and it should be done from left to right
this is where you fucked up

[Anonymous No.10124350]

>>10124332
*2 - 1 equivalent to 2 + (-1) i mean, obviously

[Anonymous No.10124355]

>>10124313
No, subtraction is just adding negative numbers, PEMA

[Anonymous No.10124364]

>>10124340
enjoy your job at mcdonalds

[Anonymous No.10124381]

>>10124319
a=4

[Anonymous No.10124384]

>>10124364
>t. never going to make it
you can reduce the expression in any order as long as e.g multiplication takes precedence over addition
if the person who expressed their thoughts in writing was too dumb to take into account that maybe the way they tried to convey their thoughts was ambiguous (a/b*c) then the fault lies with them, not the readers.

the onus is on you to be unambiguous, and you are not clever if you invent sparsely used rules of disambiguation like "right to left" and then act like a smartass when a person you are communicating with does not share your view.

written maths are not some perfect godsend that can always be solved, you can fuck up with (ambiguous) nonsense (e.g, what does "a*/(b=" mean?)

[Anonymous No.10124385]

>>10120849
the "e" in "core" from OP's image is still clearly visible in this one.

[Anonymous No.10124389]

>>10124384
>trying this hard

just shut up and give me the coke

[Anonymous No.10124396]

>>10124384
>what does "a*/(b=" mean?)
it means you're fired
try giving bjs to truckers in parking lots

[Anonymous No.10124403]

>>10124385
Both are fake, newfriend

[Anonymous No.10124406]

>>10124396
wow rude

[Anonymous No.10124418]

>>10124406
yumm salty tears

[Anonymous No.10124428]

>>10120362
Wait a fucking minute
PEMDAS
Why is the division done when the multiplications are first?

[Anonymous No.10124445]

>>10124381
good boy! now, insert it into the calculation
then we'll talk more

[Anonymous No.10124451]

>>10124403
I've browsed /sci/ for years and have never seen the original image

[Anonymous No.10124475]

>>10124451
Because it's just regular stuff taught to kids, there's no reason to ever post it anywhere because it's not bait and attracts no attention

[Anonymous No.10124483]

>>10124451
>>10124475
Here, look at the yellow part on the number line, and compare it with the shops

[Anonymous No.10124493]

>>10120849
>the projection angle

[Anonymous No.10124512]

>>10120849
>i^2 = -1 and i - i = 1
don't these statements contradict each other?

[Anonymous No.10124518]

>>10124512
a meme with bullshit
>mindblown

[Anonymous No.10124522]

I suppose its the difference between (20/5) x (2x2) and 20/(5(2x2))
Less a problem with the math as it is sloppy notation. One can only assume that is what their lesson is about.

[Anonymous No.10124524]

20/5(2*2)
20/5*4
4*4
16
4*4
20*5^-1*2*2
20/5*2*2
20/5(2*2)

[Anonymous No.10124528]

>>10124512
it's faint but that's a division sign

[Anonymous No.10124668]

>>10124512
i - i = 1 alone is already a contradiction

[Anonymous No.10124898]

>>10123212
t. uses ambiguous notation

[Anonymous No.10124914]

>>10124898
creates definite bs

[Anonymous No.10124938]

>>10120362
Total of 16 either way as long as you do it correctly whoever wrote this up is a fucking moron p.e.m.d.a.s

[Anonymous No.10124953]

>>10124524
This allday

[Anonymous No.10126765]

>>10120362
Honestly everyone does multiplication before division anyway, might as well make it the standard.

[Anonymous No.10126788]

>>10120362
Okay so
Normally the order of operations is */+-, so 20/20 bc 5*4 comes before 20/5.
Is common core instead proposing that you calculate from left to right, not prioritising * over / ?

[Anonymous No.10126792]

MATH IS NOT FUCKING MEANT TO BE WRITTEN LINEARLY YOU FUCKING SPEDS

[Anonymous No.10126831]

>>10126792
>non-linear writing techniques

[Anonymous No.10126860]

>>10126788
>common core
no, normal adult non-retard math does that
>fucking 12y olds all over this thread

[Anonymous No.10126884]

>>10120845
>>10120853
I'll explain what is most likely going on here, and what is most likely going on in similar settings: he is referring to some philosophical/semantic scheme by which a "fact" is considered "construct," and by extension, are "social" constructs because any human construction of a concept, idea, etc. will inevitably be affected by social factors.

Such as 5x2=10. This is a fact, I think we would all agree, and it falls under the things we know as "facts." However, the statement 5x2=10 only works with our specific maths system. If we didn't have a base 10 number system, 5x2=10 wouldn't be true, and thereby, wouldn't be a fact.

And base 10 system is not the "truest" maths, it's just as true as any other system of numbers. And our adoption of the base 10 system has been socially influenced.

A fact refers to an undeniable truth, it is not truth itself, so the "fact" will always be an abstraction, always be an abstraction of that truth. And, of course, any exercise in abstraction cannot be seperated from the social and cultural environments in which they are formed.

So he is most likely talking about "facts" in the way that we use the word out of convenience. When we say "FACT" we usually mean "truth," whereas whatever "facts" we have discovered, are actually just (socially constructed, or at the very least socially influenced) representations of truth.

[Anonymous No.10126914]

>>10120362
I lost points on a test a long time ago for doing it the common core way (implied parenthetical multiplication at the same precedence as / and *) and was pissed that they somehow invented this multiplicative operator which is higher than * multiplication without telling me. So the "common core" way is intuitive.

Though spontaneously changing standards and also saying "both answers are equally correct" is shit and wrong.

[Anonymous No.10126943]

>>10120362
I do agree with that picture. Both are correct because it is a poorly written formula. And the picture does not specify what the rules are for such a situation. So I can only assume the rules, which I know can be different from place to place.

[Anonymous No.10126979]

>>10120362
I just read it as a computer would execute it

20 / 5(2*2)
20 / 5*4
4*4
16

To make it unambiguous add parens
20 / (5(2*2))

[Anonymous No.10127423]

>>10123212
Parentheses are great it makes it neat and let's people know how it should be calculated to get the right answer.

[Anonymous No.10127431]

>>10122697
Why's (2*2) in another parenthesis?

[Anonymous No.10127551]

>>10127431
So that it's multiplied by the five I imagine

[Anonymous No.10127583]

>>10120362
If I saw this shit on an exam or literally anywhere I would just ask what is meant by this stupid fucking ambiguous shit. Any other answer attempting to solve it is as retarded as trying to debate a radical feminist.

>>10121625
NOW WE'RE FUCKING GETTING SOMEWHERE!

[Anonymous No.10127584]

>>10120440
Problem is, notation these days is a fucking nightmare that is barely comprehensible.

[Anonymous No.10127594]

>>10126792
what the fuck are you even saying?

25 GODDAMN CAPTCHAS TO POST

[Anonymous No.10127605]

>>10120362
teacher, did i get the correct answer?

yes
no

both answers are equally correct!

[Anonymous No.10127608]

>>10121215
No. Scientific facts are ultimately that which is predicted reliably. The facts of reality transcend our senses, so they are not directly accessible to us. Science is the best method we have available for coming close to knowing true facts about the world. You may claim that Science is a social construct, however the structure that science describes is real and independent of social context.

[Anonymous No.10127609]

>>10126884
>However, the statement 5x2=10 only works with our specific maths system. If we didn't have a base 10 number system, 5x2=10 wouldn't be true, and thereby, wouldn't be a fact.

[Anonymous No.10127673]

>>10126884
>A fact refers to an undeniable truth, it is not truth itself

I hate to get into an argument over semantics, but you're going there in that statement and have warranted such a response because...

Statements are made True because a fact makes it so. What people really mean whenever some agent A claims that P is a fact is exactly that A believes P is made True by a fact. Facts, in this sense, are what is real.

[Anonymous No.10127687]

>>10124512
It's a [math]new[/math] imaginary number.

[Anonymous No.10127696]

>>10120362
>Another of these "heh let's make an ambiguous problem with shitty notation and watch as people get confused lole"
>let's add politics to make it even more viral!!!!

[Anonymous No.10127705]

>>10120362
maybe I'm just rarted but

>20 / 5 (2 * 2)
solve in the parenthesis
>20 / 5(4)
which is the same as
>20 / 5 * 4
solve from the left to the right
> 4 * 4 = 16

[Anonymous No.10127990]

>>10120362

Threadly reminder that order of operations has zero real-world significance. The fact that children are taught this at all is a testament to how much of our education is a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10127994]

>>10127705
You are correct. 150 IQ

[Anonymous No.10127995]

>>10127605
>tfw 1=16

[Anonymous No.10128003]

You have to add parenthesis in computer programming or calculators, to make whatever the author's intention was. I was taught PEMDAS. So the answer is 1.

Pretty retarded that there is two ways to do it. Its whatever the intention of the author of the maths is.

[Anonymous No.10128020]

>>10120849
>nobody notices that the "old way" is incorrect too.

[Anonymous No.10128021]

>>10122697
you cannot add parenthesis like that anon.. you are making a new math problem that way

[Anonymous No.10128024]

>>10127990
just like syntax and language

[Anonymous No.10128032]

>>10126979

>20 / 5(2*2)
>20 / 5*4
>4*4
>16

ok good answer

>To make it unambiguous add parens
>20 / (5(2*2))
wtf are you doing??&??&??&

[Anonymous No.10128052]

>>10128032
>>20 / (5(2*2))
>wtf are you doing?
Interesting tidbit - if you type the original formula into a spreadsheet program, it calculates it as 16. If you add the parentheses it will calculate it as 1.

[Anonymous No.10128066]

>>10121215
How about you try killing yourself?

[Anonymous No.10128069]

>>10122297
Yeah, it’d be funny, just don’t pay for it. Find the class time and just go attend it. It’s what I do at my uni for history courses.

[Anonymous No.10128091]

>>10122297

[Anonymous No.10128399]

>>10128021
>you are making a new math problem that way
not really, anon is just making their interpretation explicit
unlike the retard who wrote down the original garbage

[Anonymous No.10128603]

Nobody uses division signs for serious math.
Use fractions and divide when both sides are completely simplified.

[Anonymous No.10128639]

>>10120362

no. neither answer is correct. the notation is ambiguous. you can't have a correct answer to a question that doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.10128650]

>>10128639
It's not. When you have multiplication and division mixed, you evaluate them from left to right.

[Anonymous No.10128713]

>>10120362
this is correct. Under all orders of operation, you would do 2*2 first, making
20/5(4)
Under the US system, the function 5(4) gets treated with equal priority to 20/5 and therefore the operations are continued left to right, leading to 20/5(4)=4(4)=16
however under the european system, 5(4) is treated as higher priority than 20/5 because of the parenthesis, despite the fact that the 5 is not in the parenthesis, making the equasion: 20/5(4)=20/20=1

also, under pemdas, the order of operations does NOT prioritize multiplication over division, it is simply a numonic device. Multiplication and division are done from left to right during that step.

[Anonymous No.10129225]

>>10120845
>that image
ew gross.

It's almost like no one explains to gross sociology roasties that at the most basic level conscious interpretation occurs as a function os base assumptions or axioms.

>>10126884
Don't forget that math only works under the base axioms (i.e. Number theory and the Peano axioms)

>inb4 "bu- bu- bu-, muh FAX!"
science doesn't and cannot provides us with truths about reality.

[Anonymous No.10129435]

>>10128650
maybe you do this, but if so you have to explicitly state it along with things you have written using this convention so that both you and your readers agree on the conventions used

[Not Hodor No.10129440]

I don't agree, no.

[Anonymous No.10129442]

>>10128713
>under the european system, 5(4) is treated as higher priority
>>10128713
>Under the US system, the function 5(4) gets treated with equal priority to 20/5
there is no system, just people following some mnemonic they learned in primary school like monkeys without ever having considered that maybe what they learned in primary school was an oversimplification for dumdums

[Anonymous No.10130705]

>>10129435
That's literally how all my teachers and any mathematical software do it.
Even your browser, just press Ctrl+Shift+K and write down that formula in the console.

[Anonymous No.10130707]

>>10128713
>>10129442
I'm European and for us multiplication is multiplication, there is no difference between 5*(4) and 5(4) and it's evaluated together with division from left to right.

[Anonymous No.10130708]

That notation is garbage and whoever writes equations in rhat fashion should be executed

[Anonymous No.10130722]

We were taught both BOMDAS and BODMAS

[Anonymous No.10130981]

>>10120362
We should teach children the concept of a fraction with the two dimensional notation before teaching them the mindless process of "dividing" with the one dimensional CS tier garbage notation.

[Anonymous No.10132031]

i am in favor of saying this problem has 2 equally correct answers because it shows how important proper notation is

this lesson goes further than mathematics
if you want something done properly, you need to be absolutely crystal clear about what it is you are trying to do, otherwise you might end up with something entirely wrong

and if you are contracted to do something and the idiot who gave you the specs has no fucking clue what he is talking about, you better work with him to clarify, or it will be wrong 100% of the time

[Anonymous No.10132082]

>>10130707
>there is no difference between 5*(4) and 5(4)
true
>it's evaluated together with division from left to right.
not true unless you explicitly state that this is the convention you are following
>>10130705
any calculator or maths software worth its salt explicitly says how it evaluates stuff in its specifications, if you care to read through them.
The software has to interpret what the user wrote when it is constructing the syntax tree

[Anonymous No.10132167]

>>10132031
I don't get it, what is even the other convention? doing the implied multiplication first? what's the logic of that?

[Anonymous No.10132177]

>>10132167
The whole point of the slide was to show convention and notation matters. But I doubt the instructor understood the point, let alone kids.

[Anonymous No.10132645]

>>10132177
>The whole point of the slide was to show convention and notation matters.
The whole point of the slide was to troll gullible idiots. It's fake.

[Anonymous No.10133494]

>>10132082
>any calculator or maths software worth its salt explicitly says how it evaluates stuff in its specifications, if you care to read through them.
>The software has to interpret what the user wrote when it is constructing the syntax tree
I've never seen any software or calculator interpreting it any other way. The basic operations always work like that.

[Anonymous No.10133515]

Left to right you stupid niggers. It goes left to right, brackets to multiplication to addition.
>inb4 some retards goes on about division and subtractions
20/5 = 20*5^-1
20-5 = 20+(-5)
Now go neck yourself for being so brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10133522]

why is my shitty bait thread still up
I expected better from you /sci/
by the way I wanted to ask is it possible for planet to have albedo equal zero and if yes how could we detect such planet, base it only on it's gravitinal impact on other celestial bodies? Is it possible such planet exists in solar system and is actually Nibiru/planet X? I will later create thread for it but right now don't have acces to my comp right now and will probably forget I made it.

[Anonymous No.10133529]

>>10122097
some of the top journals in physics use this system

[Anonymous No.10133837]

>>10120362
Why is common core a thing.

[Anonymous No.10133930]

>>10120362
The answer is
4 4
There is no operator between 20/5 and (2*2).

[Anonymous No.10133934]

>>10128713
>however under the european system, 5(4) is treated as higher priority than 20/5 because of the parenthesis
You're fucking retarded.

t. european who learned math in both Romania and Spain

[Anonymous No.10133964]

Why do these threads get so much fucking attention? Do people really not know order of operations?

Or do people just like falling for shit-tier bait?

[Anonymous No.10134050]

>>10133930
no operator means multiplication by default

[Anonymous No.10134142]

>>10134050
Yes and no. In that picture, the operator for multiplication is the asterisk. There is no asterisk between 20/5 and 2*2, so there is no operation to be done between those two parts.
You don't use an operator only when you want to.

And if you do and want to talk about defaults, then you do the operation form left to right. Pic related.

I still stand by my point that there is no operator between the two parts and therefore the answer is
4 4

[Anonymous No.10134183]

>>10120362

[Anonymous No.10134189]

>>10120362

>math fun fact
if you change one rule nothing changes

[Anonymous No.10135008]

>>10128052
>tidbit
ahh ok

[Anonymous No.10135157]

>>10128713
>, 5(4) is treated as higher priority than 20/5 because of the parenthesis
the 5 isn't between parentheses, retard

[Anonymous No.10135198]

>>10120362
It's an order of operations thing, isn't it? You multiply the 5 by the (2*2) to get 20 and divide 20 by 20 to get 1. Why would they be equally correct?

[Anonymous No.10135202]

>>10127608
This is the dumbest fucking thing I've read in weeks.

[Anonymous No.10135203]

>>10121215
This. FYI having a degree in some autistic engineering subdiscipline doesn't qualify you to weigh in on this issue.

[Anonymous No.10135216]

>>10120867
It's fake you fucking retard.

>>10120440
How is this at all ambiguous?

20 / 5 (2*2) = 20 / 5 (4) = 20 / 20 = 1

[Anonymous No.10135220]

>>10134142
Holy fuck you are stupid

[Anonymous No.10135227]

>>10135198
wrong.

>>10123209

[Anonymous No.10135234]

>>10124199
>ParenthesisExponentMultiplicationDivisionAdditionSubtraction20/5*(2*2)20/5*420/201Is sci just trolling or what?

I hope not. this is absurd.

[Anonymous No.10135258]

>>10135216
>How is this at all ambiguous?
how does implied multiplication take priority over division? I've literally never heard of this outside of this thread.

[Anonymous No.10135266]

>>10135216
why did you 5*(4) before 20/5 ? are you jew?

[Anonymous No.10135290]

>>10135258
Have you never seen 1/2π? Do you think they mean π/2?

[Anonymous No.10135298]

>>10135290
pi is a letter
letters bring along implied parentheses
say pi = 3,14
insert 3,14 instead of the letter

1/2*3.14
isn't the same as 1/(2*3.14)

[Anonymous No.10135307]

>>10120362
Common Core should teach reverse polish notation as the standard. There is no ambiguity in glorious HIGH-IQ RPN

[Anonymous No.10135318]

>>10120362
x/y(a*b) is x over y(a*b)

That is how i deal with these as using / or ÷ is inviting ambiguity anyway. As it allows a single term to have internal ambiguity based on order of operation.

Bidmas, Pemdas etc are just mnemonics for people who don't understand maths well. It's simply a shortcut to separating terms.

Pemdas etc are not rules, just method that leads to following rules in most circumstances.

[Anonymous No.10135371]

>>10135318
>x/y(a*b) is x over y(a*b)
1/2*(3*4)
vs
1/(2*(3*4))

[Anonymous No.10135437]

>>10120362
So the answers that sci came up with is

Under PEMDAS
>20/(5*(2*2)
>20/20
=1

Because Division is just shorthand multiplicative inverse of scalars
>20/5(2*2)
>20*5^-1(2*2)
=16

Since no operation is given(ignoring the fact that multiplication is default when no operators)
>20/5 (2*2)
=4 4

So which one is it?

[Anonymous No.10135447]

>>10135437
16

[Anonymous No.10135558]

itt: the absolute fucking state of mathematics
ffs, just end this branch "science"

[Anonymous No.10135563]

>>10135558
of*

[Anonymous No.10135577]

>>10128020
no it isn't. are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10136038]

>>10135558
>itt: the absolute state of /pol/tards trying to be smart
There, I fixed it for (You).

[Anonymous No.10136076]

>>10136038
Why is /pol/ the boogeyman on every board? I'm beginning to think you're envious of them.

[Anonymous No.10136081]

>>10135577
You can't factor with roots of unknowns

[Anonymous No.10136403]

THE SYNTAX IS WRONG

WHY IS EVERYONE DEBATING THIS?

it's not equally correct until you clarify if it's (20/5)(2*2) or 20/(5(2*2))

Syntax error

[Anonymous No.10136406]

LETS EAT JOHN.
VS
LETS EAT, JOHN.

SYNTAX

[Anonymous No.10136414]

>>10136403
>It's not equally correct until you clarify if it's (20/5)(2*2) or 20/(5(2*2))

You mean YOU HAVE to clarify if its (20/5)(2*2) or 20/(5(2*2))

[Anonymous No.10136521]

>>10136403
highschoolers and dropouts can not handle a maths problem being nonsense not having a solution

[Anonymous No.10136523]

>>10135437
>ignoring all the people saying there is no solution
nice job you dumdum

[Anonymous No.10137468]

>>10136403
>>10136406
Calculator says its 16, There is a rule of multiplication when there is no given operator. I dont think it can be syntax

[Anonymous No.10137756]

>>10137468
Your right but I will say
when doing calculations by hand you have to make sure everything is clearly distinguished.

[Anonymous No.10137846]

>>10121215
Your fucking life is a social construct

[Anonymous No.10137850]

>>10120362
PEMDAS, PEDMAS.
WHY ARE THERE TWO STANDARDS INSTEAD OF ONE. THIS IS FUCKING MATH WERE TALKING ABOUT NOT THE AMERICAN MEASURING SYSTEM