[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 610x610, question.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013638 No.3013638 [Reply] [Original]

I was arguing with my friend about that
i think that 2/2c = 2/(2c) while my friend thinks its 2/2*c
So /sci/ what's the answer?

>> No.3013650

1c

>> No.3013651

The answer is STOP USING AMBIGUOUS NOTATION YOU LITTLE BITCH

>> No.3013652

c

>> No.3013663

>>3013651

I'm just asking how would You solve this. (i know it may seems ambigous, for me it was obvious that 2/2c equals 2/(2c) )

>> No.3013665

>>3013663
You solve it by telling the person who wrote the expression to use proper notation.

>> No.3013668

But isn't 2c an monomial and shouldn't be solved as (2c) ?

>> No.3013674
File: 62 KB, 460x500, this_thread_again.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013674

>> No.3013680

Wolfram Alpha says it's 1/c

>> No.3013686

>>3013665

So, it's not my fault that I didn't answer correctly to a "troll" question few weeks ago about something like this

I think that question went something like this 2/4(5+9)

>> No.3013691

This is how you solve it:

Find the person that first thought of said question
Cut off their feet, all the while making sure they are awake and not on any painkillers.
Use their feet to beat them to death.

Done

>> No.3013692

>>3013686
Your mistake was replying to a troll question.

>> No.3013695

>>3013686

Yes, my question started from similar expression
I wrongly thouht that(on your example)
2/4(5+9) = 2/(4(5+9))
but then i found out that this rule is only for monomial
and this statement is false

>> No.3013710

C'mon, You say that this question is trolling while 2 /sci/tards said its "1c", and Wolfram Alpha and my Primary School says its 1/c

>> No.3013738

>>3013695
The thing is, there is no solid rule for these things. All PEDMAS (or which ever acronym you prefer) is, is convention. It hardly covers everything, it's just to help prevent ambiguity such as that. The real point of it all is, if you meant <span class="math"> \frac {2}{4} (5+9) [/spoiler] you would write it either like that, or as 2(5+9)/4, because that be pretty difficult to misinterpret. And if you meant <span class="math">\frac{2}{4(5+9)}[/spoiler] you would either write it like that, or add in the extra parenthesis. It's practically an argument in semantics, and is useless, because you will probably never come across a problem written by someone else in that form.

>> No.3013742

for most parsers I've encountered, 2/2c = c

Only exception seems to be wolfram alpha

>> No.3013753

>>3013738
Yeah but 2/2c is more common and you may have to deal with this.

>>3013742
And Polish Schooling Programme (don't know how it's in other country)

>> No.3013787

So wolfram says it's 1/c, however, if you put in 2/2(c+1), it's suddenly c+1

>> No.3013796

>>3013787
I have explained it already. It's about rule that matters only with monomial
2c is monomial but 2(c+1) isnt.

My only question is
WHY YOU DON'T KNOW THIS SHIT?!

>> No.3013801
File: 13 KB, 582x524, snapshot15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013801

>>3013753
Perhaps, but the thing this is an edge case that I don't think a school would cover. The thing is although using 2/2c = 1/c allows avoiding some cumbersome parenthesis, if we replace the implied multiplication with an actually multiplication operator then 2 / 2 * c = c very unambiguously using infix notation.

Usually when I fear ambiguities around infix notation, I take the famous shunting yard algorithm and see what it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunting-yard_algorithm

Here's the site where this picture was taken (replacing c with 3)
http://www.chris-j.co.uk/parsing.php

>> No.3013805

>>3013796
Why would anyone teach this rule if you can write shit unambiguously? Like, using fractions?

>> No.3013847

2/(2(4)) = 1/4

(2/2)(4) = 4

DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN OP

>> No.3013897

well you cant change "c" to other number couse then it's not monomial no more and rule for monomials doesn't give a shit about that xD

>> No.3013904

That depends, is it (2/2)*c or 2/(2*c)?

>> No.3013919

As others have said, 2c is a monomial and should be treated as one expression.

Confusion arises because people think this is another "oh, duh, PEMDAS you idiots" question.

There is no ambiguity. The answer is 1/c.

Stop responding to these stupid troll threads.

>> No.3013926
File: 616 B, 120x37, CodeCogsEqn (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013926

Op,

I have spelled it out for you. If you turn division into what it really is, that is 1/x, then you get a clear picture of what the final answer is like.

>> No.3013936
File: 856 B, 234x37, CodeCogsEqn (2).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013936

>>3013926
I forgot to write the final answer lol

>> No.3013944

In the way you are using it, it is both. But in actuality, it is c (constant of integration).

2*c=c
4/c=c
c*c=c

>> No.3013943

The notation is (intentionally) confusing. 2 over 2c equals 1/c. 2 over 2 times c equals c. Both are correct given the notation.

>> No.3013951

>>3013943
You're wrong, see >>3013936

>> No.3013981

>>3013919

Thank You anon, but sadly 'others' are just me - OP :(

>> No.3013987

>>3013919
Butthatswrongyoufuckingretard.jpg

See >>3013936

>> No.3013992

>>3013951

That guy didn't prove jack shit, he just interpreted it his way and solved it with a fancy image.

There is no 'real' or relevant answer to this problem because no one would ever be stupid enough to write an ambiguous problem like that. It's just irrelevant.

>> No.3014007

>>3013992
I agree, but for me it's not ambigous it's just monomial xD

>> No.3014009

>>3013992
There was nothing to interpret.

The problem was: 2/2c= ?
He simply turned the division into multiplication, i.e. 2*(1/2)*c, which is 1*c.

>> No.3014022

>>3014009

You're fucking retarded if you don't see how that's ambiguous.

>> No.3014035

>>3014022
Jesus christ, sometimes I'm ashamed for some of you here on /sci/. REALLY???

This is NOT fucking ambiguous. None of these troll problems are. 2/2c is not 2/(2c) because the / doesn't reach any further than the number next to it, that being 2.

That's why the order of calculations was invented in the first place. To avoid troll problems.

>> No.3014049

>>3014035

No, that's why fucking parentheses were invented. As stated above, monomials are usually grouped together and are therefore GROUPED BEFORE DIVISION IN THE "ORDER OF CALCULATIONS".

Way to make yourself look stupid.

>> No.3014068

sage
While i give you +2 because you didn't use hurr what is 2/2*2, this is still the same old troll
3/10 (At least this is math)

>> No.3014074

>>3014049
Allright, let's have it your way.
Let's say this guy >>3013936 interpreted this in only one way. Now, we both know it's harmless to turn the division symbol into multiplication because it doesn't change the equation in any way (because there is no PARENTHESIS. .!. )
Now, please show me, through the second stage of his equation, how you can interpret this in any other way than he did?

>> No.3014076

>>3014035
>>3014068 (2/2*2 = 2 for sure)

generaly: NO. Couse its monomial . . .

>> No.3014097

>>3014074

want to know proper way?? It's like this
2/2c = 2/(2c) = 1/1c = 1/c

Know why? Couse it's monomial. Learn it, biatch.

>> No.3014141

>>3014097
You see that's where your misunderstanding lies. There is no parenthesis in 2/2c. There is, however, a parenthesis in <span class="math">\[\frac{2}{2c}\]
[/spoiler] but that's not the same as 2/2c. 2/(2c) however is the same as <span class="math">\[\frac{2}{2c}\]
[/spoiler].

The division symbol in 2/2c says _nothing_ about c. It only states that 2 is divided by 2. If a parenthesis is made around 2c however, the problem becomes radically different.

This states:

2 is divided by 2 and then something is multiplied by c.

>> No.3014153

>>3014141
The unknown sequence is supposed to be <span class="math">\frac{2}{2c}[/spoiler]

>> No.3014165

>>3013651
This. Even if it's a troll. Everyone should fucking know this.

>> No.3014174

(2)/(2)*(c)

-> (2)*(1/2)*(c)
-> (c)

Deal with it. If you meant (2)/(2*c), you have to express it this way.

>> No.3014189

>>3014174
THIS. Finally someone that knows how to math.

>> No.3014217

>>3014189
if you know HOW TO MATH you know what MONOMIAL is and how to proper use it. I'm powerless in this discussion, it's like saying 2+2*2=8 while it's 6. It's just that <number><letter> is example of monomial with should be understood as one expression just like
>>3013919
said.

>> No.3014273

>>3014217
You fucking idiot. I sincerely pity you. I hope you're not in university yet.

Division is DEFINED AS: a/b = a*(1/b)

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

2/2c = 2*(1/2)*c=c.

THIS (2*(1/2)*c) IS ALL THIS EQUATION IS. I TURNED THE DIVISION INTO ITS ORIGINAL DEFINITION. THERE IS NO PARENTHESIS. EVERYONE WHO THINKS SO SHOULD REVISIT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

You fucking idiot. All of you who think this is 1/c, get the fuck out of /sci/ now. You're not worthy of being here.

>> No.3014289

>>3014273
To elaborate why there is no parenthesis:

The equation looks like this with the division by definition

2*(1/2)*c

no parenthesis has been noted in the original problem, so this is an ordinary elementary problem.

>> No.3014293

>>3014273
You are missing his argument.
He is saying 2c should be considered as a single term as it is a monomial.

as in, <span class="math"> \frac{2}{2c}[/spoiler]. He is also saying you don't need additonal parenthesis because it's a monomial. Try to keep up.

>> No.3014296

>>3014273
a/b = a*(1/b)
2/2c = 2*(1/2c)

it's not that hard bro

>> No.3014300

>>3014273
By your own definition it should be 1/c
2/2c = 2*(1/2c) = 1 * (1/c) = 1/c

>> No.3014311
File: 19 KB, 616x375, sshot-12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3014311

>>3014273
It is you who needs to get out of /sci/.
Unless you're going to claim that WA is wrong, in which case you need to get out of /sci/ and also kill yourself.

>> No.3014325

>>3014293
No, you are missing _my_ argument.

with division according to its definition, it's simply 2*(1/2)*c. Why on earth would there be a parenthesis anywhere?

The problem arises when you think division is some special mythical symbol. It's not. It's just a/b = a*1/b.

So you're saying that 3/4*5 = 3/(4*5).

As we go to the definition of division, we get:

3*(1/4)*5 = 3*((1/4)*5).

Your misunderstanding lies here: Division is not, as you think, a special, seperately defined symbol like addition and multiplication. It is defined as a special type of multiplication. Thusly, there is nothing that is 3/4*5. It's just 3*(1/4)*5. Are you saying 3*(1/4)*5 automatically becomes 3*((1/4)*5) ?

>> No.3014333

>>3014311
Okay, please explain to me, with regard to >>3014325 why I'm wrong.