O mai gawd but pemdasas saids

[Qwerty-kun No.5901642]

The answer is 0 right?! Everyone saids its 13?!

[Qwerty-kun No.5901646]

Basically just added like factors to simplify it... (+1's).
Got. (15)-1x0
14x0 =0.

[Anonymous No.5901647]

nice try, but no dice

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.5901669]

13.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007

[Anonymous No.5901683]

>>5901642
Pemdas, nigger

[Anonymous No.5901939]

This is an interesting problem.

[Anonymous No.5901941]

Ah, one of Hilbert's unsolved problems. Nice to see /sci/'s getting better

[Anonymous No.5901968]

>>5901941
To which problem do you refer?

[Anonymous No.5901972]

[Anonymous No.5901971]

pemdas

[Anonymous No.5901974]

the fact that average people have this much difficulty with notation makes me wonder if there's a need to update it

[Anonymous No.5901978]

>>5901974
Average people don't usually need math, so what's the point?

[Anonymous No.5901983]

>>5901978
The reason people complain about never using the math they learned in high-school, is because math isn’t about equations and symbol manipulation. Sure, that’s a part and it’s the part instructors tend to focus on. Math is really about general truths which help you understand relationships between ideas. Once you have a deep intuition about how a branch of math works, you can use it on any problem which has those same relationships.
Knowing 3×5=15 isn’t exclusive to counting three bags of five oranges. It applies to bank accounts, buildings, people and profits. The same is true for calculus, statistics and other advanced maths. If you get the intuition of how the relationships in math work, then you can use it on any problem, even if it is something you’ve never had any experience dealing with before.
That’s the real power of learning theory. Not that it replaces learning through experience, but that they make it far more powerful. It cuts down trial and error, helps you see patterns and think of new solutions to problems. Because often the best way to change the world is to first understand how it works.

[Anonymous No.5901986]

>>5901983
Math in schools really needs to be taught holistically

[Anonymous No.5902046]

>>5901968
The 13th.

[m3g4n3kk0i No.5902070]

I just can't believe that this is worthy of a thread...
It's just a simple case of learning the rules of in which order to apply addition, substraction, multiplication, division, powers, other operators and brackets.
Google/Wiki it, learn it by heart, no more problem.

And to those who want to make this a more philosophical issue: Don't!
No need to change the rules, only need to teach them consistently, drilling them in so people won't forget and voila, people won't have any problem with these fake problems.

[Anonymous No.5902104]

>>5902070
>It's just a simple case of learning the rules of in which order to apply addition, substraction, multiplication, division, powers, other operators and brackets.
Too bad they are completely arbitrary and never appear in properly structured questions.

[Anonymous No.5903370]

>>5901683
Pemdas is for faggots, BIDMAS is where all the cool kids do their stuff

[Anonymous No.5903387]

>>5903370
>BIDMAS
>not BEDMAS

[Talimar No.5903753]

Depends.

Sometimes the Operands dictate that the addition sign is done prior to the subtraction.

As such:
10 - (1+1+1+1+1+(1x0) = 5
or
10 - (6x0) = 10.

With the communative property, we also are allowed to derive:
10 - 1 = 9. (as 5+1 = 1+5)
or
10 - 0(6) = 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y9h1oqv21Vs#at=83

[Anonymous No.5903755]

>>5903387
>BEDMAS
>not CHRISTMAS

[Anonymous No.5903757]

>>5903753
>Depends.
No. It never depends. Order of operations is perfectly clear and rigid.

[Anonymous No.5903791]

>>5901983
That was beautiful.

[Anonymous No.5903793]

It's 10.

[Talimar No.5903794]

There are no brackets, ergo no Pemdas or Bemdas, or any other version that represents the Bracketed experience. That leaves us with multiplication, addition and subtraction.

Subtraction in this case has to be done independent from the rest because it does not possess commutative or associative properties.

It might be possible to produce a distributive property if you can provide a quadratic system that will provide a very specific qualifier such that the last value within the last variable can be quantitatively stated as being A x B. (while also removing any exponential components from the last representation of the number 1 from our string of numbers.)

[Anonymous No.5903821]

Count the ones

[Anonymous No.5903851]

What's that funny looking symbol that looks like an x tilted an eighth turn mean?

[Anonymous No.5903853]

>>5903791
When I made that copypasta, I've never really read about it, and now that I'm reading, it's really good.

[Anonymous No.5903856]

>>5903387
>BEDMAS
>not BOMDAS

[Anonymous No.5903871]

>>5901974
>the fact that average people have this much difficulty with notation makes me wonder if there's a need to update it

How do you mean, 'update'?
Any other variation would just be a new notation or new rules of order -- exactly the same issue.
if people don't bother to recall rules now, how are new rules going to help?

(There is no possibility of just removing the rules; it is absolutely necessary to have a set of rules that specifies order.)

[Anonymous No.5903876]

>>5901978
>Average people don't usually need math, so what's the point?

Average people use math all the freakin' time, it's just not usually in long form like that.
They do it so often they don't even have to think about it much.

[Anonymous No.5903894]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs

[Anonymous No.5903898]

>>5903856
Australianon detected

[Anonymous No.5903899]

>>5903894
Except that's fucking wrong.

You do PEMDAS

from LEFT TO FUCKING RIGHT. EVERYONE FORGETS THAT. LEFT TO FUCKING RIGHT.

[Anonymous No.5904037]

>>5903899
>You do PEMDAS
Why?

[Anonymous No.5904089]

>>5904037
>why?
For the same reason that 2+2=4 and not 0.

[Talimar No.5904094]

Laws trumps rules. Follow the property listings.
Pemdas,Bedmas, or any other kind of consonent/vowel subjugate of 2 values that is simply a implication known for being an order of predicates is more and less derived from the property system of numbers.

If the system doesn't provide the correct relationship, it isn't a correct answer, nor properly annotated via the lovely jibberish we humans like to cough up. (whatever that is.)

The reason why I say it's a kind of quadratic is simply because how awesome 1 exponentials are. They always equal one ergo it's simply a simplification of the multiples of values that give provides a multiplication by 0 which makes this question so very awesome. For some reason, only 1 version of a multiple of 0 cannot be reduced to the actual number 0, in this case. All others are normal multiplication values that give you a +(a,b) relationship where one value == 0.

:D

[Anonymous No.5905533]

>>5904089
Why would it be 0?

[Anonymous No.5905563]

>>5903871
I agree. And if you changed it, you'd have older people thinking it's cool to keep using the old rules anyways.
Similar (kind of) to people who refuse to recognize that Pluto is not a planet.

[Anonymous No.5905576]

>>5905563
>refuse to recognize that pluto is not a planet
The distinction of "planet" versus "planetoid" is entirely arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.5905580]

>thinking this indicates one single expression
It's a series of 14 separate, sequentially evaluated expressions.

[Anonymous No.5905586]

>>5905580
>>thinking this indicates one single expression
When did anyone make this claim sperglord?

[Anonymous No.5905587]

>>5905586
It's implicit in the fact that people are applying the rules of order of operations to the entire set.

[Anonymous No.5905591]

>>5901669
Intel pls leave