[ 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: 17 KB, 590x429, 1434963830005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7345898 No.7345898[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, what do you think?
48÷2(9+3)=?

>> No.7345905

PEMDAS

>> No.7345916

>>7345905
>PEMDAS

The worst answer

>> No.7345926

>>7345898
That's why always parenthesise your shit as much as fucking possible. I would think that this expression is the first subtraction chunk multiied by the behind term. But it is really ambiguous so really both calculators can be right.

>> No.7345935

288

>> No.7345941 [DELETED] 

>>7345898
why don't you write it correctly on you casio and avoid ambiguity?
<span class="math">\frac{48}{2(9+3)}[/spoiler]
incidentally my casio fx85 gets 2 writing it the ambiguous way.

>> No.7345945
File: 293 KB, 150x150, 1354738019142.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7345945

>>7345898
Fractions

>> No.7345952 [DELETED] 

>>7345941
cont
I always assume that whatever follows that ugly division sign that only calculators use (if you're sane) is in the denominator, so I got 2 as the answer before I checked how my casio interpreted it.

>> No.7345961
File: 43 KB, 687x517, Goth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7345961

>2015
>not using RPN
Stay plebby, plebs.

>> No.7345964

>>7345961

>RPN

meme notation

>> No.7345973

>>7345898
48/2(12)
48/24
=2
This expression isn't even unclear.

>> No.7345995

(/ 48 (* 2 (+ 9 3)))
(* (/ 48 2) (+ 9 3))
There, now you can avoid ever having this problem.

>> No.7346014

>>7345973
this is right

>> No.7346034

>>7345961
there are no portable RPN calculators Anon

or else i would be

>> No.7346055

>>7345995
>RPN
>uses parentheses

>> No.7346058

>>7346055
makes it easier to learn, and any parser written by somebody who can breathe should be able to interpret it in the exact same way
:^)

>> No.7346065

It's 2.
How can this type of shit even be asked on /sci/. It's just order of operations.

>> No.7346077

>>7345995
>There, now you can avoid ever having this problem.
And you still got it wrong.

>> No.7346083
File: 15 KB, 308x314, rpn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7346083

>>7346034
>no portable RPN calculators
not even HP?

>> No.7346089

I just dont get these threads, and REALLY dont get the casio answer.
write 48
draw a line under it
below that line
write 2(9+3)

As the frAcTaL anon said above. Fractions.

>> No.7346092
File: 181 KB, 1700x1080, troll[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7346092

>>7346065
>How can this type of shit even be asked on /sci/. It's just order of operations.

Interesting, interesting. Question: Which comes first, multiplication or division? What is the value of a/b*c ?

>> No.7346093

>>7346089

write 48
draw a line under it
below that line
write 2
after the line
write (9+3)

>> No.7346094

It's 2 of course :p

>> No.7346174

>>7345973
This

>> No.7346210

>>7346092
Left to right I always thought, though it is shit formatting

>> No.7346264

>>7345973
or
48/2(12)
24*12
288

>> No.7346269

>>7346264
nope

>> No.7346285

>>7345898
Some calculators give precedence to a number followed by bracket over division and multiplication.
Read the calculator manual.

>> No.7346312

>>7346269
why not?

>> No.7346319
File: 11 KB, 401x306, doYouEvenScience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7346319

>>7345898
Bad formatting, your question is void.

Science and mathematics community never write like that. PEDMAS continues to be the rule.

>> No.7346324

>>7346264
Distribute

>> No.7346333

BNEDMAS
N means nothings

>> No.7346345

>>7345898
I'm slowly learning maths and I find that confusing because it doesn't explain what to do with the number outside the brackets to the number inside the brackets.

So, 9 add 3 is obviously 12. And 48 divided by 2 is 24. But how are you supposed to related 24 and 12 without it explicitly giving you the instructions? It could add, subtract, multiply, divide. So the answers could be 36 (add), 12 (subtract), 288 (multiply), 2 (divide).

Can anybody clarify how to know which of the 4 you're supposed to do? In plain English, preferably.

>> No.7346350

>>7346345
You can't do 48/2 because the 2 is a part of 2(12), it isn't a separate term.

>> No.7346376

>>7346350
>>7346269
Wrong.

48/2(9+3) is not 48/(2(9+3)).
48 / 2 = 48 * 2^{-1}, not 48 * (2(9+3))^{-1}

So what you're looking at is 48*2^{-1}(9+3), which is 288.

>> No.7346515

>>7345898
2 Casio is lying

>> No.7346538

>>7345898
48÷2(9+3) =/= 48/2(9+3).
The / is used for fractions.

>> No.7346643

>>7346092
Write it in latex then I'll give you an answer.

>> No.7346645

>>7345973
ayy lmao
i fucking hate you /sci/ you bunch of fucking retards

>> No.7346667

>>7346376
this
It's 288. Everyone saying 2 uses some shitty nonsense rule they learned in secondary school.

>> No.7346687

48÷2×9+3=219

>> No.7346697 [DELETED] 

>>7346667
No. / and : are different operators.
The / divides the expression in a fraction, so:
48/2(9+3) = 48:(2(9+3)).

>> No.7346704

>>7346376
>>7346667
No. / and : are different operators.
The / divides the expression in a fraction, so:
48/2(9+3) = 48:(2(9+3)) = 2.
48:2(9+3) = 288.
Both calculators are right.

>> No.7346709
File: 1.17 MB, 268x304, 1410372076486.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7346709

>>7345898
first we add 9 + 3 inside off the parentheses
>48÷2(9+3)=
then we work from left to right, since we've got equivalent operations now
>48÷2*12=
>24*12=
>288
simple

>> No.7346839

>>7346034
RealCalc for android has rpn

>> No.7346919

>>7346350
I didn't understand your explanation. Why can't it be add or subtract?

>> No.7347682

I failed high school math and I can do that in my head in like 2 seconds, you fucking retard

>> No.7348245

The Casio isn't following pemdas, and is dividing the 48/2 first Then Multiplying 24 by 12. Thus reaching 288. Poor programing. Fucking pemdas.

>> No.7348274

>>7345961
>>7345964
>>7346055
>>7346083


HP35S master race

>> No.7348285

>>7346919
xy is universally regarded as x*y.

>> No.7348297

48/(18+6) =48/24 =2
Prove me wrong.

>> No.7348301

>>7348245
>The Casio isn't following pemdas, and is dividing the 48/2 first Then Multiplying 24 by 12. Thus reaching 288. Poor programing. Fucking pemdas.

>Implying multiplication and division have different priorities

IT'S THE SAME OPERATION, what's next, you're going to insist Power and Root have different priorities?

>>7346704
>48/2(9+3) = 48:(2(9+3)) = 2.

Mentioning that / implies fractions saves the situation not one bit - with what secret knowledge do you claim that the author intended to have the parenthesis as part of the fraction?

>>7346210
>Left to right I always thought, though it is shit formatting

You are forgiven, for your sins are small. Left to right is a handy tool but not actually implied in the axioms of math.

>>7346345
>Can anybody clarify how to know which of the 4 you're supposed to do? In plain English, preferably.

>Plain english

Sorry. But I'll be brief instead:

x(y) = x*(y) = x * y

x(y+z) = x*(y+z) = x*y + x*z

x(y-z) = x*(y-z) = x*y - x*z

x(y*z) = x*(y*z) = x*y*z

x(y/z) = x*(y/z) = x*y/z

The problem with the OP is that this line:
>a/b(c+d)
is inconsistent.

Imagine two separate questions:

1)
>What do you get if you multiply half of 48 with 12?
Which is properly written: (48/2)*(9+3) = 288

2)
>What do you get if you divide 48 with the product of 2 and 12?
Which is properly written: 48/(2*(9+3)) = 2

But both of those use 2 parenthesis: The inner, to clarify that *9+3 should be read *12, and the outer, to clarify whether we're asking question 1 or question 2. OP skipped the outer parenthesis, and now this thread will grow to hit the bump limit because some people think it is impossible to write math like an asshole, therefore there must be exactly ONE answer, therefore the first answer they stumbled upon first must be correct and everybody else is trolling.

>> No.7348322
File: 667 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2015-06-23-08-27-53.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348322

literally everyone else is trolling

>> No.7348326

>>7348322

>Insisting there is no inconsistency

>Accuses OTHERS of trolling

This thread went downhill from post one.

>> No.7348327

>>7346704
Wrong again, the / operator is simply shorthand for x * y^{-1}, it does not imply anything after that, it's not a real operation, it's just notation for the multiplicative inverse of y, so you don't have to write something like x * 1/y * z or x * y^{-1} * z, and can simply write x/y*z.

If you want the inverse of y*z, ie, (y*z)^{-1}, you write x/(y*z), the same way y^{-1}*z does not imply y^({-1^}*z) = y^{-z}

>> No.7348332

>>7348322
Nah not trolling, they are genuinely retarded.

>>7346704
Stop pulling shit out of your arse.

>> No.7348343
File: 160 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2015-06-23-09-02-34.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348343

>>7348326

>> No.7348371

>>7348343

Oh look, it plunged even further.

>> No.7348373

>>7346324
You guys always say that like you think you know what it means.

DISTRIBUTION is a property of MULTIPLICATION. Thus it can only be done while you're multiplying, left to right, and not randomly some time before because you decided to do so and insert parentheses that aren't there into the problem. And PEMDAS is retarded, it should just be PEMA, as Division and Subtraction are just Multiplication by a fraction and Addition of a negative, respectively.

>> No.7348380
File: 140 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2015-06-23-09-22-28.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348380

>>7348371

>> No.7348383

>>7348380

Down and down we go.

Listen up nigger, because I'm about to drop some bombs here: The fact that a software engineer decides to implement an algorithm that says "when in doubt, go left to right" does not mean that this is actually a rule in math.

>> No.7348389

>>7348383
someone's mad that they are wrong

>> No.7348392

>>7348383
there's no doubt, it's what you do when you have equivalent operators.

>> No.7348398

>>7348392
>there's no doubt, it's what you do when you have equivalent operators.

No. That's not a rule of math.

>> No.7348408
File: 31 KB, 777x421, Untitled97.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348408

>>7348398
it's a dumb fucking question, it can be interpreted 2 ways

>> No.7348410

>>7348408
It can't, only retards think there's parenthesis on the denominator.

>> No.7348428

>>7348410
>It can't, only retards think there's parenthesis on the denominator.

BRB, copying my old post

>>7346092
>Interesting, interesting. Question: Which comes first, multiplication or division? What is the value of a/b*c ?

Do please tell us which mathematical rule you use when deducing the answer. I'll wait.

>> No.7348433

>>7345898
This is why I put more parentheses than seemingly necessary when I put stuff into the calculator.

>> No.7348437

>>7348428
The rule is not putting parenthesis where there are none.

Do you call x^y*z as x^(y*z) too?

>> No.7348445

lol. I was about to make a topic about TI-84 calculator. I usually use wolfram for everything. I'm trying really fuckin basic algebraic equations to figure out what is going on... x+7=9. Instead of 2, it is giving me 0. Wtf. I've reset the defaults and everything.

>> No.7348458

>>7345898
>arguing about convention
>implying any of this confusion matters if you have a real example to calculate this question for
>>>/facebook/

>> No.7348479
File: 75 KB, 1127x787, piaac-numeracy_141211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348479

Please Excuse My Dumb-Ass Stupidity

>> No.7348521

>>7345898
This isn't even a problem of calculators, it's a problem of terrible notation. It could easily be

<div class="math">\frac{48\cdot (9+3)}{2}=288</div> or <div class="math">\frac{48}{2(9+3)}=2</div>

>> No.7348526
File: 33 KB, 777x515, Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 16.36.39.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348526

2

If in doubt, convert to a sane notation (which infix is most certainly not).

>> No.7348535
File: 43 KB, 500x375, 1434949878956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348535

>>7348526
>mac

>> No.7348540

>>7345898
Anyone who assumes that a division symbol magically splits the entire expression into two terms is insane.

>> No.7348547
File: 23 KB, 661x180, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348547

>>7348380
Don't trust it blindly

>> No.7348549

>>7348526
>converts to different notation
>puts parenthesis where there are none

Here, with proper notation so your mac brain can understand it:

<span class="math">\displaystyle \cdot(\cdot(48,2^{-1}),+(9,3))[/spoiler]

>> No.7348561

>>7348547
Kek. Unless I'm retarded, <div class="math">\frac{d}{dx}\left(sin^2 2x\right)=4cos(2x)sin(2x)</div> right?

>> No.7348564

>>7348547
That is right.

>> No.7348567

>>7348561
It simplifies with a trig identity.

>> No.7348569

>>7348561
Yeah.
>>7348564
HOW CAN YOU NOT DO FUCKING CALC 1 YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>> No.7348573

>>7348561
Oh nevermind. they just neatened it with the identity <div class="math">sin(4x)=2sin(2x)cos(2x)</div> The answer is correct.

>> No.7348576

>>7348569
You people are forgetting

<span class="math">
\sin (2u) = 2\sin (u)\cos (u)
[/spoiler]

>> No.7348578

>>7345973

Sorry, but that IS wrong. You do the division first because it is on the left. PEMDAS = PEDMSA

Division and multiplication are really two versions of the same operation, and so are done left to right, even when mixed. The same with addition and subtraction.

5-1+4=8, not 0

>> No.7348601

>>7348285
oh ok

thank you

>> No.7348647

>>7348578
>and so are done left to right, even when mixed

>Left to right

>A real rule in math

Sure, sure. And you'll find the citation aaaaany minute now, right?

>> No.7348657

The answer is 288. The people who answer two are misinterpreting the problem.

Rewrite the equation:
48 ÷ 2 x (3 + 9) = x
288 = x

To get 2, you must evaluate the equation:
48 ÷ [2 x (3 + 9)] = x
2 = x

>> No.7348680

>>7348647

Sure here you go:

http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html

>> No.7348681

>>7348647
http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/DevelopmentalMath/COURSE_TEXT_RESOURCE/U01_L5_T2_text_final.html

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AOP2/Lorder.htm

http://www.algebrahelp.com/lessons/simplifying/oops/

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.order.operations.html

>> No.7348684

>>7348657
No, the people who answer two are trolling you.

>> No.7348695

>>7345898
Why the fuck do people find this question interesting. This is the exact same as arguing over someone's scruffy handwriting as to whether they meant to write an a or an o.

>> No.7348704

>>7348695
No it isn't. In math there is this thing called convention in order to resolve ambiguities of syntax. It doesn't matter what the person meant to write if he doesn't explain what he meant.

>> No.7348708

>>7346376
>>7348327
Only correct posts in the thread.

>> No.7348709

>>7346643
<span class="math">a\,/\,b\cdot c[/spoiler]

>> No.7348712

>>7348704
You know what actual math convention is though? Be clear with your meaning.

Nobody uses the ÷ symbol because it's repeatedly misleading.

>> No.7348719

>>7348569
>HOW CAN YOU NOT DO FUCKING CALC 1 YOU FUCKING IDIOT
kek

>> No.7348725

>>7348712
Mathematical convention dictates solving algebraic expressions with the order of operations in the order the expression is read. It also dictates that all algebraic symbols for an operation mean the same thing. The obelus should be interpreted as simple division unless otherwise stated.

>> No.7348736

>>7348725
This is schoolchild nonsense and you would be laughed out of a conference or presentation in academia for writing your shit like this.

>> No.7348747

>>7348736
topkek, when do you think mathematicians write elementary algebraic expressions at all? Do you think they are solving 1+1=2? Shut the fuck up.

No one cares how you write this shit as long as it can be understood. The convention is clear. I'll see you in the next bait thread.

>> No.7348749

>>7345898
48÷2(9 + 3) = 48÷18 + 6 = 24÷9 + 6 = 8.66

/thread

>> No.7348769

>>7348680
kek

>> No.7348786

>>7345898
48*2^(-1)*(9+3)
Now you don't have to worry about whether to do multiplication or division first

>> No.7348824

>>7348747
Have you ever even read a paper?

Here are the last 5 submissions to arxiv under mathematics:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06146v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06148v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06151v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06161.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06162.pdf

Oh, would you look at that? Every single one contains those "elementary algebraic expressions" you speak of.

Dickens wrote short, simple sentences; Mozart wrote simple major triads.

>> No.7348884

This thread is fascinating.

However, >>7348786 nails it I think.

>> No.7348890

>>7348301
>Sorry. But I'll be brief instead:
>x(y) = x*(y) = x * y
>x(y+z) = x*(y+z) = x*y + x*z
>x(y-z) = x*(y-z) = x*y - x*z
>x(y*z) = x*(y*z) = x*y*z
>x(y/z) = x*(y/z) = x*y/z
>The problem with the OP is that this line:
>>a/b(c+d)
>is inconsistent.
>Imagine two separate questions:
>1)
>>What do you get if you multiply half of 48 with 12?
>Which is properly written: (48/2)*(9+3) = 288
>2)
>>What do you get if you divide 48 with the product of 2 and 12?
>Which is properly written: 48/(2*(9+3)) = 2
>But both of those use 2 parenthesis: The inner, to clarify that *9+3 should be read *12, and the outer, to clarify whether we're asking question 1 or question 2. OP skipped the outer parenthesis, and now this thread will grow to hit the bump limit because some people think it is impossible to write math like an asshole, therefore there must be exactly ONE answer, therefore the first answer they stumbled upon first must be correct and everybody else is trolling.

i didn't understand any of this ;_;

>> No.7348918

>>7348824
>Dickens wrote short, simple sentences;

Dickens wrote purple prose, behold:
>The fact is, that there was considerable difficulty in inducing Oliver to take upon himself the office of respiration, - a troublesome practice, but one which custom has rendered necessary to our easy existence.

>> No.7348919

>>7348824
What the fuck does this have to do with the fact that convention exists for interpreting what would be ambiguous? This is such an autistic response. Instead of answering the question you just freak out that someone wrote an expression on a calculator in a way that mathematicians would not write in a paper. One has nothing to do with the other.

>> No.7348930

>>7348890
Don't worry, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about anyway. There is mathematical convention on this that makes the answer definitively 288. All division is simple division and equivalent operations should be done in the order they are read unless otherwise stated.

>> No.7348977

>>7348918
>Dickens wrote purple prose
I don't refute that. but also note that he wrote this line in the first chapter of a tale of two cities:
>The jailer shrugged his shoulders.

My point was that just because one is good at something doesn't mean that something simple cannot be effective if used correctly.

Mathematicians ALL write simple algebra in their papers.

>> No.7348988

>>7348919
I'm saying that there is no actual convention amongst actual mathematicians.

Just because the teacher taught you some rules in school doesn't mean they're actually good rules or used anywhere.

It's exactly like grammar: people who are not very good at it get too hung up on "the rules" rather than whether their writing is clear. Yes, you were taught in school that splitting the infinitive or starting a sentence with a preposition is "wrong". No, that doesn't stop great writers doing such things if the meaning is clear.

Also, I fail to see how the use of an analogy is autistic. Autistic people tend to get hung up on specifics, and have difficulty seeing comparisons. Analogies are the OPPOSITE of autistic.

>> No.7348992

>>7348930
>There is mathematical convention on this

No there is a made up highschool rule on this.

>> No.7349003

>>7348988
>I'm saying that there is no actual convention amongst actual mathematicians.
You're being misleading. What mathematicians do when they write something in a paper is irrelevant to the question at hand. Are there mathematical conventions for interpreting THIS expression as it's written? Yes. That's all that matters.

>Just because the teacher taught you some rules in school doesn't mean they're actually good rules or used anywhere.
The rules are there and are used. This has nothing to do with the rules being good, you are arguing that the way of writing the expression is not good, but again this is irrelevant to the question. That there is a better way to write some expression doesn't reflect on the rule for interpreting the expression anyway. Attempting to argue that the rule is bad, or that I am not good at math because I answered the question instead of criticizing the form is ridiculous.

>Yes, you were taught in school that splitting the infinitive or starting a sentence with a preposition is "wrong". No, that doesn't stop great writers doing such things if the meaning is clear.
You're the one arguing that the form is wrong. Your analogy makes no sense. We are not talking about correct form; we are talking about how to interpret a mathematical expression. Unlike language there is no ambiguity here. And there is no "correct" form as long as the expression can be interpreted.

>Also, I fail to see how the use of an analogy is autistic.
I never said your use of an analogy was autistic. I'm saying you missed the point in your adherence to one form of writing expressions. Missing the meaning because you don't like the form is autistic.

>> No.7349007

>>7348992
Wrong, it's a convention created by mathematicians decades ago.

>> No.7349009

>>7349003
>Are there mathematical conventions for interpreting THIS expression as it's written? Yes.
Well you're just wrong. the only "correct" interpretation of this expression is that the author was a moron or a troll.

>> No.7349019

>>7349009
I'm right and you're just being flippant because you know it.

>> No.7349020
File: 349 KB, 1612x1057, 1434738533807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7349020

>this thread
>actually having this argument
>actually engaging in autismal arguments about autist conventions

>> No.7349055

a slash(/) is not equal to a divide by (÷) sign. A slash automatically adds brackets around the last N terms, by convention. Both calculators are correct.

>> No.7349057
File: 296 KB, 500x375, I REALLY hope you guys don&#039;t do this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7349057

>39÷3(100+55)
>still posting this b8
>still taking this b8

hide 48÷2(9+3) threads
ignore 48÷2(9+3) posts
do not reply to 48÷2(9+3) posters

>> No.7349063

>>7349055
>a slash(/) is not equal to a divide by (÷) sign.
Wrong. They're equivalent unless otherwise stated. This was decided in order to remove ambiguity since some treated them differently while others treated them as the same.

>A slash automatically adds brackets around the last N terms, by convention.
Not a universal mathematical convention.

>> No.7349070

>>7348569
>insulting others for being correct
>not knowing basic trig

>> No.7349076

/sci/, I...

>> No.7349167

>>7349063
This. Finally somebody that is not a complete retard. If the equation was about a fraction why wouldn't it be written as (x/y) to avoid ambiguity? Pc represent division as / not ÷ even if the key on the keyboard has ÷.

>> No.7350248

>>7348749
>48÷2(9 + 3) = 48÷18 + 6 = 24÷9 + 6 = 8.66

Hah, that one's new. I'll try to remember it for the next time this stupid thread swings around.

>> No.7350249

>>7348709

Well <span class="math">played[/spoiler] sir!

>> No.7350253

>>7348680
>Sure here you go:
>http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html
>>7348681
>http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/DevelopmentalMath/COURSE_TEXT_RESOURCE/U01_L5_T2_text_final.html
>http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AOP2/Lorder.htm
>http://www.algebrahelp.com/lessons/simplifying/oops/
>http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.order.operations.html
>Not a single math paper

Any idiot can write a web page. Do you have a citation that shows left-to-right is a part of <span class="math">math[/spoiler] rather than just a convention taught to sub-140 proles?

>> No.7350261

>>7349055
>A slash automatically adds brackets around the last N terms, by convention.

>"convention"

>>7349009
>Well you're just wrong. the only "correct" interpretation of this expression is that the author was a moron or a troll.

This guy right here.

>> No.7350305

>>7350253
http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/precedence/

>> No.7350375

>>7350305
>http://www.math.utah.edu/online/1010/precedence/

Another claim of "convention" without anything backing it up.

Correctly written math can be solved left-to-right and right-to-left without affecting the outcome. Correctly written math does not depend on the order in which you do multiplication and division.

>> No.7350575

>>7350375
Are you fucking retarded? That's an actual institution with an actual mathematics department, not just some site on the internet.
Do you expect that you will find conventions in some kind of article or some kind of "official page of math conventions"?

Mathematical conventions can even change depending on the book you're using, that's simply not how it works.

>> No.7350612
File: 60 KB, 600x399, Laughing_whores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7350612

>>7350253
>Wanting a citation on something that is taught to 5 year olds.

>> No.7350865

>>7350612
>>Wanting a citation on something that is taught to 5 year olds.

>Not realizing that even the simplest shit like "The successor of 1 is 2" is rigorously backed.

Also: Taught to 5 year olds in shit schools maybe. Real math can be solved from both directions at once.

>> No.7350869

>>7350575
>Do you expect that you will find conventions in some kind of article or some kind of "official page of math conventions"?

No. Which is my point. You can't find it, because it's not part of math. Real math can be solved from either direction.

>> No.7350924

>>7350869
It is a part of math, it's written right there, the people that wrote that are authorities on the field.

>> No.7350968

>>7350865
"The successor of 1 is 2" is an axiom, not a convention you utter fuckhead. Conventions are simply rules created by mathematicians in order to remove ambiguity and allow for common understanding of mathematics. They don't effect the underlying meaning at all, unlike axioms. Get the fuck out.

>> No.7351022

>>7348521
This is correct

>> No.7351116
File: 3 KB, 528x197, mathsentence.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7351116

>>7345898
288
You are only dividing 48 by 2, not the other shit.
If there were parenthesis around the 2(9+3) bit then the answer would be 2.

As written without parenthesis the equation is pic

>> No.7351179

>>7345898
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288

>> No.7351224

>>7345898
There are 48 companies.
Half of them are irrelevant.
The remaining companies all split into 9 sister companies, and 3 OP is a faggot companies.
How many companies exist in the final outcome?