Want to feels like ripping your eyes out? >>>/r9k/38601188

File: 39 KB, 960x788, retards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:19:09 2017 No.9060983 [Reply] [Original]

Want to feels like ripping your eyes out?

>>>/r9k/38601188

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:20:16 2017 No.9060984 >>9060983 >equation Closed the window there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:21:25 2017 No.9060990 >>9060983 The answer is 58. If you get anything else please brush up on your 3rd/4th grade math.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:23:42 2017 No.9060996 >>9060983 1

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:23:47 2017 No.9060997 >>9060984 Read the replies, the consensus in the thread is 10, and there are two or three retards who are calling everybody else retards who come up with the answer, 58.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:24:25 2017 No.9060999 >>9060990 Pemdas Paran theses 6 Exponent 36 Multiply/divide 36÷6 = 6 Add/subtract 6+4 = 10 Pemdas is a definition. By definition, it is 10. There is no other answer unless you don't use it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:26:03 2017 No.9061002 >>9060999 >it is 10 It's 58 you fucking mongol. 2(3) can be rewritten as 2 * 3 if you don't understand that. 6^2 / 2(3) + 4 = 36 / 2 * 3 + 4 = 18 * 3 + 4 = 54 + 4 = 58 You don't belong on this board, or anywhere near civilization for that matter.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:27:14 2017 No.9061007

>>9060997
>Read the replies, the consensus in the thread is 10, and there are two or three retards who are calling everybody else retards who come up with the answer, 58.
Amusingly you are trying to be all smart by claiming that there is a single answer, but you're showing your horribly shallow understanding of mathematics by doing so.

Protip: order of operations is arbitrary. There's a reason that every math text starts with a discussion of what conventions they are using. This problem has no direction on conventions being used and is written in a way that's ambiguous, so, both answers satisfy it until the convention is defined.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:27:18 2017 No.9061008 >>9061002 Made my day or should i say night GMT+1

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:27:56 2017 No.9061012 >>9060999 Parentheses part refers to simplifying only what is inside the parentheses, not operations between it and outside shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:29:58 2017 No.9061022 >>9061002 Wrong. 2 (3) = (3*2) by distribution Since it is a parantheses, you do it first. You should learn your math before you put other people down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:31:44 2017 No.9061026 >>9061007 The entire point of having a standard order of operations is that they are adhered to when no other instruction is given. This eliminates ambiguity. The simple fact that many people do not know/understand this standard is disheartening.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:32:18 2017 No.9061028 File: 44 KB, 657x527, 1461003381419.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061022 This is the single dumbest post I've ever seen on /sci/. And I'm the one who makes flat earth threads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:33:20 2017 No.9061033 >>9061022 >Since it is a parantheses, you do it first. Do what first? 3? Ok, 3 is done, 2 is not in the parentheses. Evaluate the rest of the expression, and get 58.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:34:01 2017 No.9061036 >>9061028 RING DING DING RING DING DIN GINGI SDGNGGH That feel is calling

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:34:05 2017 No.9061037 >>9061002 Multiplication of a bracket happens with the same priority as operations within the bracket actually

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:34:40 2017 No.9061039 >>9061026 Retard, there literally is no standard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:34:54 2017 No.9061040 >>9061037 >Multiplication of a bracket Stopped reading here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:36:20 2017 No.9061046 >>9061033 >3 is done got a genuine chuckle out of me, anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:36:59 2017 No.9061051 File: 8 KB, 525x71, scren.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I don't know how you could come up with anything other than 58

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:37:27 2017 No.9061053 >>9061039 Or, since you're quite obviously out of your depth, let me spell it out both accurately and precisely: There are a lot of standards. None of them are universal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:37:42 2017 No.9061054 >>9061051 nice try anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:42:03 2017 No.9061062 File: 28 KB, 778x528, screenshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061054 >nice try anon Why are you trying to bait on /sci/? Go to /b/ kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 22:42:09 2017 No.9061064 (6^2)/2(3)+4 36/2(3) +4 18(3) +4 54 +4 58

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:08:18 2017 No.9061111 >>9061064 It's 10 you mong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:09:47 2017 No.9061113 >>9061111 its not 6^2/2 is a coefficient of 3 then add 4 If I am wrong, prove it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:10:17 2017 No.9061115 File: 97 KB, 960x768, 1500232865707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061111 Let me guess, your most frequented board is /pol/ and you believe in God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:17:11 2017 No.9061130 >>9061111 TI83: 58 TI36xPro: 58 TI30xIIs: 58 Casio FX-115ES: 58 Casio HR100TM: 58 HP 40gs: 58 6^2/23+4 36/23+4 18*3+4 54+4 58 >>9061111 Its not 10 you mong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:20:14 2017 No.9061133 The number 2 is not in the paranthese you stupid fucks therefore there is no reason to do anything with it until its role as a multiplier is called upon. The answer is 10 and you're either a retard or a troll if you think otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:22:18 2017 No.9061135 >>9061133 Your first sentence is correct, then you went retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:26:27 2017 No.9061144 >>9060983 its 58 and anyone who says differently does not know the definition of the division sign as opposed to the fraction sign

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:26:48 2017 No.9061145

>>9061135
I am aware of how the number 58 is reached and that's a bullshit way to approach the situation. You can't restructure the entire equation on the fly just to make it fit your meme agenda. You do each component one at a time in the order prescribed. It's that simple.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:27:06 2017 No.9061146

>>9061133
The parenthesis is multiplication. Division and multiplication is done from left to right.

Square the 6, divide by 2, multiply by 3 and then add 4. That's 6th grade PEMDAS. that gives you 58.

If you can't do that, why the fuck are you on this board?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:28:01 2017 No.9061147 >>9061145 >You can't restructure the entire equation on the fly Writing 2(3) as 2 * 3 isn't restructuring anything, they are synonymous. I believe it is this misunderstanding that is leading to brainlets like yourself to being confused.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:33:38 2017 No.9061154

>>9061145
Parenthesis: do what is in the parenthesis
Exponent: take the number to the power of the exponential

do those from left to right

Multiply
divide

do those from left to right

add
subtract

do those from left to right

3(4) is multiplication, it is not inside the parenthesis.

idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:34:43 2017 No.9061157 >>9061146 >divide by 2, multiply by 3 1/10 for making me reply. Just please do us all a favor and kys

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:35:55 2017 No.9061159 >>9061157 How do you not understand this? If I was your math teacher in high school I probably would have gotten fired for beating you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:36:14 2017 No.9061161 >>9061154 You are legitimately mentally ill. I'm not even going to bother explaining to you because you clearly lack the wherewithal to perform basic algebra. Just leave this thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:39:40 2017 No.9061167 >>9061161 >I'm not even going to bother explaining to you because I can not clearly express my logic or reasoning without knowing I will be wrong and scrutinized. FTFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:42:47 2017 No.9061170 >>9061167 I've expressed my logic. Your response has made it obvious that you are too low leve of a thinker to handle something of this caliber so it's futile to get you to understand something you can't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:43:29 2017 No.9061171 Who the fuck even uses ÷ anymore?

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:43:39 2017 No.9061172

>>9061161
but he's right in essence. however he's wrong in another sense, that sense being the fact that there are two valid answers because the problem is written much too vague because writing a division symbol like that is literally retarded. anyone that does that should be shot on sight

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:45:32 2017 No.9061176 >>9061170 Can you link your post where you step by step solve the problem so it equals 10? I want to see your post, but can't seem to decipher it through all the equals 58 posts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:46:17 2017 No.9061177 >>9061159 >6th grade PEMDAS >divide by 2 >multiple by 3 >PEMDAS >PE MD AS >MD >divide by 2, multiply by 3 >divide, multiply >d, m >pedmas ?? pemdas gives you 10 dumbass

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:46:21 2017 No.9061178 >>9061172 >it's vague The word you're looking for is ambiguous, but either way, you are wrong. There is nothing ambiguous about the way it is written. that division symbol is synonymous with '/' and 2(3) is synonymous with 2 * 3.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:47:08 2017 No.9061182 >>9061172 There isn't 2 right answers. >>9061130 see this. I don't have a calculator on hand that will give me 10

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:47:25 2017 No.9061184 >>9061176 No because I am just trolling while low key believing my answer (10) is the practical correct answer and acknowledging that (58) is the tryhard but also correct answer. And I don't like tryhards.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:48:11 2017 No.9061185

>>9061176
exponents, multiply, divide the two numbers, add 4. that's what you would do if you were following pemdas, however it isn't necessarily any more right because that division symbol is just wrong. you don't divide like that unless you're an actual mongoloid. the notation is simply too vague

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:48:47 2017 No.9061188

>>9061177
Ahh, I see where your misunderstanding is now.

Multiplication has the same precedence as Division and Addition has the same precedence as Subtraction, this is something you probably forgot about PEMDAS. If you need to think about it like this: PE(MD)(AS), it would help.

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

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:49:29 2017 No.9061190 >>9061177 it doesn't 6^2 = 36 36/2 = 18 18 * 3 = 54 54 + 4 = 58 Done. If you want to tell me how that's wrong, step by step, then please do. PLEASE DO IT.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:50:10 2017 No.9061192

>>9061178
>wrong
>doesn't disagree with me
hmm nice one retard

>>9061182
i never said there was 2 answer, i'm saying both are either valid or not valid because the problem is vague

if you think there's a universal order of operations you need to hang yourself effective immediately. PEMDAS gives you 10, but 58 works as well because that division sign is retarded. people are getting 58 because they're putting the 3 on top of the division sign rather than below

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:50:24 2017 No.9061194 >>9061002 Why are you dividing before multiplying? Are you another one of these retards that doesn't understand the alphabet?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:51:03 2017 No.9061196 >>9061184 10 isn't a correct answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:51:33 2017 No.9061197 >>9061192 Woah, slow down there tardo. Of course I disagreed with you, for you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:52:35 2017 No.9061199 >>9061194 See: >>9061188 He is dividing first because the division comes before the multiplication in the expression.

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:52:49 2017 No.9061200

>>9061192
>i never said there was 2 answer
>however he's wrong in another sense, that sense being the fact that there are two valid answers because the problem is written much too vague because writing a division symbol like that is literally retarded.

>i'm saying both are either valid or not valid because the problem is vague
meaningless bullshit

Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:54:43 2017 No.9061202

>>9061192
>if you think there's a universal order of operations you need to hang yourself effective immediately.
> PEMDAS gives you 10

You can't do PEMDAS but you type shit like a fucking retard. Why would anyone take you seriously? You don't even have a logical principal to follow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 24 23:58:54 2017 No.9061211 File: 39 KB, 1413x374, dearlord.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9060983 HOLY FUCK SCI IS BRAIN-DEAD. THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM. THAT DIVISION SIGN IS TOO VAGUE. PIC RELATED, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:02:33 2017 No.9061215

>>9061202
here dumbass >>9061211
read. you guys are arguing something that has been known to be vague for at least half a fucking century. the fucking wikipedia on order of operations literally concedes that there is no universal order of operations in a case like this because you can interpret the 3 either above or below the slash

fucking hell sci is more retarded than i remember

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:03:29 2017 No.9061216 >>9061211 I can tell you are the same person who has posted 10 times because you keep misusing the term vague, you are incoherent. Also, that exception does not apply here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:04:25 2017 No.9061219 >>9061202 PEMDAS does give you 10. 6^2 is exponents, 2(3) is multiplication honeybunny, and 36/6 is division!! wow look you're a big boy now!! you can do PEMDAS!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:06:16 2017 No.9061221 >>9061219 why do you skip the division?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:06:36 2017 No.9061222 >>9061219 6^2 / 2(3) + 4 = 36 / 2(3) + 4 = 36 / 2 * 3 + 4 = 18 * 3 + 4 = 54 + 4 = 58 Try to point out where I am wrong, and post your work as I did. I'll help you fix your mistake.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:06:50 2017 No.9061223 It's 58. PEMDAS says it's 58, mt ti-84 says it's 58, matlab says it's 58, mathematica says it 58, maple says it 58. It's 58.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:08:38 2017 No.9061226

>>9060983
It's 10!!!!!
It's 58!!!!!!

Oh wait, it's definitively neither; you're all fucking retards. "Many academics consider the mnemonic PEMDAS as non-applicable with implied groupings that are ambiguous, such as 1/2x, where the lack of an explicit operator × between the 2 and the x implies a grouping of the 2 with the x."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:12:04 2017 No.9061235 >>9061219 There is no P component exponent from left to right: 6^2 = 36 multiplication and division from left to right: 36/2 = 18, 18 * 3 = 54 addition and subtrition from left to right: 54 + 4 = 58 how are you this fucking stupid?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:13:16 2017 No.9061236 >>9061226 its not 10 or 58, then what is it?

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:13:44 2017 No.9061237

>>9061222
In some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1/2x equals 1/(2x), not (1/2)x. For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash,[9] and this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz and the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

THUS, we have:

6^2 / 2(3) + 4
36 / 2(3) + 4
36 / 6 + 4
6 + 4
10

There you go, fuckboy. As I've said, "many academics consider the mnemonic PEMDAS as non-applicable with implied groupings that are ambiguous, such as 1/2x, where the lack of an explicit operator × between the 2 and the x implies a grouping of the 2 with the x."

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:17:30 2017 No.9061243

>>9061237
>In some of the academic literature
You realize this literally disproves what you are trying to say. This means in most academic literature this is not the case. We are operating under PEMDAS, not some odd, obscure methodology prescribed in "some academic literature". Consensus is king. This is why even Google's calculator shows the correct answer 58. I see you are angsty, but I hope you can learn something from this bud.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:17:54 2017 No.9061246 >>9060983 has sci gone down the shitter to the point of asking stupid questions as these

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:19:06 2017 No.9061252 >>9061237 no, you do what is inside of the parenthesis first. What is outside of the parenthesis does not take precedence above multiplication or division. 2(3) = 2*3. That is a fact that can not be argued.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:19:11 2017 No.9061253 >>9060983 >r9k

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:22:04 2017 No.9061258 >>9061246 Just report this and >>9060929

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:23:03 2017 No.9061259 >>9061178 No, I used the word "vague" right, dumb ass. Ambiguous would've worked just as well. They're literally synonymous, off yourself.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:23:42 2017 No.9061262

>>9061243
The real point is there is no consensus as to whether or not applied multiplication takes priority over division.

But there is a consensus that it's best to remove the ambiguity by writing it as a fraction instead of using the ÷ sign. Thus you seldom see the ÷ sign in university level mathematics.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:24:49 2017 No.9061265

>>9061259
No, you didn't use 'vague' right. You used it wrong several times, even after I corrected you. Leading me to the conclusion that you are, in fact, a mongol.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67523/difference-between-vague-unclear-and-ambiguous

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:32:51 2017 No.9061283 >>9061265 thats right. Its not the math that's the problem, its the wording. typical math fags.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:46:05 2017 No.9061313

>>9061265
You just proved that I did use vague right, fucking retard. I've been saying from the beginning that the problem is VAGUE, IT'S LACKING DETAIL; THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. AND, THEREFORE, THE ANSWER CAN EITHER BE ONE OR THE OTHER; OR NEITHER. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment doesn't matter, what matters is I used vague right, and you're a brain-dead edgelord.

I like how you show me a link like I'm not going to fucking read it. The problem IS vague, in my opinion, and you can't tell me I'm using the word wrong; what you can tell me is that it's NOT vague, and give me reasons, but that doesn't mean I'm using the word wrong.

So fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:47:20 2017 No.9061316 >>9061243 No it does not, you did not read it. This anon explained it well: >>9061262

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:53:42 2017 No.9061326 >>9061313 No, ironically, your use of 'vague' is vague. You meant ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 00:59:34 2017 No.9061332 >>9061033 >3 is done. I can't stop crying.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:05:47 2017 No.9061344
File: 29 KB, 750x573, pastacide.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I haven't done much math since high school and am only now getting back into it. I had never been told that multiplication and division occur in the order that they are written and not the multiplication first. I feel lied to and want to punch my high school math teacher in her tits now.
>>9061188
Legitimately thanks. I learned something today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:11:33 2017 No.9061352 >>9061344 Multiplication and division are really the same. So is addition and subtraction.

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:15:59 2017 No.9061358

>>9061344
Don't trust anyone, understand it so you know why.

Division is the same thing as Multiplying by a number's reciprocal.

A / B = A * (1/B)

Seeing as though the same expression can be written with either multiplication or division operators, they need to have the same precedence. This is why mathematicians who created PEMDAS declared that multiplication and division must be evaluated from left to right, so there was a standard.

Similar with addition and subtraction, subtraction is just adding negatives.

A + B = A + (-B)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:16:16 2017 No.9061359 File: 1.64 MB, 352x217, 1428114875983.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Order of operations troll thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:17:23 2017 No.9061363 >>9061358 I meant A - B = A + (-B)

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 01:19:18 2017 No.9061369

>>9061352
>>9061358
Yeah that makes sense, the frustrating part is that the teacher I am mentioning literally never explained that. She just went down the PEMDAS acronym and had us do each one in turn. This also means that many of the questions she had us answer required the objectively wrong answer.
Once again, thanks for the lesson, this will definitely save my ass once I finish the Khan Academy pre-university mathematics courses before returning to Community College with my head on straight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 02:14:43 2017 No.9061466 While I am aware that 2(3) is the equivalent of 23, I really feel that logically it should be the equivalent of (23) and whoever decided that it's the former rather than the latter is a fucking asshole.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 02:15:59 2017 No.9061471 >>9061466 No, you're just a dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 04:28:44 2017 No.9061632 >>9061033 >3 is done Holy shit my sides

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 04:36:47 2017 No.9061640 >>9061022 unironically leave this board

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 06:40:32 2017 No.9061755 >>9061466 >whoever decided that the number stays outside the parentheses rather than magically appearing inside them is an asshole

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 08:15:21 2017 No.9061869 >>9061226 [math] \displaystyle 6^2/2(3)+4 \\ 36/2 \cdot 3+4 \\ 18 \cdot 3+4 \\ 54+4 \\ 58 [/math]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 08:28:32 2017 No.9061886 >>9061039 Retard, open up any math textbook and they have the exact same order of operations. >>9061053 If you think order of operations is a subject of "depth," you are clearly making shit up. Stop.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 08:35:36 2017 No.9061893 >>9061252 doesn't look like 2 is inside the parenthesis there. Why are you processing it like it was (2 * 3) instead of how it is written?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 08:51:46 2017 No.9061920 >>9061869 M comes before D buddy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 08:52:57 2017 No.9061924 >>9061920 No it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 09:15:09 2017 No.9061954 >>9061920 they're equal faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:22:37 2017 No.9062027 >>9061954 >>9061924 ok so then you admit there can be two answers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:30:22 2017 No.9062047 >>9061886 You are an idiot who doesnt know math beyond arithmetic. None of the orders are certain. Theyre based on axioms which you must bring up in all books.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:36:03 2017 No.9062056 >>9060983 The answer is 20.(6)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:37:25 2017 No.9062059 >>9060999 >Exponent 36 What. [math] 10^2 = 36 [/math]? On what planet?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:38:16 2017 No.9062061 I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what the leftmost symbol was supposed to be. That's got to be the worst-looking "6" I've ever seen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:40:42 2017 No.9062065 Where the fuck are you people getting a [math] 6^2 [/math] from? That's clearly [math] 10^2 [/math].

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:45:57 2017 No.9062074 >>9062027 nope, there's only one answer. You're doing it wrong if you get the wrong answer or two answers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 10:47:52 2017 No.9062076 >>9062065 no it is obviously 1-0^2

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 17:15:25 2017 No.9062978 >>9062027 How can you conclude this? M and D are equal precedence, meaning you evaluate whichever is on the left first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 17:24:22 2017 No.9062999 >>9060983 great troll OP, 10/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 17:31:35 2017 No.9063017 >>9061359 Great fucking analysis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 17:32:22 2017 No.9063021 >>9060983 The division sign needs to be eliminated forever

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 17:35:48 2017 No.9063029 >>9062065 >>9062076 It clearly says Lo^2, which you can tell is shorthand for log(2)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 18:06:59 2017 No.9063125 Those twos and the six look absolutely disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:09:27 2017 No.9063351 >>9060983 (((facebook)))/Numberfeel/

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:18:40 2017 No.9063369

Saw this on facebook already. People who think PEMDAS is a hard rule don't understand math at all and have certainly not had to solve very many equations other than in an introductory course in highschool. It's elementally easy to solve an equation like this where it is a little ambiguous. Decompose it.

6^2 / 2 * (3) + 4
6^2 * 1/2 * 3 + 4

58

Literal brainlets don't even realize division and multiplication are the same fucking thing and therefore done left to right. Next they'll be telling you 2+2-3+5= -4

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:24:44 2017 No.9063389 6^2/(2)(3)+4=36/(2)(3)+4=36/6+4=6+4=10 source: Mathpapa

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:33:03 2017 No.9063409 6^2/2(3)+4=6^2/23+4=36/23+4=18*3+4=54+4=58 source = WolframAlpha

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:43:52 2017 No.9063434 >>9060983 wtf is Lo^2

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:45:06 2017 No.9063436 You're all wrong because that first number is clearly a 10 not a 6

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:49:58 2017 No.9063449 >>9063369 nope 2(3) = (23) = 6 so as you want to write it you'd have: 6^2 1/(23) + 4 or 6^2 1/6 + 4 it is 10

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:57:11 2017 No.9063469 >>9060983 Two bits of information are missing from the statement. PEMDAS is ambiguous because it only implies one bit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 20:59:24 2017 No.9063474 >>9063436 Post above yours is funnier.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 21:20:31 2017 No.9063516 >>9063449 >2(3) = (2*3) = 6 I'm not even trying to be mean here, but are you legitimately retarded?

Anonymous Tue Jul 25 21:32:13 2017 No.9063548

>>9061755
>hurr durr basic algebra is magic

For the retards out there:
A(B+C)=(A*B+A*C)
Wanna know why? Because
A*B(C+D)=A(B*C+B*D)=B(A*C+A*D)=(A*B*C+A*B*D)
Hence 2(3) can be rewritten as
1*2(3)=1*(2*3)=(2*3)

Both options can be considered valid, since the order of operations is an accepted method and this method checks out mathematically. Come back when you understand what parentheses mean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 21:41:19 2017 No.9063579 >>9063516 Are you? Nothing wrong with that part of his post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 21:50:59 2017 No.9063617 >>9063579 You're right, it's the next step he does. He moves the 2 into the parentheses. What the fuck is he even doing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 23:33:00 2017 No.9063810 >>9061216 He highlighted the wrong sentence. Read the second paragraph, implied multiplication i.e. 2(3) is sometimes intended to take precedence over division, such as 1/2x meaning 1 / ( 2 * x ) instead of (1 / 2) * x.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 23:38:18 2017 No.9063821 >>9063449 >2(3) = (23) You do realize that moving around parentheses changes the expression, right buddy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 23:39:52 2017 No.9063823 ITT: Trolls trolling trolls

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 25 23:45:10 2017 No.9063834 >>9060983 im seeing 3.6, which is no where close to anyone else in the thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 07:56:49 2017 No.9064645 >>9063834 First fucking correct answer in this whole thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 10:18:13 2017 No.9064779 File: 72 KB, 800x508, 14579691831031.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9060983 58, otherwise you're a mong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 13:14:48 2017 No.9065060 >>9061332 Hey man. That was a funny thing you said. Keep it up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 13:47:01 2017 No.9065120 >>9061022 How do you distribute a multiplicand of a monomial? Even if you did, the parenthesis disappears, so you get 23. I've never seen a distributive law where a(b+c) is equal to (ab+ac), but not ab+ac.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 13:53:25 2017 No.9065133 File: 7 KB, 394x56, polish-notation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061051 Polish notation master race

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 14:07:22 2017 No.9065155 File: 308 KB, 492x419, autistic pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9060983 /sci/, /r9k/ & 4chan as a whole are Autistic. However the /sci/'s IQ is much higher than the /r9k/'s IQ

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 14:19:45 2017 No.9065180 File: 2.57 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_0921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Actually you're all wrong

Anonymous Wed Jul 26 14:27:43 2017 No.9065193

>>9061886

The reason why Parens in PEDMAS go first is because they are chosen completely arbitrarily by the user specifying which things need to be evaluated in which order.

When there aren't explicit parens given that usually indicates that the answer to the operation is arbitrary and doesn't actually matter all that much.

Really the only authorial intent that can be read into the above is the 2(3) since parens are the only arbitrary intent that can be applied outside of the axioms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 14:52:19 2017 No.9065238 >>9061022 Multiplication doesn't distribute over itself. Go back to whichever engineering forum you came from.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 15:02:28 2017 No.9065266 TI says it's 58. You can argue all you want about it being arbitrary, but don't expect anything you have to work with to accommodate you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 15:13:30 2017 No.9065295 >>9060983 /sci/ = autistic genius /r9k/ = autistic retarded reddit = normies

Anonymous Wed Jul 26 15:27:20 2017 No.9065330

>>9065266
And Feynman's lectures disagree with you. As well with a massive shit ton of other sources. Why? Because this order of operations is vague and it's not universal. Many texts follow implied multiplication and therefore you'd do that chunk on the right first.

Brainlets are just too dense to accept the fact that the problem is insufficiently notated

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 16:02:55 2017 No.9065395 >>9065180 the division symbol is unambiguous with respect to representing division instead of a potential fraction. You've arrived at the wrong answer by assuming the wrong thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 26 16:13:13 2017 No.9065410 >>9065295 /r/math is unironically better for real math discussion than here and you know it

Anonymous Wed Jul 26 16:16:34 2017 No.9065417

>>9065330
>Feynman's lectures disagree with you
They disagree with most modern computational practice.
>Brainlets are just too dense to accept the fact that the problem is insufficiently notated
Or neckbeards on the internet refuse to be told they're wrong about anything. One or the other.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 02:10:37 2017 No.9066474 Error: Ambigious notation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 09:33:20 2017 No.9066949 >>9066474 where? The division symbol unambiguously indicates division rather than fractions. It might be ambiguous if someone has used / instead, but they didn't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 09:48:26 2017 No.9066970 >>9060983 Who writes equations like that? Also that is the single worst 6 I have ever seen

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 10:12:09 2017 No.9066990 >>9066949 No, the use of the division symbol is heavily discouraged and only used by complete amateurs of the field.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 10:12:11 2017 No.9066991 File: 1.99 MB, 320x240, roll eyes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9060983 >Containment board for the brainlet rejects of society can't do math See picture >>9061022 10/10 lol, would lol again

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 14:18:16 2017 No.9067428 File: 4 KB, 125x119, 1451008548122s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Abc = acb Ab/c= a/cb 2(3) = 2*3 This should clear things up for you brainlets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 15:37:14 2017 No.9067598 >>9066990 >it takes a professional to not use an unambiguous symbol in an easy simplification problem. Ah so you prefer it were made harder because it was so easy to begin with. Still doesn't change that there is only one answer though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 20:28:42 2017 No.9068192 >>9067598 >Fractions >Harder Also PEMDAS is not international standard and is a crutch for american students, there still isn't one answer. The correct answer is to point out the bad notation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 20:32:12 2017 No.9068202 >>9061188 and you also go left to right. i understand now. can confidently see that it isnt ten

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 21:28:40 2017 No.9068263 >>9060983 [math]\color{green}{> Ever\ using\ the\ \div\ symbol}[/math] OP, why do you keep spamming this meme in /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 21:50:38 2017 No.9068296 File: 55 KB, 500x500, 74d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061022

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 22:01:50 2017 No.9068317 answer is 3.6.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 22:06:16 2017 No.9068322 [math]6^2 ÷ 2(3) +4[/math] [math]30 ÷ 2(3) +4[/math] [math]16(3) +4[/math] [math]48 +4[/math] [math]50[/math] This really isn't that hard, /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 27 22:08:10 2017 No.9068323 File: 996 KB, 150x148, 1494824266131.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 06:48:41 2017 No.9068946 >>9068322 > 6^2 = 30 ? Kys.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 06:58:26 2017 No.9068958 all operations are equal importance 62%=0.62 0.622=1.24 1.244=4.96 4.96+4=8.96

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 09:50:39 2017 No.9069141 >>9068946 Let's go step by step 6^2 = 6*6 = 6+6+6+6+6+6= (6+6)+(6+6)+(6+6)= 10+10+10= 30 What are you doing on this board if you can't do math?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:06:38 2017 No.9069252 >>9061002 You're correct Don't let these abject baboons tell you different

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:09:38 2017 No.9069255 >>9061113 Protip- he cant

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:28:42 2017 No.9069279 >>9061893 This must be hair Does it look like he moved the 2 inside the parentheses? He evaluated the parentheses (3) = 3

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:35:53 2017 No.9069291 >>9065133 This proves nothing butbypure correct

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:39:03 2017 No.9069294 >>9069279 well no, he evaluated 2(3) before the rest of the problem, which is wrong. Yes (3) = 3. Thus the quantity 6 squared divided by the quantity 2 multiplied by the quantity 3 plus the quantity 4 is simplified to 58.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 11:45:15 2017 No.9069302 LEFT AND RIGHT ASSOCIATIVITY EXIST WRITE AN EVALUATOR SOMETIME AND SEE WHAT YOU GET

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 13:50:42 2017 No.9069484 >>9060983 but, anon, there is no equal sign

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 14:19:44 2017 No.9069517 >>9069484 There doesn't need to be in simplification problems.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 15:09:19 2017 No.9069614 File: 77 KB, 680x1020, IMG_9540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9061188 >when you btfo someone on /sci/ - science and math with a link to mathisfun.com >mathisfun.com >a site for literal children >science and math

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 15:14:37 2017 No.9069627 >>9069141 Made me chuckle

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 28 15:18:40 2017 No.9069634 >>9061211 >there can be some ambiguity in the case of the slash symbol ("/") OP DIDNT USE THE SLASH SYMBOL YOU STUPID FUCK

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 12:12:09 2017 No.9071605 >>9061147 >synonymous They don't have exactly the same meaning, if they did there would be no reason to have two of the same signs. The answer is clearly 10 because it's a parenthesis not a asterisk.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 12:18:02 2017 No.9071619 >>9061192 >they're putting the 3 on top of the division sign Exactly, if they want to put the 3 on top it should be written as: 3 (6^2 / 2) + 4 The (3) shouldn't come after then assumed to be atop the division sign.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 12:21:44 2017 No.9071628 I get the trolls saying it is 10, but if you unironically believe it is anything other than 58 you deserve to be euthanised on the spot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 12:21:55 2017 No.9071629 >>9069634 You didn't read at all did you Literally brain-dead

Anonymous Sat Jul 29 12:30:39 2017 No.9071644

>>9071619
The 3 is "on top" of the division sign as long as you divide first rather than multiply. Turn that division sign into a slash; on top would go 6^2 and on bottom would go 2, but 3 is ambiguous here as many sources will use implicit multiplication in which case that entity on the right is 6, and many won't, in which case 3 is multiplied by 18

Read the wiki page on order of operations to see plenty of sources (like feynamns lectures on physics) that use implicit multiplication, and many that don't. This problem is altogether notstionslly vague

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 13:05:13 2017 No.9071719 this is why humans will never go to mars

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 13:25:41 2017 No.9071758 >>9060983 It really fucks me off when people use that division sign instead of using a fraction for division. You never use it past primary school!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 16:18:12 2017 No.9072092 >>9060983 >Polish notation (the prefix case) (1°) + x / ^ 6 2 2 3 4 = 58 (2°) + / ^ 6 2 x 2 3 4 = 10 What does the pic means OP?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 16:34:05 2017 No.9072110 >>9071644 There's no ambiguity. The division symbol is not used to represent fractions. There are none here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 17:38:14 2017 No.9072250 >>9060983 the only answer is 10. there is no ambiguity. those robots are fucking tardz.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 17:45:51 2017 No.9072269 >>9061886 >some arithmetic book is the authority on the order of operations why do people believe this? do school children just believe everything they see in a book?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 19:37:12 2017 No.9072435 File: 899 KB, 600x600, 1489305982327.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [math]\frac{(6^2)}{(2(3)+4)}[/math] [math]\frac{6^2}{2(3)}+4[/math] [math]\frac{6^2}{2} *(3+4)[/math]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 19:57:50 2017 No.9072470 File: 23 KB, 1698x184, hmmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9072110 >no ambiguity >pic related hmm makes u think

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:25:15 2017 No.9072510 >>9060997 It was mostly 58, but only by a hair.

Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:41:26 2017 No.9072528

>>9061182

If you entered them in that way, then you're not resolving the formula as written. The whole dispute is this. Does 2(3) resolve at step P with parentheses, or at step MD with multiplication and division?

By changing the formula you entered to 2*3, you encumbered your test with your preferred solution.

I'm a college professor and while I'm not a pure mathematician I do use math every day and teach a math-heavy course. And this one threw me for a loop. I would never write it this way in the first place due to its ambiguity. It seems like the 58 people make a good argument but don't understand (or pretend they don't understand) the argument for 10.

Mainly, what it comes down to is a notational problem. A(B) = A*B = AxB = A•B ... right up until it doesn't and you find out that cross products and scalar multiplication aren't quite the same thing depending on what you're multiplying.

What I'm saying is that this is a nontrivial question about how to apply a notational rule in an intentionally ambiguous situation. My guess is that it's 58, but the guys arguing 10 are making a point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:46:15 2017 No.9072536 >>9061211 Thanks for posting this. So the most common practice is 58 but there are journals where 10 is the correct answer due to subtle differences in precedence conventions. That's in line with my intuition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:48:54 2017 No.9072541 >>9061236 Depends on the journal. Journals and subfields have persnickety house rules like this all the time. Editing a paper that you targeted at one and are resubmitting to another is sometimes a nightmare due to crap like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:55:33 2017 No.9072557 >>9061252 And yet different journals use different conventions precisely because the point CAN be argued.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:55:48 2017 No.9072558 A better question, what is [math]\sin 2\cdot\frac{\pi}{2}[/math]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 20:58:16 2017 No.9072562 What is (3) supposed to mean?

Anonymous Sat Jul 29 21:05:42 2017 No.9072583

>>9061369

It's a good lesson to learn, especially if you do any programming or use a mathematics package. But in the real world if you come across a case like this, the right answer is to ask for clarification, because someone who is this sloppy will likely also be sloppy about their adherence to precedence rules.

Anonymous Sat Jul 29 21:06:46 2017 No.9072585
File: 99 KB, 530x580, let_me_tell_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9061026
There is a standard for a÷b×c, and there is a standard for b(c) being underneath a fraction bar. However, there is no standard for a÷b(c).

The standard order of operations fails to address whether the b(c) is to be interpreted as b×c or (bc), and it also doesn't address whether or not ÷ acts as a fraction bar, which parenthesizes whatever is beyond it, which, in turn, would also make b(c) equivalent to (bc). There's a standard, but this problem shows that the standard isn't comprehensive enough to cover all cases.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 21:06:53 2017 No.9072586 >>9062065 It's 62.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 21:14:01 2017 No.9072601 >>9072562 Pi.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 29 21:22:26 2017 No.9072622 >>9072585 thank you now can we /thread finally

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math