TanaNari
Verified Dick
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 26,865
- Likes received
- 287,247
I'm gonna need you to stop perpetuating this myth that Ohio exists.GTA7 is going to be set in Ohio featuring Eldritch space abominations
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm gonna need you to stop perpetuating this myth that Ohio exists.GTA7 is going to be set in Ohio featuring Eldritch space abominations
I'm gonna need you to stop perpetuating this myth that Ohio exists.
Not only have I been there, I tried the sweet cinnamon spaghetti sauce they call chili.I'm gonna need you to stop perpetuating this myth that Ohio exists.
Is it because you got served by Mike Hunt and Hugh Jass?I tried the sweet cinnamon spaghetti sauce they call chili.
It's weird.
Nah, I heard those two came down with a bad case of ligma. Or maybe a nut allergy?
It could go either way because it was deliberately written to be vague. I lean slightly more towards 9 as the answer because I think the proper way to write it out would replace that division sign with the horizontal line, giving you 6 over 2. That would make it (6/2)(2+1), which simplifies to 3 X 3.
The other way that it could be interperted would be 6/(2(2+1)), which would give you 1.
The scientific calculator solves the equation properly, the basic bitch app on the phone "solves" it first come first serve from left to right.The way I was always taught it, you do Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction, in that order. So, bracket first, 2+1=3. Then you've got 6 ÷ 2 x 3, you do the division first, so 6 ÷ 2 = 3, then the multiplication, 3 x 3 = 9.
The scientific calculator solves the equation properly, the basic bitch app on the phone "solves" it first come first serve from left to right.
There's no debate to be had here, the answer is 1 (one). If you think otherwise, you've been taught wrong. Probably as a joke.
There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.Ah, yes. I see. You have made a compelling case and I am convinced by your stunningly brilliant proof. There is definitely no ambiguity whatsoever to be seen here.
I already said you convinced me, there's no need to invoke the Holy NASA.There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.
There's absolutely ambiguity in whether you interpret 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) or 6÷(2(2+1)), which is why you don't write it that way in a serious context.There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.
There is no ambiguity to be had here though, since there's nothing to interpret. Seeing 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) is simply objectively wrong.There's absolutely ambiguity in whether you interpret 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) or 6÷2*(2+1), which is why you don't write it that way in a serious context.
You do multiplication and division from left to right. Following that rule, you'd divide six by two, then multiply by three. Your rule is only unambiguous if you treat touching a parenthetical as a higher operation than ordinary multiplication. Which, once again, isn't an unambiguous rule the way multiplication and division from left to right is.There is no ambiguity to be had here though, since there's nothing to interpret. Seeing 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) is simply objectively wrong.
Multiplication by the contents of the parentheses is a higher order operation than the division in this example though.You do multiplication and division from left to right. Following that rule, you'd divide six by two, then multiply by three. Your rule is only unambiguous if you treat touching a parenthetical as a higher operation than ordinary multiplication. Which, once again, isn't an unambiguous rule the way multiplication and division from left to right is.
Multiplication is first. The parentheses around the multiplication is implied and therefore not needed to be shown. To expand on how that equation would look like if we didn't take the shortcut of showing unnecessary parentheses, then 6÷(2(2+1)) you wrote earlier would be correct.Which is why, when the entire result of an equation is dependent on whether you do the division or multiplication first, you'd make it clear which you intend instead of assuming everyone interprets the parenthetical touch the same way.
Fair enough.You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.
That said, I do believe they teach math differently in different countries and even different schools, sometimes even different classrooms, so you both may be right according to what you learned.
What you're arguing about isn't even math but math syntax. Which can indeed vary by region. And computer program, for that matter.
There is no 'right' way to solve it unless you know who wrote it and they can tell you, or you know what real physical event it's supposed to describe and can experiment or logic out what each variable actually refers to.
Nah. I'm not going to keep arguing when the actual answer is 'put the shit that should be in the divisor under a line and the shit that should be a numerator on top of a line.' Nobody argues that this…You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.
2Nah. I'm not going to keep arguing when the actual answer is 'put the shit that should be in the divisor under a line and the shit that should be a numerator on top of a line.' Nobody argues that this…
_48__
2(9+3)
…Is ambiguous.
You see, there's the problem. Any time you say "this is implied", you guarantee that some people will be confused or miss something. It doesn't even matter if you're correct, you still needed the extra step of clarification.The parentheses around the multiplication is implied and therefore not needed to be shown.
That's what teachers teaching basic math are for, not me.You see, there's the problem. Any time you say "this is implied", you guarantee that some people will be confused or miss something. It doesn't even matter if you're correct, you still needed the extra step of clarification.
There is no such thing as "too obvious to not need pointing out at least once". Ever, in my experience.
The only reason this is in any way controversial is because some idiot hackfrauds masquerading as teachers decided to half-ass their job at teaching proper order of operations and instead went with some idiotic shortcut of 'left to right takes precedence' or something, and this somehow managed to become popular opinion is some circles.
Math is taught to an international standard. Its why the math curriculum hasn't actually changed in decades. Guardian is actually right, there is not argument at all to be had here. Any classroom or nation that teaches otherwise isn't teaching to said international standard.You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.
That said, I do believe they teach math differently in different countries and even different schools, sometimes even different classrooms, so you both may be right according to what you learned.
What you're arguing about isn't even math but math syntax. Which can indeed vary by region. And computer program, for that matter.
There is no 'right' way to solve it unless you know who wrote it and they can tell you, or you know what real physical event it's supposed to describe and can experiment or logic out what each variable actually refers to.
The USA doesn't use the International/Metric System, at least not as the default. There are most of your issues.Math is taught to an international standard. Its why the math curriculum hasn't actually changed in decades. Guardian is actually right, there is not argument at all to be had here. Any classroom or nation that teaches otherwise isn't teaching to said international standard.
None of that has anything to do with order of operations, algebra, tan and cosin, etc. Literally all your saying is Americans use a different conversion. Congratulations, so do computers.The USA doesn't use the International/Metric System, at least not as the default. There are most of your issues.
The government is sabotaging our education as part of a conspiracy to make us incapable of rising up against them.
We need to help the victims of the american school system whenever we find them.Are you seriously debating elementary school math?
The hell is even going on in your schools?
Phone calculators are, in fact, exactly that wrong.There is no way that meme is real. I think, then I check to see if yes the phone calculators are in fact that wrong
... WTF