User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/6/2016 11:55:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That really only proves that people are no longer taught math. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's the mathematical equivalent of the "Giant Reptilian Man Eating Demons" thread. Poor syntax can lead to poor understanding. The way that is written, it is not clear. The way it's written is perfectly clear. An assertion readily refuted by the fact this thread even exists. That really only proves that people are no longer taught math. Like whomever wrote out that equation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2016 7:25:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like whomever wrote out that equation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's the mathematical equivalent of the "Giant Reptilian Man Eating Demons" thread. Poor syntax can lead to poor understanding. The way that is written, it is not clear. The way it's written is perfectly clear. An assertion readily refuted by the fact this thread even exists. That really only proves that people are no longer taught math. Like whomever wrote out that equation. I've been seeing equations like that for over 35 years and they've never been unclear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2016 8:30:20 PM EDT
[#3]
There is one other way to look at this as a left to right problem.
8 / 2 (2 + 2) = X Start with the first division which now gives you: 4 (2 + 2) = X Distribute the four into the parentheses: (8 + 8) = X 16 = X |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2016 5:29:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2016 6:37:24 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2016 6:58:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16. Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 12:15:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16. Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 10:19:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16. Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. My hats off to you, good sir. Patience of a saint... or a true sadist.  I stopped coming in this section awhile back because the... well threads like this. All the ignorance of GD but none of the fun.
As written in OP, the equation is ambiguous. Thus, it wasn't formed correctly. PEMDAS is a pneumonic, nothing more. When an equation is written in natural form, there is no confusion as to operational orders or relationships. When written linearly, you better use parentheses or brackets to denote true relationship. Or better yet, install Latex or learn MS equation editor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 11:18:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My hats off to you, good sir. Patience of a saint... or a true sadist. I stopped coming in this section awhile back because the... well threads like this. All the ignorance of GD but none of the fun.
As written in OP, the equation is ambiguous. Thus, it wasn't formed correctly. PEMDAS is a pneumonic, nothing more. When an equation is written in natural form, there is no confusion as to operational orders or relationships. When written linearly, you better use parentheses or brackets to denote true relationship. Or better yet, install Latex or learn MS equation editor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing about the equation is ambiguous. It's simple algebra that a 12 year old should know and the answer is 16. Better go check again. It is NOT properly formed. And 'PEMDAS' is NOT any rule to be following in math. My hats off to you, good sir. Patience of a saint... or a true sadist. I stopped coming in this section awhile back because the... well threads like this. All the ignorance of GD but none of the fun.
As written in OP, the equation is ambiguous. Thus, it wasn't formed correctly. PEMDAS is a pneumonic, nothing more. When an equation is written in natural form, there is no confusion as to operational orders or relationships. When written linearly, you better use parentheses or brackets to denote true relationship. Or better yet, install Latex or learn MS equation editor. You have to watch the equation editor since not all systems handle it 'nicely.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 11:48:47 AM EDT
[#10]
I think the issue with it as written, 8/2(2+2), is somewhat ambiguous in terms of whether people think the (2+2) is included as part of the denominator.
If it is 8 --- 2(2+2) then the answer is 1 However, if it is 8 -- (2+2) 2 then the answer is 16. As shadowblade232 wrote, if the (2+2) were to be a part of the denominator I would expect it to be written as 8/[2(2+2)]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 12:09:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As shadowblade232 wrote, if the (2+2) were to be a part of the denominator I would expect it to be written as 8/[2(2+2)]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 1:11:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the issue with it as written, 8/2(2+2), is somewhat ambiguous in terms of whether people think the (2+2) is included as part of the denominator. If it is 8 --- 2(2+2) then the answer is 1 However, if it is 8 -- (2+2) 2 then the answer is 16. As shadowblade232 wrote, if the (2+2) were to be a part of the denominator I would expect it to be written as 8/[2(2+2)]. And if it weren't' I'd expect it to be written (8/2)(2+2). As it is, it takes a special kind of mind to argue it's not at all ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 7:19:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it is, it takes a special kind of mind to argue it's not at all ambiguous. Anything "ambiguous" is not written correctly. Engineering conventions are that a slash for division means denminator follows. Unit expressions often do this. uin/in F Is micro-inches per inch per degree F. The thermal expansion coefficient of a material (like steel). A 1 inch dimension will vary by micro-inches for each degree F it changes. It is more correctly written as uin/(in F) but your rarely see that. It is NOT uin F/in. Sometimes a 'deltaF' will be inserted instead of just F. The reader is assumed to understand the context. For the most part we assume that the number is reasonably constant and linear with temperature. Some things are NOT and then vertical lines '|' with temperatures as subscripts may be added. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2016 8:42:38 PM EDT
[#14]
The answer is 16. Basic order of operations problem.
For verification, get a modern calculator or computer out, and WITHOUT ADDING ANY PARENTHESIS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL SYNTAX, enter the equation. The calculator, microsoft excel, etc, will all correctly return 16 as the answer. http://www.meta-calculator.com/online/?panel-201-calculator |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
