I agree. I said the same thing like on page 6. However, there was a small cadre of short bus refugees that forced this thread to 50+ pages. followup is the leader. Nathan is the defector. Gods_Idiot is just lost.
48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
I agree. I said the same thing like on page 6. However, there was a small cadre of short bus refugees that forced this thread to 50+ pages. followup is the leader. Nathan is the defector. Gods_Idiot is just lost.
bruh, you're the one that got off on a tangent with the other posters but let's see if i can still make your statement false but complex numbers can work as scalars, used to do it in physics class so poo poo on that. but as real numbers we can still achieve the same result
okay this is your equation a/bc that you say is absolutely unequivical to this equation a/(bc)
a=2
b=1
c=-1
...
example 1;
2/1*-1=
2*-1=
-2
example 2:
2/(1*-1)=
2/-1=
-2
i think stating these were absolutely unequivical would constitue a false proof then correct?
It makes perfect sense. Stop finding new shit to nitpick about. Implied Multiplication was being made out to be Applied Multiplication, so I asked "Is Implied Multiplication actually Applied Multiplication"?. Why frame it that way? Because the Implied Multiplication was being used as such.
This shit is funny & sad all @ the same time!
2-mutha-fuckin' 88 is the CORRECT answer!!!
As stated looong ago!
2-mutha-fuckin' 88 is the CORRECT answer!!!
As stated looong ago!
Thanks, it's not like we should be depending only on our machines, but my point was that, at some point Texas Instruments decided to change priorities on the higher level calculators, and that's why I said that I would stand by my 89 and not any of the out dated ones like (TI-80, TI-81, TI-82, and TI-85).
I didn't think to search TI's site for this. Good look. Either way, we won't really see any problems like this, as you said.
I agree 100 percent. The part in bold is what I was asking for repeatedly. I asked all of those defending their 2 position just to post some reputable sources that confirmed that key point in their position.
When are you gonna answer the last question I asked you in the proof????
Why are you avoiding it?
My responses to other posters have nothing to do with our convo.
Ok, fam. Truce. Its been fun.
Then someone will still attempt to discredit the source, so whats the point? Mathway.com would be reputable enough you would think.. But, examples have been posted for both ways. Who's right?
I found a pic of them hanging out.
I think you know who's who. lol
I'm out! Its been fun.
?
did you look at the rest of that post? i already falsified your proof on unequivality. i don't have to use your set of values, just your scenario, that's how math works. i didn't violate one law in solving either of those equations
And just because I'm petty ...
Step up your calculator game bitches.
The problem is still written ambiguously. Our shit just gets it right.
[MatCAD,Mathematica,TI-83, TI-84, TI-89, TI-92, Voyage 200 and the TI-Nspire] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [TI-80, TI-81, TI-82, TI-85 and "MATH.COM"]
Step up your calculator game bitches.
The problem is still written ambiguously. Our shit just gets it right.
[MatCAD,Mathematica,TI-83, TI-84, TI-89, TI-92, Voyage 200 and the TI-Nspire] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [TI-80, TI-81, TI-82, TI-85 and "MATH.COM"]
i don't think it's a coincidence that the 288 crew were the first to resort to name calling and are the only ones posting silly pictures and videos that are off topic.
?
I never competed my proof cuz you continue to avoid the question I posed to YOU.
Instead, you chose to cherry pick responses I made to others.
I found a few reputable sources that said Implied Multiplication has higher precedence and then I found a few that didnt use it for the same type of problem.
I posted pictures and links earlier
The precedence of Implied Multiplication really comes into play when dealing with calculators. Some teachers and texts have their own rules that doesnt consider implied multiplication.
from the same website you're cosigning
Your comprehension is off. "At some point" means that before "some point" things were one way and after that same "some point" things were different.
In engineering, things are typically changed for the better right? Not all the time, but most of the time. And it the case of the TI-83, my first calculator, that shit was changed around 15 years ago idiot! I have a hard time believing they would not have changed it back if it wasn't right, going on 15 years.
I do remember that you did that. That is why I said you were the one seeking out the truth as opposed to just trying to support your position.
Last edited:
and your comprehension is clarvoiyant since you can derive WHY they changed it back from that little bit of a statement that says that the operation was removed but does not explain for what purpose
This is when I had my ahaa moment. It was a legitimate argument for the other side. One that I had not heard before, but definitely logical. And the argument follows the order of operations, with a detail change.
There are only a few people on here that are still arguing against the ambiguity.
finish the proof or don't, i'm not going to beg you
So you're not gonna answer the question, cool, then just accept your L.
yeah, it's clear you have to make sure you communicate what type of problem you want.
But personally I feel like this reveals a fatal flaw in math that should be resolved somehow.
And I'm amongst them. "Order of operations" was adopted centuries ago to rid arithmetic problems like these of ambiguity.
The CONFUSION here lies in people not understand that principle.
Do you at least agree with, the way the problem is written, that folks in different fields view it different ways. And that it should be written better to understand the intent of whoever wrote it?
Or are you that fuckin stupid?
Keep in mind this is a yes or no question.
Yeah. It has definitely made me rethink a few things about mathematics. I still don´t know where this meme originated but I think that was the intent...that even mathematics can be open to interpretation because of structure.
I agree that their original intention was for us to know that multiplication is multiplication, whether implied or explicit. But I don't mind someone saying to write it in a better way especially when dummies in here are arguing over these ÷ /.
We gotta give them some type of chance!
If theres +50 pages about this on hundreds of websites wouldnt you think that confirms this as being ambiguous.
Theres no "law" people have to follow when working these types of problems, only conventions that they learn from a textbook or teacher. If the main sources of learning states two different things, how does one truly interpret a 48÷2(9+3) problem without their being an argument or conflict.
Theres no "law" people have to follow when working these types of problems, only conventions that they learn from a textbook or teacher. If the main sources of learning states two different things, how does one truly interpret a 48÷2(9+3) problem without their being an argument or conflict.
It came from a mom posting it on the net. It's from her son's 6th grade homework. If this is true, I wonder why she doesn't reveal the answer.
you're taking this real personal, huh? can somebody get this fat ass little nigga some pussy that he won't have to pay for? we need to get his self-esteem up to the normal depressed and suicidal thoughts levels of your typical no pussy gettin lard ass. i think he might go postal w/o intervention
Damn you are not lying about this shit taking over the internet. You will literally see this shit everywhere.
Similar threads
