You're the one who obviously hasn't tried it. If I post an actual screenshot of implicit multiplication being interpreted the way I say it would be, will you both admit you're purposefully lying, and apologize?
Can you do this simple maths problem?
- Thread starter Rathaus
- Start date
You're the one who obviously hasn't tried it. If I post an actual screenshot of implicit multiplication being interpreted the way I say it would be, will you both admit you're purposefully lying, and apologize?
KMRblue1027
Deity
No they are the same equation when you have a number on the outside of parentheses it multiplies all that is inside the (). Such as 2(89+56) would equal 290 or (2+5)^2 = 49. Why do you think in chemistry class they use coefficients such as 2Na + Cl2 = 2NaCl for a balanced chemical equation?
I bet that if you actually bothered to look at any Chemistry book you actually have, you would find an equation like PV/RT using implicit multiplication. It would surprise me if it's not the case. Not that the entirety of your post there isn't pointless, but just the look on your face if you bothered to take the time to check.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Code:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << 48/2*(9+3) << endl;
return 0;
}Result: 288
KMRblue1027
Deity
You are adding a () that is not in the initial problem. I can see where your logic is coming from but you must do a problem as written 48/2(9+3). By standard protical you do the 9+3 first giving you 48/2(12). Next you do multiplication/division from left 2 right giving you 288.
PS: In your hypothetical problem your formatting isn't right anyway. It should be 48/[2(9+3)] so you can clearly define what steps to do in order but since it's not the right problem anyway it really doesn't matter.
The entire reason this troll question is so trollicious is because most (if not all) programming and mathematical languages cannot cope with the stated equation. Since no-one will write an equation like that, or will be smart enough to be more explicit, these mathematical languages haven't bothered to deal with this issue. It's like reciting a calculator or Excel calculation error - except this one is systematic.
And then the trolliciousness increases further by the indubitable citing of simple principles that don't apply.
The beauty is that good mathematical languages, like Wolfram Alpha and Google, will restate back to you what equation they are evaluating. To the typical user, this would imply an equality between what was written and what the programming language thinks was written - but the program explicitly restates what it's evaluating for this exact reason. When you enter an ambiguously and poorly stated equation like this, the program will not always return the same input; let alone the correct output.
And then the trolliciousness increases further by the indubitable citing of simple principles that don't apply.
The beauty is that good mathematical languages, like Wolfram Alpha and Google, will restate back to you what equation they are evaluating. To the typical user, this would imply an equality between what was written and what the programming language thinks was written - but the program explicitly restates what it's evaluating for this exact reason. When you enter an ambiguously and poorly stated equation like this, the program will not always return the same input; let alone the correct output.
I already posted a code snippet proving the answer was 2 in a far, far more clever way.
But seriously, you can't with a straight face say you're being honest here, plus you also ignored earlier posts. If you code the equation differently to get the answer you want, of course you can get the answer you want.
You should take a sec to catch your breath as you're almost at the point of losing your license to criticize Obama Birthers. Where's the birth certificate? Where's the obelus?
At this point, I don't see the point anymore.
48/2(9+3) =/= 48/2*(9+3)
48/2(9+3) = 2
48/2*(9+3) = 288
These brackets are implicit due to the convention of implicit multiplication. I am also adding a * that is not in the initial problem. That's how modern math works.
Implicit multiplication takes precedence. You do 2(12) first, because there is no multiplication sign between 2 and (12).
No, you would never need to write it as 48/[2(9+3)]. It is implicit as per global math conventions.
48/2(9+3)=48/(2(9+3))=[48/((2(((9+3)))))]
Oh, I agree this was an awesome trollicious question. The forum I saw it first on had thousands of users voting and lots of funny stuff. I also mentioned some things earlier about the interesting snowball effect different places one can see with a quick couple minutes of Googling, people who "defer" to others or gang up on people they didn't like in petty ways unrelated to the question.
The best thing by far there, oh so funny:
By a margin of like 2000 to 1000 voters, people voted that "1/2x = 1/(2x)" on the same OP, in the same thread, (edit, obviously it's a forum that allows multiple polls, grr CFC feedback maybe we could use that
) and this number was entirely different by like 30% versus the actual 48/2(9+3) question.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Code:
package test;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(48/2*(9+3));
}
}Result: 288
And every other programming language in existence would obviously agree.
It's awfully dishonest to post that when people in this thread have stated that 48/2*(9+3) is not equivalent to 48/2(9+3) as they understand it.
Hey, I can do the same thing!
Result: 2
And every single other programming language in existence would obviously agree.
Haha, I have proved you wrong.
Code:
package test;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(48/(2*(9+3)));
}
}Result: 2
And every single other programming language in existence would obviously agree.
Haha, I have proved you wrong.
I am going to quote myself because my code is awesome, and the best! It actually yields 2, though this might have to cleaned up for compiling in a particular language, should be close to Java but I didn't check, and you should cut off the recursion when the variable gets to like 1000.
Earthling said:
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Formaldehyde, you're obviously misrepresenting what you read on purpose. And one of your links appears to be broken. But Dachs, since Formaldehyde is quoting that one British Columbia teacher's link I posted (surprised he didn't declare it a worthless conservative source and worse than Fox News) I'd ask you as a neutral observer to look at it. Problem 3 on page 4 says exactly what I said, and Defiant pointed out too.
Why don't you just plain out state that the reason I am wrong is because (9+3)=12? It is as relevant to the point and addresses my arguments exactly as well as your current efforts have done so far.
Defiant: 48/2(9+3) =/= 48/2*(9+3)
Form: 48/2*(9+3) = 288
Defiant: This is not a matter of BEDMAS, it's a matter of implicit multiplication, which BEDMAS doesn't cover.
Form: BEDMAS states that we have to do multiplication and division first, from left to right.
Defiant: 48/2(9+3) =/= 48/2*(9+3)
Form: 48/2*(9+3) = 288
Defiant: This is not a matter of BEDMAS, it's a matter of implicit multiplication, which BEDMAS doesn't cover.
Form: BEDMAS states that we have to do multiplication and division first, from left to right.
Similar threads
