It's more advanced because it accepts that everybody already knows that multiplication and division are equal, and addition and subtraction are equal. While a child would say crocodile, alligator, snake etc., an adult knows that they exist in the same class and can simply call them all reptiles rather than listing everything.
Grouping can sound vague to me, is six divided by 2 "grouped"? Quin's BODMAS is the most accurate, but it really doesn't matter what you use. I hate seeing "PEMDAS" vs. x arguments because none of this matters if...
A. If you speak English, treat the math like English and read left to smurfing right when using your favorite acronym. Whoever made that calculator that got the answer of one is a smurf and as a computer engineer I am appalled. English mothersmurfer do you speak it???
B. Understand the math that is going on, don't use the division sign, use fractions because it makes it abundantly clear what's going on. When that isn't an option (aka you are putting your fraction math into your calculator for a numerical answer) put parenthesis smurfing EVERYWHERE. A calculator is only as smart as whoever programmed it (unless its a TI-84, in which case it can probably do more math than you will ever understand).
And if you ever get any other weird results from your calculator...
tumblr_m05v03zVOG1qdew7qo1_500.png
I agree with reading left to right, and I like where you're coming from, but when I set it up as a fraction and simplify I get an answer of one.Originally Posted by Goldenboko
I'm not the best in mathematics, but here goes my observations and thoughts on all this.
Bear in mind I'm placing 6 as the numerator and 2(1+2) as the denominator. So it goes 2(1+2), then 2(3), which leaves 6/6 or 1.
If I take the fraction six seconds, 6/2, and combine it with (1+2), it seems to me to be an entirely different problem with a different result. (As far as I know)
I gave this little problem two people I know, and they both got the consistent answer of 1. I watched and here's their line of logic.
Keep in mind they both read from left to right.
6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
6/6
1
Both of the kept the parenthesis even after they had combined the terms inside. I'd thought that (and I'm not sure on this one) that once the terms inside a set of parenthesis were taken care of you dropped them.
Basically this 6/2x3. If you read that left to right, you'd divide first. So you get 3x3=9
If you are supposed to keep the parenthesis, then it would make that key difference. It reads 6/2(3). Even when reading left to right, you still take care of parenthesis before anything else. When you do, it becomes 6/6. 6/6=1
So now my big question is, what becomes of the parenthesis after you combine the terms inside?? I thought they went away. This seems to be the area of divergence as I see it.
Parenthesis without any other operations attached to them just become the same as multiplication.
6/2(3) and 6/2x3 should be identical.
If one wanted to multiply two and three before dividing by six, you would use a horizontal divider with 6 above and 2(3) underneath or write it with the two inside the parenthesis like 6/(2*3). Like NCG says when it's 6/2(3) then the parenthesis is already taken care of. Three is three. Okie dokie then!
I'm going into an art related career so none of this mattered to me past algebra class.
My fractions rant was a rant toward ambiguity. When writing something out when you get 6/2 * (1+2) (bear in mind that the 1+2 is suppose to be shown over to the right of the division far away from the division, this forum browser doesn't do justice to the difference of how it looks on paper) there would be no confusion.I agree with reading left to right, and I like where you're coming from, but when I set it up as a fraction and simplify I get an answer of one.
I'm not the best in mathematics, but here goes my observations and thoughts on all this.
Bear in mind I'm placing 6 as the numerator and 2(1+2) as the denominator. So it goes 2(1+2), then 2(3), which leaves 6/6 or 1.
If I take the fraction six seconds, 6/2, and combine it with (1+2), it seems to me to be an entirely different problem with a different result. (As far as I know)
I gave this little problem two people I know, and they both got the consistent answer of 1. I watched and here's their line of logic.
Keep in mind they both read from left to right.
6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
6/6
1
Both of the kept the parenthesis even after they had combined the terms inside. I'd thought that (and I'm not sure on this one) that once the terms inside a set of parenthesis were taken care of you dropped them.
Basically this 6/2x3. If you read that left to right, you'd divide first. So you get 3x3=9
If you are supposed to keep the parenthesis, then it would make that key difference. It reads 6/2(3). Even when reading left to right, you still take care of parenthesis before anything else. When you do, it becomes 6/6. 6/6=1
So now my big question is, what becomes of the parenthesis after you combine the terms inside?? I thought they went away. This seems to be the area of divergence as I see it.
As for your question, 2(3) is the same as 2*3. It shouldn't be treated differently because you wrote it with the parenthesis, the parenthesis first rule means, simplify terms inside the parenthesis first. once you get down to 6/2(3), the answer should be 9, because there is nothing inside the parenthesis so you revert back to reading left to right.
(are we really arguing over a smurfing math equation?)
Math is witchcraft. I can't stand math!
Evidently some people don't stand the beauty and awesomeness of maths
5318008 is small time
A=1
E=-1
X=13.8
OrA!-5EX = 69
Or
B=0
E=-1
X=19.8
BμΤΤ-5EX = 99
Or
C=0
D=0
E=-1
X=5.8
DμCκ-5EX = 29
Last edited by blackmage_nuke; 03-16-2012 at 01:00 AM.
Kefka's coming, look intimidating!
Have a nice day!!
Better than arguing over an art question
Math is beautiful.
oh you did NOT just go thereBetter than arguing over an art question
We are, you are not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
