Reply With Quotelionelgee: im sorry but to quote Wolfgang Pauli
"It is not even wrong"
TopicToaster
The sum within the brackets was done as the first step (1+2)Originally Posted by Eevo
The answer to this sum remains isolated as (3) right up until the last part of the equation
Then the second step is the division 6/2 = 3
Nothing can be done with the result of the first sum which is (3) until after the brackets are removed.
3(3)
To do this 3 x 3 = 9
The original purpose which was not mentioned in the thread is to find "x"
The original sum should have been written 6/2(1 + 2) = x
Answer to Step One 6/2(3) = x
Answer to Step Two 3(3) = x
Answer to Step Three x = 3 multiplied by 3
x = 9
You will notice that until the last step of the equation the x was always on the right-hand side of the = sign and it is the unknown quantity
To make x the known quantity the amount in brackets has to be the reverse power of whatever was done in the sum located to the left of the brackets in this case 6/2 = 3 so the equation at this stage looks 3(3) = x
The opposite of divide is multiply so for x to become a known quantity 3(3) = x becomes x = 3 multiplied by 3
x = 9
Swaggie
Subscriberlionelgee: im sorry but to quote Wolfgang Pauli
"It is not even wrong"
Master
Yes, I can use google too, but the part that you are omitting is that it it's a convention used by some, rather than an explicit rule of mathematics. Which is also why programming languages don't recognise it.
Swaggie
Subscriberso your saying programming languages > maths rules ?
programming can be changed. your point is trivial (no pun intended)
programmers are just wannabe mathematician, haha. im kidding
the convention is used by most. actually ive never seen it any other way.
granted my degree is in physics, not maths, although physics uses maths and i did maths through 2nd year uni, it might be a physics convention, which i would be willing to accept as the exception, but i dont think that is the case.
ForumSage
SupporterMaybe it doesn't feel right, but it is grammatically correct.
1973 Series III LWB 1983 - 2006
1998 300 Tdi Defender Trayback 2006 - often fitted with a Trayon slide-on camper.
Swaggie
SubscriberrightMaybe it doesn't feel right, but it is grammatically correct.
you do the english
i'll do the maths
Master
No. I'm saying that while people may follow conventions, programming languages obey unambiguous mathematical rules, and I'd find it hard to imagine that in the 70-odd years that modern computer programming has been around, that it hasn't been queried. Or to put it another way, you're stating that convention used by some = rule, which by definition is not the case.
The term "multiplication by juxtaposition" simply means that by positioning two values side by side, that multiplication is implied. Nowhere does it state that implicit multiplication takes precedence over explicit - even qualified mathematicians agree that while it may be convention for some, that it is far from being the rule.
ForumSage
SupporterThat suits me.
1973 Series III LWB 1983 - 2006
1998 300 Tdi Defender Trayback 2006 - often fitted with a Trayon slide-on camper.
Swaggie
Subscriberone of your google links explains it well
Order of arithmetic operations; in particular, the 48/2(9+3) question.
Why is there no fixed convention for interpreting expressions such as a/bc ? I think that one reason is that historically, fractions were written with a horizontal line between the numerator and denominator. When one writes the above expression that way, one either puts bc under the horizontal line, making that whole product the denominator, or one just makes b the denominator and puts c after the fraction. Either way, the meaning is clear from the way the expression is written. The use of the slant in writing fractions is convenient in not creating extra-high lines of text; but for that convenience, we pay the price of losing the distinction that came from how the terms were arranged horizontally and vertically.
so it comes down to the way each person was educated.
Swaggie
Subscriberwith the original equation being ambiguous.
in my education, implicit multiplication has always takes precedence over explicit multiplication.
so this comes down to education. and which way people are taught.
i've been taught one way. everything around me in my education has used that same convention.
its similar to the question, what colour is a tennis ball. yellow or green.
depends on how you were raised it might be yellow or green.
this, leads me to believe we are now at a trivial endpoint, how can further discussion be useful?
btw, tennis balls are yellow
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks