Saw this link from a 'rival' technology forum and I am now convinced that out of all technology forums, AnandTech either has the most trolls, or is the worst at math. Congrats!
...
I hope your minds are blown and you all now understand pretty basic mathematical concepts. If you don't, then don't comment on something that you know nothing about as it just makes you look like an idiot.
Therefore:There is no assumption necessary. You don't assume 2(2) = 2 * 2. 2(2) most definitely IS 2 * 2. Math is not ambiguous.
Does your rival forum have the most smug, know-it-all dbags?
WHHHHHHHHHHAT!!!!!!!!a(b+c)
May be treated as one term and have a distributed:
Unfortunately for the 2 voters the part of th equation giving you trouble is:
a^-1 (b+c)
This means that if you want to distribute the A you can't do it without the exponent that is attached to it.
Sooo Sorry Charley.
Nothing smug or in social about passionately and analytically standing up for the truth.
The thing is that there isn't a HARD rule in math about whether to treat 2(9+3) as one term or not. Even math profs are not in 100% agreement whether to treat this as one term or not 100% of the time.
*sigh*
48/2(9+3)=288
48/(2(9+3))=2
WHHHHHHHHHHAT!!!!!!!!
a^-1 (b+c) = b/a + c/a
Distributed!
Do people seriously care this much? Seriously?
You're assuming the (9+3) is in the numerator.And 48(9/2+3/2) = 48(6) = 288
See?
Apparently so, look at Dixycrat. He's fucking going apeshit over this.
At no point is the argument in the ()'s raised to -1 it is therefor in the numerator.You're assuming the (9+3) is in the numerator.
48/(18+6) = 48/24 = 2
See?
Truely.... I've never been so well trolled on the internet.
About a decade ago my first girlfriend (whom I'd been with for three years) told me she kissed some other guy:
I'm that angry about this issue...
At no point is the argument in the ()'s raised to -1 it is therefor in the numerator.
Again Division is a stupid way of writing multiplication under the special case of an exponent of -1.
Rewrite it as multiplication and justify each -1 exponent used.
^ it is poorly written^
I have notes on multiple regression that use the same shorthand trick that is causing the trouble now.
This is why the lack of ambiguity is important. There is an order of operations for a reason.
I just asked my math major friend what the answer was and he went with 2 too :biggrin:
My point is that without further clarification by adding brackets or rewriting it with ^-1 like you suggest even the experts don't apply the order of operations always consistently when the statement is presented as it is in the OP.
Google says 288 but I say 2
Most of the debate surrounds whether or not the implied multiplication of 2(9+3) takes precedence over the devision.