theklng said:
this equation has already been resolved as ambiguous.
Well, someone's changing his tune.
Where's all that professional programmer conviction that the answer was 2?
theklng said:
i took the liberty of finding the a source related to this, explaining why it has been deemed as ambiguous:
I?m a math professor, and my view is that although the standard convention, if applied precisely and rigorously, does give an unambiguous procedure to follow, nobody, and that includes professional mathematicians, would ever write a formula like this. This is mostly because, after about 3rd grade, none of us ever use the division symbol ever again.
from: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/gyrmq/6212_reaaaaal
A) I believe he's a math professor like I believe you're a programmer.
B) He says the exact
opposite of what you're saying. He just said that this equation gives us an
unambiguous procedure to follow.
theklng said:
or in the case you don't believe that, here's a comparison between the two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKGbU6ARQg
Hm. Interesting. You see, I took the liberty of actually going to that site he's on, Mathway, and I put in 48÷2(9+3) exactly, and you know what I got? 288. You can go check if you're not sure.
theklng said:
oh and: obviously even if i did do arithmetic errors in my code, it'd be fixed way before any sort of release due to this thing called testing.
As if I needed any more proof that you obviously aren't a programmer.
That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone claiming to be a programmer say.
theklng said:
and even if an arithmetic fault would slip through that,given that i'm not in the medicinal or third party medicinal business, what i do isn't exactly living up to your hyperbole.
Of course it isn't. That's why it's a hyperbole.
You'd still be out of a job pretty quickly though.