The right written sign for division is ÷, and / is used instead because it's the one on a computer keyboard. It's not a shortcut for ____ (fraction), it's just a bad design decision from those who defined the keyboard standard.mps4li3n said:The problem is that "/" in writing is actually ____ and you can't easily tell what it encompasses... this is why this was never a math problem to begin with, but one of spelling/interpretation of signs.
In the fraction that you wrote...mps4li3n said:The problem is that while doing operations (i have no clue if that's right in english) the parts after "/" could easily be part of the 4 there... like 1/4 and 1/(3+1)... except that in writing you wouldn't need the () because it's:Bearjing said:When writing it out and a computer / means "divide by." But that is what a fraction is anyways. 1/4 (one fourth) is just one dividing by 4 which equals .25.Owyn_Merrilin said:-snip
1
---
3+1
Which leads to confusion...
Not quite. The reason for this method is that one can consider an algebraic expression as a tree. That notation I used can be interpreted any number of ways but in this example it is what as called a "prefix expression". The equation, interpreted as a tree, can look something like this:flippedthebitch said:I am struggling a touch with your interpretations. To take your equation f=m*v and rearrange your equation so our force ends up on the right hand side, we would need to do a division of the force to both sides of the equation. so it looks like this:
(f/f)=(m*v)/f the f/f is simply 1, so your equations should look like
1=(m*v)/f
It isn't so much program specific as much as it is programmer friendly. Simply put, that sort of expression makes the task of writing a program that would say solve a system of equations for some variable with some number of unknown quantities relatively simple.flippedthebitch said:Unless your computer science requires a completely different method of imput specific to your programs, which I understand it very well could be. your manipluation of that equation is flawed.
The rules of precedence are unnecessary because the structure of the equation contains any rules for precedence inside. All operations are inherently performed between an operator and a pair of operands. Having a program convert between the usual form and this list form (or vice versa) is relatively trivial and while the program must understand the rules of precedence to do the conversion any user would not. There is a less confusing form that this idea is based upon called Polish Notation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation], better known as prefix notation. The commonly used infix notation makes things easy to read but introduces problems of precedence which prefix notation sought to resolve. The equation 48/2(9+3) would instead be written as:flippedthebitch said:So would be your comment that the rules of procedence are unnessessary.
Maintaining equality is easily done even if you follow the standard rules of algebra. Rest assured the only difference is how the information is presented (and how it is considered as a structure). All the usual rules still apply.flippedthebitch said:In fact if you want to mantain the equality of these equaltions the procedure of equation manipulation is utterly important to the whole process. The second equation has similair flaws, your manipulation loses the equality of the equation making, as far as I can interprete, the two sides of your equation no longer equal and totally useless to solving for any kind of variable.
Yes, that's why [] {}, etc were invented for and that's exactly why they weren't used here.mps4li3n said:No, still has a problem, because you can easily put it in (48*1)/[2 * (9+3)] on paper...Keava said:Now as for logic following this:
48 divided by 2 is the same thing as 48 multiplied by 1/2 which removes the division.
You could write this problem as 48 * 1/2 * (9+3).
The problem is that "/" in writing is actually ____ and you can't easily tell what it encompasses... this is why this was never a math problem to begin with, but one of spelling/interpretation of signs.
Like i said, that's what [] {} where invented for...
48
------
2*(9+3)
a
- * c
b
Different places have different symbols, which is why to me (2(9+3)) looks odd, because it should be [2(9+3)]...flippedthebitch said:THANK YOU! Good to see another sane mathematical person on the thread.Bearjing said:All different short hand for the same problem will all equal the same answer. But leaving out the "( )" around the 2(9+3) isn't short hand it is a complete mistake. 48/2(9+3) is completely different than 48/(2(9+3))Lunar Shadow said:Notice the parts where I said "in my experience" and that it is dependent on the short hand your instructors used.Bearjing said:2(9+3)=2*(9+3)Lunar Shadow said:Seems to be a bit of a culture break.
I think both parties are tight, it just depends on the way there instructors wrote stuff out. In my experience the 2(9+3) is in the denominator, as it is written without a multiplication sign which implies it is (2(9+3)). This is just badly written, as it should be clarified as the following: (48/2)(9+3), 48/(2(9+30)), or 48/2*(9+3)
Exactly. You can do 5 -3 + 2 or 2 -3 +5 or -3 + 5 + 2 or 2 + 5 -3. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm not.)flippedthebitch said:What if you look at s simple question like 5-3+2? Do you not read this left to right?
Could have easily gone with (48:2)x(9+3), as they always did in 8th grade over here...Keava said:Yes, that's why [] {}, etc were invented for and that's exactly why they weren't used here.mps4li3n said:No, still has a problem, because you can easily put it in (48*1)/[2 * (9+3)] on paper...Keava said:Now as for logic following this:
48 divided by 2 is the same thing as 48 multiplied by 1/2 which removes the division.
You could write this problem as 48 * 1/2 * (9+3).
The problem is that "/" in writing is actually ____ and you can't easily tell what it encompasses... this is why this was never a math problem to begin with, but one of spelling/interpretation of signs.
Like i said, that's what [] {} where invented for...
You can't just imagine it as
because nothing points to it. Following your way of phrasing it. (48*1)/(2*1) * (9+3). It's nothing but simple a*b where a = 48/2 and b = (9+3). Even when considering that "/" is the same as "___" a/b*c makes it pretty clear that you haveCode:48 ------ 2*(9+3)
Basic math's people. Seriously.Code:a - * c b
So you agree with me? I think the person who said the answer changes depending on whether you're a computer programmer or a mathematician was right. In every math class I ever took, from the sixth grade through college algebra, the / was read as shorthand for a fraction bar. This means that, as written in the problem, the answer would be 2, because the numerator would be 48, while the denominator would be 2(9+3). If the expression were expected to parse as "the fraction 'fourty-eight over two,' multiplied by the sum of nine and three," as opposed to "the fraction fourty eight over the product of two and the sum of nine and three" it should have been written as (48/2)(9+3).Bearjing said:When writing it out on a computer / means "divide by." But that is what a fraction is anyways. 1/4 (one fourth) is just one dividing by 4 which equals .25.Owyn_Merrilin said:-snip
You wouldn't need to because that IS a math problem, because it'sWoem said:Exactly. You can do 5 -3 + 2 or 2 -3 +5 or -3 + 5 + 2 or 2 + 5 -3. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm not.)flippedthebitch said:What if you look at s simple question like 5-3+2? Do you not read this left to right?
You stop using [] after you get a hang of PEMDAS because they are the same as () but they just make easier to read it with you dont have as much experience. How else would you write (5+6(4+3(6+8(7+9(11+1(48+2)))))).mps4li3n said:Different places have different symbols, which is why to me (2(9+3)) looks odd, because it should be [2(9+3)]...
And "/" is usually interpreted as ____ , which leads to problems...
Never assume that just because your country is using one system of symbols everyone else is too, you might as well assume every language is read left to right.
It's not fancy it's an 8th grade problem, nothing more. Your 8th grade education failed you.Drago-Morph said:According to my 8th grade education, the problem is 288. Add the 9 and 3, divide the 48 and 2, multiply the 24 and 12. Of course, there could be some fancy college learnin' that I have yet to get through, rendering this a trick question.
Not exactly. I agree you can treat 1/4 as a fraction just like you can treat 1 divided by 4 as one (mostly because they are the exact same thing).Owyn_Merrilin said:-snip
You miss my point...Bearjing said:You stop using [] after you get a hang of PEMDAS because they are the same as () but they just make easier to read it with you dont have as much experience. How else would you write (5+6(4+3(6+8(7+9(11+1(48+2)))))).mps4li3n said:Different places have different symbols, which is why to me (2(9+3)) looks odd, because it should be [2(9+3)]...
And "/" is usually interpreted as ____ , which leads to problems...
Never assume that just because your country is using one system of symbols everyone else is too, you might as well assume every language is read left to right.
"/" is the same thing as "____", they both mean "divided by."
i'll repeat myself:Bearjing said:"/" is the same thing as "____", they both mean "divided by."
And I'd argue that, under PEMDAS, this is why we have the P part. Without that P, I see everything under that fraction bar as, well, something under a fraction bar.Bearjing said:Not exactly. I agree you can treat 1/4 as a fraction just like you can treat 1 divided by 4 as one (mostly because they are the exact same thing).Owyn_Merrilin said:-snip
But your mistake is thinking everything after the "/" is automatically part of the denominator, which just isn't true. That is exactly why we have PEMDAS.