Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Bar' started by Morgan C, Apr 8, 2011.
2, you do whatever is related to the parenthesis first, i think?
Heh now after reading AllanDs post i got some doubts...
Just checked it in MS Excel and it agrees with me
the parenthesis goes first
----- = 2
Why would you do the multiplication before the division ?
They are equal, so the first one written is calculated first.
For it to be 2 it would have to be written this way:
You can just divide 48 by 2. you have to completely remove the parenthesis by first solving then multiplying its sum by two. Then and only then can that product be used to obtain the following quotient.
Anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't have graduated high school.
Anyone who interprets 1/2x as (1/2)x and not 1/(2x) is a short bus, special needs, nose pickin', booger eating retard.
Also standard practice says that anything to the left of the slash should be interpreted as the denominator of a fraction, that would prevent confusion as 1/2x would then be:
EDIT: I should note, regardless, both ways will get you the same answer, but don't always expect it to for every equation.
But yes, wintersnow is absolutely right. The misinterpretation comes from being stuck to one line in the computer world. If its written here as 48/2(9+3) it would be written on paper as
unless otherwise specified by more parentheses. This is why my prof's always said to just use parentheses like a mad man to keep things in perspective (48)/(2(9+3)) is hard to argue with, no misunderstanding in the computer world.
I must be stuck in a computer world then...
I of course agree that if that was Morgan Cs question - it would be 2.
But he asked 48/2(9+3) not
I think your confusion comes from unnecessary overextending the line above the (9+3)
You think it is:
I think it is:
Or you could also see it this way
------- = 2
But it's always gonna be 2 no matter how you see it
LOL it is so great to be right when almost everyone else is wrong
It is in that / sign... where the fuck does the sign say that it extends over the (9+3) ???
It's kind of sad though. Audio "engineers" huh? lol...
Its already been said but, 2. PEMDAS.
Sorry, but anyone who said 288 is retarded. Every piece of evidence that Mutant posted is just dead wrong, I don't know how that made it into the Wikipedia article.
By saying 2(9+3) instead of 2*(9+3), you're coupling 2 with (9+3). It's read "two quantity nine plus three" as in "two quantities of the value resulting from nine plus three."
Here is how physicists vote on the same matter...
It is very interesting that musicians can't do math...
Are you a math/engineering/physics major?
If you want to specify whether division or multiplication comes first, you must use parenthesis especially when written on a single line with computer text. Otherwise you go in order from left to right, like you read text left to right. 200/10*5 = 100 not 4. 200/(10*5)=4. And 200*10/5 = 400 not 4.
Google is retarded? http://www.google.com/search?q=48/2...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
"What we're saying is that a/bc is the same as if written (a/b)*c, which is of course the same as ac/b. If you really want to divide a by the product bc, it should be written as a/(bc)." - Just some "retards" over on physicsforums
Ah you beat me to the physicsforums.