Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Troll maths


Le Stu
 Share

Recommended Posts

I only substituted x to show that the rules for expanding parenthesis in algebra work. it's no different with the actual numbers. 2 is a factor of (9+3)

You've taken it out of context though and assumed the (9+3) belongs with the two.

Granted, without the multiplication sign that's the assumption I would make, i.e I would assume they meant 48/(2(9+3)) and not (48/2)(9+3), but mathematically both are possible outcomes and the order of division/multiplication should be clarified with an extra set of parentheses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've taken it out of context though and assumed the (9+3) belongs with the two.

Granted, without the multiplication sign that's the assumption I would make, i.e I would assume they meant 48/(2(9+3)) and not (48/2)(9+3), but mathematically both are possible outcomes and the order of division/multiplication should be clarified with an extra set of parentheses.

Yup, agree with that.

Sorry to continually harp on about BODMAS, but it's relevant. The only truly unambiguous way to write this out is to use more brackets. If however, someone chooses to write it differently e.g. 48/2(9+3), then you need some kind of convention to tell you how to evaluate it in the correct order. I totally accept and agree that mult/div and subtract/add are equivalent and there's no logical reason why one operator should have precedence over its inverse, but you need to adopt some sort of consistent convention (ie. BODMAS) in these situations otherwise you end up with multiple possible outcomes to a question that should only have one answer.

If you follow BODMAS to the letter, you only get one answer....which is 228. Whether this is what the guy who wrote the equation in the first place intended, I dunno.....but BODMAS is there to ensure that things are evaluated consistently, despite the precedence rules not making total sense.

[/street cred]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so right brain it's scary.

I received a Standard Grade 5 for Maths (even after my folks paid for extra tuition).

Maths is a foreign language that I can't understand/relate to whatsoever.

Btw, I did well with my right brain standard grades.;);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool story

I do find it interesting how I was top of my class in Music and Social studies such as Politics, History and Geography.

On the flip side, I could barely understand basic Maths theory.

It's fascinating and also frustrating how selective my brain works or doesn't work :)

School was interesting. Destroying future Doctors at Music then the next class was with the fucktards :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, agree with that.

Sorry to continually harp on about BODMAS, but it's relevant. The only truly unambiguous way to write this out is to use more brackets. If however, someone chooses to write it differently e.g. 48/2(9+3), then you need some kind of convention to tell you how to evaluate it in the correct order. I totally accept and agree that mult/div and subtract/add are equivalent and there's no logical reason why one operator should have precedence over its inverse, but you need to adopt some sort of consistent convention (ie. BODMAS) in these situations otherwise you end up with multiple possible outcomes to a question that should only have one answer.

If you follow BODMAS to the letter, you only get one answer....which is 228. Whether this is what the guy who wrote the equation in the first place intended, I dunno.....but BODMAS is there to ensure that things are evaluated consistently, despite the precedence rules not making total sense.

[/street cred]

you can't resolve 2(9+3) as separate terms, though It's already 'bracketed' by algebraic convention. BODMAS applies but like this:

(2*9+2*3)

there is no arithmetic operator between 2 and (9+3) so they aren't separate terms.

Likewise, you can't argue that the coefficient of (9+3) is 482 as that doesn't represent a natural fraction (48 over 2 which would be 24).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, agree with that.

Sorry to continually harp on about BODMAS, but it's relevant. The only truly unambiguous way to write this out is to use more brackets. If however, someone chooses to write it differently e.g. 48/2(9+3), then you need some kind of convention to tell you how to evaluate it in the correct order. I totally accept and agree that mult/div and subtract/add are equivalent and there's no logical reason why one operator should have precedence over its inverse, but you need to adopt some sort of consistent convention (ie. BODMAS) in these situations otherwise you end up with multiple possible outcomes to a question that should only have one answer.

If you follow BODMAS to the letter, you only get one answer....which is 228. Whether this is what the guy who wrote the equation in the first place intended, I dunno.....but BODMAS is there to ensure that things are evaluated consistently, despite the precedence rules not making total sense.

[/street cred]

But BODMAS isn't consistently used that's the point some places teach PEMDAS/BEMDAS as the standard, because as mentioned they have the same importance.

The order is Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction. There is no universal standard, BODMAS is simply what you (and I) were taught in secondary school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But BODMAS isn't consistently used that's the point some places teach PEMDAS/BEMDAS as the standard, because as mentioned they have the same importance.

The order is Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction. There is no universal standard, BODMAS is simply what you (and I) were taught in secondary school.

As i said, the only totally unambiguous way is to use more brackets, but having various different conventions that produce different answers is, frankly, gay.

Small wonder we're all arguing about it! :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said, the only totally unambiguous way is to use more brackets, but having various different conventions that produce different answers is, frankly, gay.

Small wonder we're all arguing about it! :up:

I was taught BOMDAS at school so without brackets we would come up with different answers

That's why the only correct way of writing that equation is to use an extra set of brackets, to indicate whether the multiplication or division should be done first. Since it is in brackets you would have to evaluate it first and the ambiguity would be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't resolve 2(9+3) as separate terms, though It's already 'bracketed' by algebraic convention. BODMAS applies but like this:

(2*9+2*3)

there is no arithmetic operator between 2 and (9+3) so they aren't separate terms.

Likewise, you can't argue that the coefficient of (9+3) is 482 as that doesn't represent a natural fraction (48 over 2 which would be 24).

Where did that second set of brackets come from?? You just made them up!

If you are trying to multiply inside the brackets first, remember that resolving the brackets is first in the order of precedence, not multiplication.

In other words

2(a+b)=2a+2b not (2a+2b)

The multiplication sign is still there, whether it is written or not.

The 2 looks like it is a coefficient of (9+3), and taken in isolation it is, but with the division sign immediately preceding it you no longer have enough information to come to a 100% correct conclusion. What do you mean by natural fraction?? Did you just make that word up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did that second set of brackets come from?? You just made them up!

If you are trying to multiply inside the brackets first, remember that resolving the brackets is first in the order of precedence, not multiplication.

In other words

2(a+b)=2a+2b not (2a+2b)

The multiplication sign is still there, whether it is written or not.

The 2 looks like it is a coefficient of (9+3), and taken in isolation it is, but with the division sign immediately preceding it you no longer have enough information to come to a 100% correct conclusion. What do you mean by natural fraction?? Did you just make that word up?

Since this is Troll Maths I really don't know if i'm being trolled but I don't understand why this is being discussed. It's 2.

48/2(9+3)

You forget the 48/ at the moment and concentrate on multiplying out the brackets. Not adding, multiplying.

2(9+3)= 2(a+b) = 2a+2b = (2a+2b )= (2a)+(2b) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 2*9 + 2*3 = 18+6 = 24.

Now do the rest :)

48/24

=2.

New question or /thread pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did that second set of brackets come from?? You just made them up!

If you are trying to multiply inside the brackets first, remember that resolving the brackets is first in the order of precedence, not multiplication.

In other words

2(a+b)=2a+2b not (2a+2b)

The multiplication sign is still there, whether it is written or not.

The 2 looks like it is a coefficient of (9+3), and taken in isolation it is, but with the division sign immediately preceding it you no longer have enough information to come to a 100% correct conclusion. What do you mean by natural fraction?? Did you just make that word up?

rather than decimal. like:

48

_

2

using the sign implies the term on the left is divided by the term on the right. It doesn't represent a fraction as the coefficient. Brackets are expanded before division, and, since there are no unknowns, 2(9+3) expands to a single figure, 24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...