aikohualda said: no more argument! LOL http://www.mathway.com/answer.aspx?p=basi?p=48SMB102%283+9%29?p=2?p=?p=?p=?p=?p=0?p=?p=0?p=?p=?p=Simplify |
lol,
mathay use to get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKGbU6ARQg
aikohualda said: no more argument! LOL http://www.mathway.com/answer.aspx?p=basi?p=48SMB102%283+9%29?p=2?p=?p=?p=?p=?p=0?p=?p=0?p=?p=?p=Simplify |
lol,
mathay use to get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKGbU6ARQg
CharmedontheWB said:
If you are going to use the distributive property then you would first have to rectify the division prior to distributing: 48/2 (3+9) 24(3)+24(9) = 288 |
Yeah. But you should've quoted Jay not me lol
darthdevidem01 said: Oh how I loved Maths. |
Doctors are so sarcastic.
Boutros said:
Doctors are so sarcastic. |
I still to Maths C1 (the easiest A-level maths exam) papers for relaxation.
muwahaha
All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey
drkohler said:
That is a well known bug in cheap calculators (that apparently still exists today). They do not correctly resolve the missing * in 2(3+9) leading to the false result 2. >48 / 2(3 + 9) *This is the fault these calculators make, essentially. Breaking the left to right evaluation with a distribution step. |
nah they all do it. I amp retty sure if you turn scientifc mode off it happens (or the other way around) I can't rememebr as I don't have my calculator anymore hahha.
I was wrong. But don't blame me, blame the schooling. My brain saw the 2(12) as a higher priority than the 48/2.
Cobretti2 said:
mathay use to get it wrong.
|
OMG i am literally laughing my out ass out loud.... i wonder what is the age distribution of vgcharterz... are they too old to remember how to solve the equation or too young to actually solve it? it is weird though...
aikohualda said: OMG i am literally laughing my out ass out loud.... i wonder what is the age distribution of vgcharterz... are they too old to remember how to solve the equation or too young to actually solve it? it is weird though... |
I think the problem arises because the equation is ambigous and people are assuming mutiplication by juxtaposition takes preference over BODMAS.
Also I know where OP is coming from.
the symbol '/ 'at least in egineering implies a fraction,so anything after is below the line. so you get some people who write stuff like I = P/sqrt(3)Vcos(phi)
when I write that equation I always use brackets I = P/(sqrt(3)Vcos(phi))
that way people know exactly what I mean as this is what I was taught in maths. Funny enough those people will use the brackets in excel to get the right answer.
Cobretti2 said:
Also I know where OP is coming from. the symbol '/ 'at least in egineering implies a fraction,so anything after is below the line. so you get some people who write stuff like I = P/sqrt(3)Vcos(phi) when I write that equation I always use brackets I = P/(sqrt(3)Vcos(phi)) that way people know exactly what I mean as this iswhatI was tought in maths. Funny enough those people will use the brackets in excel to get the right answer. |
yeah your equation would be easier....much easier to compute with less arguements... the original equation is a tranny i guess, but it is biologically 288 :P