Runes of Magic US / AU

Quoted from "ghostwolf82;600572"

Thank you sir. Also, I love me some wolfram alpha!


Actually, the point of this is that there is no ambiguity, and people have just forgotten how to do simple PEMDAS. If I wanted there to be more brackets or parenthesis, I would have added them. As I said before, parenthesis are never, ever implied. They either are, or they are not.


If you keep answering that, someday you just might be right lol

Quoted from "Quaffy2;600597"

It's sorta like how you can say a/a =1 and also 1a/1a = a²

Quoted from "Inferiority;600615"

No.

No.

Just, no!

The 1 in the denominator is actually the coefficient of a and so 1a/1a = 1, not a².

Quoted from "Quaffy2;600638"

thats a part of the problem, coefficient is not listed anywhere when strictly applying the OoO. We interpret the poorly written expression as (1a)/(1a) because we grouped the 1 and a together, but strictly following pemdas does not allow for that.

edit to add: I'm sure ghostwolf would agree with me that 1a/1a as written (again poorly) will = a². Also went and threw it into wolfram alpha, same result. But once again, no one would write expressions that way since it can so easily be misinterpreted, as you have can see.

relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/169/

Quoted from "Quaffy2;600638"

thats a part of the problem, coefficient is not listed anywhere when strictly applying the OoO. We interpret the poorly written expression as (1a)/(1a) because we grouped the 1 and a together, but strictly following pemdas does not allow for that.

edit to add: I'm sure ghostwolf would agree with me that 1a/1a as written (again poorly) will = a². Also went and threw it into wolfram alpha, same result. But once again, no one would write expressions that way since it can so easily be misinterpreted, as you have can see.

relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/169/

Quoted from "Quaffy2;600638"

edit to add: I'm sure ghostwolf would agree with me that 1a/1a as written (again poorly) will = a². Also went and threw it into wolfram alpha, same result. But once again, no one would write expressions that way since it can so easily be misinterpreted, as you have can see.

Quoted from "Inferiority;600699"

Wolfram Alpha balks simply due to the coefficient of a being 1 - when the coefficient is 1, it would never be written down. your 1a/1a is actually a/a which is 1.

Any piece of mathematics can be written badly and forced to make anything you like look true:

a = b
aa = ab
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b²
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1

Quoted from "Inferiority;600699"

Any piece of mathematics can be written badly and forced to make anything you like look true:

Quoted from "Inferiority;600539"

As a mathematician, I feel I must interject here.

Should 6/2(1+2) be meant to imply that it's really a long fraction with 6 as the numerator and 2(1+2) as the denominator, there would have been parentheses around it like this: 6/[2(1+2)]

However, these parentheses are not present so we really have (6/2) * (1+2) and this makes 9.

In fact, if you enter "6/2(1+2)" into a calculator, Google or Wolfram Alpha, they will all give the answer as 9 too.

Quoted from "ghostwolf82;600723"

Parenthesis make things clearer yes, but only when they are needed.

Quoted from "Cike;600701"

that just makes 0 = 0, thus, not proving anything...

Quoted from "Quaffy2;600710"

not to mention that it also involves dividing by zero.

Quoted from "blotoe;600714"

I think that's the point Quaffy was trying to make. Stupid thread is stupid.

Quoted from "blotoe;600720"

BTW, [] does not mean parentheses.

() <---- parentheses
[] <---- brackets

Quoted from "blotoe;600720"

BTW, [] does not mean parentheses.

() <---- parentheses
[] <---- brackets

/L2Maths

Quoted from "ghostwolf82;600753"

I can add parenthesis and it changes absolutely nothing about the equation. Ready for this... (6/2(1+2))