off topic, veeno, who is the wiggly lady in your avatar?
» Sat May 28, 2011 8:26 pm
Aren't they called "imaginary" because they don't really make any sense. I mean, how can you square something and get a negative, unless you're already squaring a negative. And negatives can't exist I think, I dunno...I hate math.
Why shouldn't you square something and get a negative number? Also, what do you mean by "unless you're already squaring a negative"? If you square a negative number, you get a positive number.
edit:
off topic, veeno, who is the wiggly lady in your avatar?
Have a http://www.imperial-library.info/sites/default/files/dogate_til_fishystick.jpg!
Anyway, her name is Alizée Jacotey.
-
Nick Tyler - Posts: 3437
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:57 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 6:40 pm
Yay, math!
This is the only answer I can agree with.
We do not know the answer because the equation is not written correctly.
Disagreed. Parenthesis would not be redundant. I think the problem lies with the fact that some people believe that you should work from left to right. But I disagree on that.
An equation should be solvable in any order.
x*y = xy
xy = yx (commutativity)
So, in the case: 6 / (2(1+2)) we are allowed to switch (2(1+2)) with this ((1+2)2). Its the same, right?
In the case (6 / 2)(1+2) we are allowed to switch (6 / 2)(1+2) with (1+2)(6 / 2). Its the same, right?
The parenthesis tell you what you may commute and what not.
Since 6 / 2(1+2) does not contain any parenthesis that prohibit me from commuting 2(1+2), I should be able to do so. 6 / (1+2)2
And, we can all see that if we do so, following the left-to-right method does no longer work.
So I would say, that by these rules, if you would follow Veeno's rules, you're just placing imaginary parenthesis to help you out. Thus they are not redundant.
There is also a proof using binary trees. I wont draw it out, but it concludes that you can not write binary tree that contains the equation 6 / 2(1+2). It will either be 6 / (2(1+2)) or (6 / 2)(1+2)
(If you are willing to except that any valid equation can be writtin in a binary tree form)
Now, I would like to mention a few things.
1) Is commuting even a word? I just hope you all get me.
2) This is the view of a first year Computer Science student. Its all based that on the rule "An equation should be solvable in any order." we learn.
3) I will now hide from the wrath of Veeno
*Goes of running into the dark night, hoping he will not be found*
This is the only answer I can agree with.
We do not know the answer because the equation is not written correctly.
Disagreed. Parenthesis would not be redundant. I think the problem lies with the fact that some people believe that you should work from left to right. But I disagree on that.
An equation should be solvable in any order.
x*y = xy
xy = yx (commutativity)
So, in the case: 6 / (2(1+2)) we are allowed to switch (2(1+2)) with this ((1+2)2). Its the same, right?
In the case (6 / 2)(1+2) we are allowed to switch (6 / 2)(1+2) with (1+2)(6 / 2). Its the same, right?
The parenthesis tell you what you may commute and what not.
Since 6 / 2(1+2) does not contain any parenthesis that prohibit me from commuting 2(1+2), I should be able to do so. 6 / (1+2)2
And, we can all see that if we do so, following the left-to-right method does no longer work.
So I would say, that by these rules, if you would follow Veeno's rules, you're just placing imaginary parenthesis to help you out. Thus they are not redundant.
There is also a proof using binary trees. I wont draw it out, but it concludes that you can not write binary tree that contains the equation 6 / 2(1+2). It will either be 6 / (2(1+2)) or (6 / 2)(1+2)
(If you are willing to except that any valid equation can be writtin in a binary tree form)
Now, I would like to mention a few things.
1) Is commuting even a word? I just hope you all get me.
2) This is the view of a first year Computer Science student. Its all based that on the rule "An equation should be solvable in any order." we learn.
3) I will now hide from the wrath of Veeno
*Goes of running into the dark night, hoping he will not be found*
;)
He's absolutely right, there is no logical basis for solving equations like this one from left to right.
-
Maria Leon - Posts: 3413
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:39 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 10:59 am
PEMDAS
If following the method, the answer should be 1.
If following the method, the answer should be 1.
Multiplication and division are on the same level, you do what comes first. This is basic stuff, the answer is 9!
Left -> right. and im sticking to it.
-
Epul Kedah - Posts: 3545
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 4:01 pm
off topic, veeno, who is the wiggly lady in your avatar?
Alizee
-
Kevin Jay - Posts: 3431
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:29 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 4:42 pm
Time to close this.
-
Penny Courture - Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:59 pm
