6÷2(1+2)
-
Let's see how many get it right
-
Are you just going to tell everyone who gets it wrong nein?
-
-
The answer is congruent to 1 (mod 4)
-
Backup answer if they insist dotless multiplication precedes division:
-
@Gustav Is their any validity to such a notion? That was my first guess, so I would be happy to find out that I got it from somewhere.
-
@Gustav Is their any validity to such a notion?
No, of course not. The entire language of maths is optimized for quotients of polynomials, because almost everything is best expressed as a quotient of polynomials. Anything that wouldn't make it easier to write quotients of polynomials can be assumed to be wrong. But some less mathematical people insist that "two x" and "two times x" are qualitatively different, and so make a huge deal of the lack of explicit multiplication symbol.
Engineers and mathematicians, and all other STEM people have one thing in common - enormous
.
-
@Gustav Very true. Even in grade school, my math teacher taught me that "mathematicians are lazy, be as lazy as possible when doing math".
-
These kind of problems (intentionally ambiguous associativity to create a “controversy”) are posted/answered on Facebook by the same people who generally say they “hate math”, but also respond to posts like this:
Of course, if you posted such a fruit math problem that wasn’t already in lower triangular form, they’d be stumped. However, since they hate math and not just arithmetic, I’d go with this:
-
@Atazhaia though they're just as lazy as inconsistent. Literally today I had to spend 20 minutes explaining to my sister what sequences are and how they work. She does multivar calc jhst fine but sequences killed her.
Would it hurt them so much to write sequences as f(x) like every other fucking function?
-
-
But surely x times y divided by z is the same as y divided by z times x as long as you don’t arbitrarily do it wrong and randomly switch it up to y divided by (z times x), and maintain your precision?
-
-
-
But surely x times y divided by z is the same as y divided by z times x as long as you don’t arbitrarily do it wrong and randomly switch it up to y divided by (z times x), and maintain your precision?
(xy)z-1 is indeed the same as x(yz-1), but we are talking about x(yz)-1 here.
-
If the answer isn't 42 then I don’t need to know.
-
@DogsB but did you (or someone else at least) spend a very long time establishing that that is indeed the answer, and it was checked very thoroughly?
-
@DogsB but did you (or someone else at least) spend a very long time establishing that that is indeed the answer, and it was checked very thoroughly?
Can't. Because we're all just figments of someones imagination and the Earth doesn't exist anymore.
-
@dcon what if this is the Earth Mk II?
-
@dcon what if this is the Earth Mk II?
Well, with our odds, the computer didn't do a save game, so it'll be quite a few years before we know...
-
@dcon don't worry. It isn't. This Earth has no greater significance whatsoever.
-
-
