Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??
-
I got -1112
-
All I got was a stupid t-shirt.
-
Sorry, I don't speak Lojban. Can you repeat in English?
-
-
A cab to work would be quicker but a lot more expensive.
-
I once ended up on a flight that landed in Newcastle instead of where I was going (airline's pick) and I was sent on to my real destination by taxi. Train would've been faster.
-
That would've been a surprise in the US. Not so much in Great Britain.
-
Landing in Newcastle-on-Tyne instead of the US would have been a major surprise, yes.
-
About a year ago a similar thing came up on my news feed, and being the curious fellow that I am, decided to read the comments, knowing they were going to be gold. There was an ongoing debate about how PEMDAS was "completely arbitrary" and a matter of subjective opinion, and that their method of just going left to right was equally valid, and should be accepted.
Granted, there is no scientific or "one-and-only-universal-truth" that enforces PEMDAS. Just that the entire mathematical community endorses it and is part of the universal mathematical language. To say their left-to-right answer is correct because they chose an arbitrary standard that isn't consistent with the mathematical community would be like me saying, "When I said 'I killed my wife' I was using my own equally arbitrary interpretation of language, where 'killed' means 'love' and 'my wife' means 'hotdogs'."
-
Which Newcastle did you land in, then?
-
How Mathematicanormative of you. Don't you care about the diverse experiences of all?
-
matter of subjective opinion
My subjective opinion, if it doesn't have an equals sign or is otherwise not obviously a complete expression, perform operation in the order information was received (i.e., as spoken, left-to-right, etc). Once you complete an expression (i.e. put
= ?
) you calculate it like an expression.No more, no less.
Any verbalization of an expression should be done so respective of OoO anyways, though multiple sequential multiplication+addition tuples would require parenthesis regardless....
-
PEMDAS was "completely arbitrary" and a matter of subjective opinion, and that their method of just going left to right was equally valid, and should be accepted.
Probably a valid argument, but with a major flaw: how would you tell which order to use? If you know, for example, RPN, it’s clear that 3 3 − 6 × 2 + should’t be calculated using PEMDAS, but unless somebody develops a clearly distinct notation for “resolve this from left to right” (like, oh, RPN :) ) they’re just asking for trouble.
-
how would you tell which order to use?
Use a probabilistic assessment of what the questioner was asking for. What was the probability that the asker knew PEMDAS (or an equivalent rule) and was using it? Very very high. What was the probability that they were using something else (of which strict-left-to-right is but one possibility)? Low.
-
What was the probability that the asker knew PEMDAS (or an equivalent rule) and was using it?
As all probability is conditioned on some evidence, I would say that the Pr(Asker knows order of operations) given that "Asker was 'educated' in a public school & Asker is posting a simple math problem to facebook and saying that it requires a genius" is "very unlikely".
If i was forced to put a number to the probability... ℎ. Ok. "extremely unlikely". And I probably don't need the evidence of "Asker was 'educated' in a public school".
-
they chose an arbitrary standard
Look, if they want to be wrong and stupid like that, it's OK. I just ask that they not be allowed to build bridges...or much of anything I have to be near.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@ben_lubar ITS 2 ANSWER IS RIGHT IN FRONT OFF YOUR FACE 2 ?? MARKS...
-
@boomzilla said in Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??:
All I got was a stupid t-shirt.
I got a rock.
Filed Under; And a zombie thread.
-
@ScholRLEA said in Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??:
I got a rock.
Good. Throw it at the necromancer fellow. I don't mind the whole "breaking the laws of nature" and "undead abominations" thing, but I felt compelled to catch up on the thread and was reminded of . And that is worth stoning.
-
3-3x6+2= 3-18+2= 3-{(+18) +(+2)}=3-20= -17..
-
3-3x6+2=3+(-18+2)=3+(-16)= -13..
-
3-3×6+2=?
Everyone's doing it all wrong. You obviously have to use the FOIL method to solve it:
3-3 = 0
3+2 = 5
-3×6 = -18
6+2 = 80+5-18+8 = -5
This means that -5 is the only correct answer.
-
@djls45 said in Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??:
This means that -5 is the only correct answer.
No no no no no! The only correct answer here is 'blueberry'! Can't anyone else see that?
-
@djls45 said in Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??:
3-3×6+2=?
Everyone's doing it all wrong. You obviously have to use the FOIL method to solve it:
3-3 = 0
3+2 = 5
-3×6 = -18
6+2 = 80+5-18+8 = -5
This means that -5 is the only correct answer.
This one weird trick solves any math problem! Math teachers hate it!
-
the order of equations
3-3x6+2
3-(3x6)+2
3-18+2
-15+2
-13
-
@WarGamer said in Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??:
the order of equations
3-3x6+2
3-(3x6)+2
3-18+2
-15+2
-13the chosen one... THE CHOSEN ONE!