Only for Albert Einstein: 3-3×6+2=??
-
Nah, there's just NAND.
Try using true ternary logic sometime. That's not implementable with NAND…
-
Agreed.
It makes much more sense once you get to that point where you realize subtraction is literally the exact same thing as addition, just with a negative number.
-
+2 is truly awfully wrong because it indicates that you don't fucking know how to math
and you're blindly trusting the jellybean 4-function calculator that came in your christmas cracker and doesn't do operator precedence.
-
You can simplify it to just
successor
if you use peano integers.
-
You need a lot of patience to get good at playing the peano.
-
PEMDAS and similar are really a horrible way to teach operator precedence, because that's how you get geniuses claiming
2-2+3 = 2-(2+3) = -3
"because addition before subtraction, durrr"Well, yes, it's because PEDMAS doesn't cover the commutative property, which subtraction lacks. If we put this into terms of addition, then it works fine in any order because addition is commutative:
2+(-2)+3
(2+(-2))+3
⇒0+3
⇒ 32+((-2)+3)
⇒2+1
⇒ 3That's the same reason the original example only works if processed strictly left-to-right after completing the multiplication.
-
really a horrible way to teach operator precedence
BIT has a well-documented operator precedence, but all its operators except NAND and EQUALS are unary, and EQUALS doesn't return a value. And nobody ever uses NAND.
-
Would Albert Einstein himself be able to solve such a complex mathematical expression?
I don't know, he was a genius, for sure, but operator precedence is incredible difficult. I think it's beyond human knowledge of this century.
Maybe in the next 100 years we'll get the answer.
-
The question remains why they thought it is worth introducing separate + and - operations with different precedence.
Why they were introduced is probably lost to the mists of time. I can see why they’re kept as separate operations, though: because at the time children are taught basic arithmetic, negative numbers are probably too difficult a concept for them to understand yet — whereas you can present subtraction as taking one (implicitly positive) number from another.Come to think of it, they were probably introduced as separate operations for exactly the same reason: people most likely began by simply deducting one number from another, and only later came up with the concept of negative numbers. By that time deduction had been so well-established that trying to get rid of it in favour of adding a negative number to a positive one would be futile — especially since the outcome will (usually :) ) be exactly the same anyway.
-
Counting existed long before math. That makes negative numbers a fairly modern invention considering the amount of time humans have been counting.
-
-
-
That would explain the cooties...
-
That would explain the cooties...
i remember this topic being here yesterday..... so it wouldn't explain the current cooties....
-
-
-
I got
2
when I casually scanned the expressiongleemonk@abode$ dc -e '3 3 6 * - 2 + p' -13
Just checking.
-
Reminds me of 7 into 28
-
Ma and Pa Kettle version:
-
I am so relieved to see this because I drop Ma and Pa Kettle jokes every so often and nobody gets them.
Those philistines.
-
I drop Ma and Pa Kettle jokes every so often and nobody gets them.
I know, right? You call a couple of your friends Crowbar and Geoduck and everybody just stares at you.
-
You need a lot of patience to get good at playing the peano.
Men are born able to play the peano. Women usually need a bit of guidance but they can get there too if they work hard at it.
-
Come on, anyone can understand the Peano axioms, which are just basic math axioms.
Now when it comes to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem and its implications for Peano axioms, that's hard.
-
Now when it comes to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem and its implications for Peano axioms, that's hard.
It isn't terribly difficult. The key is understanding what Gödel actually did, which is to find a way to feed a function to itself; it's done with a “Gödel numbering”, but frankly you might as well just use the source code to the function (as that's basically what he did) and take advantage of the fact that source code could be regarded as being a gigantic number in some appropriate base (e.g., base-256 for 8-bit ASCII, making each character a “digit”).
Given that he worked from the assumption that if he had a total function that determined if a
programfunction evaluation terminates, he could simply construct a function that only terminated if it didn't terminate, and only didn't terminate if it did. Which is utter nonsense, proving that one of the assumptions was bogus, and as all the other assumptions were trivially true, it was the conclusion that there could not be a total function (as described at the start of this paragraph). That prevents the paradox from being constructed, and keeps us sane.However, given that we now know of a function that we can't construct, we know that the logic that we're working with — e.g., Peano arithmetic — cannot prove (or disprove) everything it can talk about. The logic is necessarily incomplete. QED.
The consequences of this are subtle, but range from the halting problem to the proof that there is no finite set of axioms from which all mathematics derives. This shows that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is one of the truly great proofs of mathematics.
-
Even I got this right.
-
I'm actually a bit curious all of the sudden if my bot properly calculates this in the Expression evaluation engine I'm using.
Anyone in IRC want to ask it for me? The command would look something like this:= 3-3*6+2
-
12:13 < BenLubar> = 3-3*6+2
12:13 < tsaukpaetra_bot> Sorry BenLubar, Your permission level is insufficient
to run =
-
Awe, that means you didn't do
!opme
since the last database reset.
Retry after doing!opme
?
-
12:16 < BenLubar> !opme
12:16 < tsaukpaetra_bot> Congratulations, you're now level 1, BenLubar!
12:16 < BenLubar> = 3-3*6+2
12:16 < tsaukpaetra_bot> -13
-
Yays!
Someone else programmed the expression evaluator correctly! :)Edit: Also yays: the f-kin
!opme
apparently works properly now and doesn't give an error for no apparent reason...
-
Also:
Expression:
3 - 3 * 6 + 2Result:
-13Something would be seriously wrong otherwise.
Edit: I know the slug is irrelevant, but "via-quote"? Or is it something temporary there will be disappear if I refresh the page? Hmm, doesn't seem like it.
-
Is MathBot's source code on GitHub or something? I wonder if I can add lojban math to it.
-
Edit: I know the slug is irrelevant, but "via-quote"? Or is it something temporary there will be disappear if I refresh the page? Hmm, doesn't seem like it.
It's a whole lot faster than looking up every quoted topic to just put that there and then have it redirect.
-
I wonder if there's any program that parses and executes mekso...
-
Subtraction is just adding negative numbers. Also, multiplication is just repeated addition. And division is just repeated subtraction. There's only one operation: addition.
-
And division is just repeated subtraction.
FTFY
Saying that division is just repeated subtraction doesn't give a full picture, because that gives the idea that
100 ÷ 20
is just subtracting 20 from 100 repeatedly. But to what end? Now, when you think of it as a counter, the picture becomes more clear. Now we understand that we need to see how many times we can subtract 20 from 100 until we hit 0:Counter | Progression --------+--------------- 1 | 100 - 20 = 80 2 | 80 - 20 = 60 3 | 60 - 20 = 40 4 | 40 - 20 = 20 5 | 20 - 20 = 0
So you see, division is really a subtraction counter.
-
Is MathBot's source code on GitHub or something? I wonder if I can add lojban math to it.
Was that @accalia's or @raceprouk's?
-
@ben_lubar said:
Is MathBot's source code on GitHub or something? I wonder if I can add lojban math to it.
Was that @accalia's or @raceprouk's?
not mine! not mine!
SQUAWK!
Polly want a biscuit
-
<!-- SockBot/2.11.10 (Cheery Chiffon; owner:RaceProUK; user:MathBot) 2016-02-25T18:17:44.519Z -->
would indicate the latter.
-
Ah, suspected as much. And she's AWOL. But you'll be wanting the sockbot repo. And apparently that module's been updated for 2.0 already so no messing about with the legacy version.
-
And my faith in humanity continues to plummet in its rocket-scream blaze of glory into the canyon of despair ;_;
-
You're too sensitive for this world.
-
[single tear down the cheek and a shuddering sigh with a reluctant nod]
I ... I'm ready @boomzilla, go ahead, pull the trigger
Filed Under What? ... Too dark?
-
I ... I'm ready @boomzilla, go ahead, pull the trigger
I would have gone with “call a cab” but that's your call.
-
A cab ... off the world? o_O
-
A cab ... off the world?
That’s Americans for you: thinking the USA == the world, and that you can take cabs anywhere.
-
I was thinking more of a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy sort of thing o_O
-
-
I got -17 ...
-
Did you get there by way of -15+2?