Results 251 to 260 of 267


google "order of operations"
first 3 results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/v...perations.html
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm
Basically, they all say:
A common technique for remembering the order of operations is the abbreviation "PEMDAS", which is turned into the phrase "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally". It stands for "Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction". This tells you the ranks of the operations: Parentheses outrank exponents, which outrank multiplication and division (but multiplication and division are at the same rank), and these two outrank addition and subtraction (which are together on the bottom rank). When you have a bunch of operations of the same rank, you just operate from left to right. For instance, 15 ÷ 3 × 4 is not 15 ÷ 12, but is rather 5 × 4, because, going from left to right, you get to the division first.
What pisses me off the most here is what Rabbit quoted: A bunch of IT doucheboys decided to make calculators and tried to be clever by tweaking the rules. "Oh ho ho how clever, now we won't have to to write those parentheses so often". Except that now, there is uncertainty whether a given calculator model follows the rules if you know about this bullshit or worse, easily made errors by relying on a calculator for basic calculations if you don't know about this.
Okay, so final question, giving implicit multiplication a higher priority than explicit multiplication, is that a calculator thing?Last edited by Tranquil Suit; 11/09/2012 2:40am at .
(tab) Forum > Forum Actions > General Settings > in Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40 
2
Actually Purple Math page 2
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
 Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**) = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the doublestar) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the lefttoright rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:
Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!  Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite
 Join Date
 May 2010
 Location
 Work
 Posts
 8,209
Posted On:
11/09/2012 2:42am2Aha I knew you'd find it Good. This is a classic computer science problem in algorithms.
The issue is the use of juxtaposition in writing formula and it's a very old problem.
It's not so much a calculator thing as a computer algorithm thing....how do you make a computer do exactly what you meant?
Answer: parenthesis.
http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...juxtaposition
And the answer is, DON'T WRITE a/bc, because it will only cause confusion. Some people/software/whatever will make one interpretation, some will make the other, neither one has been endorsed by the Dalai Lama or any other great leader. Put in enough parentheses to make your writing foolproof.Last edited by W. Rabbit; 11/09/2012 2:45am at .

1
God damn it you faggots.
It's neither. The answer is, "Take this back and write it more clearly and stop being a lazy piece of ****."
You don't purposefully create confusion in a math problem unless you're TRYING to set someone up to fail. Math is about writing the language that the universe is understood by. You don't do that by purposefully miscommunicating problems. That just creates new sets of problems and then nobody gets anything done. 
insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite
 Join Date
 May 2010
 Location
 Work
 Posts
 8,209
Posted On:
11/09/2012 2:49am 


You should tell that to Professor Carlos De La Lama
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Show...jsp?tid=113955 
insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite
 Join Date
 May 2010
 Location
 Work
 Posts
 8,209
Posted On:
11/09/2012 2:56am
insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite
Posted On:
11/09/2012 2:22am