182 réponses à ce sujet

[Transairion]

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

As far as I was taught to do it, it's:

2 + 3 (=5)
x 5 = 25

That's doing it in the order it's written, but if it was written 2 + (3 x 5) = ? (Which is basically how all the ones I encountered were written), then it'd be 17 as per normal.

Why can't people just write it all the same lol?

[ParatrooperSean]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Just a simple question:



Not sure how many here can use simple logic, and I'm curious to find out.

Here are the Rules;
Do not flame someone if they get the wrong answer.
Post ONLY your answer.
Do not quote anyone.
Post once.

^^Broke my own rules too many times^^

I simply want to see how many actually THINK before they comment on something.
Here's a Poll to make things easier.

EDIT: *poll making fail"
EDIT2: ^^Again^^

Answer here

I'm thinking the "correct" answer they're looking for is 0; however, there is a specified order of operation in math. With no brackets lumping the series of 1's together, 0 is multplied only by the last 1, not the sum of the string of 1's.

Also important not to miss is that you have:

15 positive ones
1 negative one
1 one that is multipled by zero

The one that is multiplied by zero makes that one "disappear", leaving us with

14 postive ones
1 negative one

14 - 1 = 13

[Yajuu Omoi]

rmccowen wrote...

Yajuu Omoi said...

Oh look! Even Goolge knows what a ghost parentheses is!! Good Google!!

@Yajuu Omoi: Stop being a jerk. What you're doing here is poking fun at someone for not knowing something you do, which is (at least) bad pedagogy. I make fun of people, too, but I try to confine it to people who are genuinely incurious and/or aggressively stupid.

There are people in the U.S. who are taught by their science teachers that Earth's seasons happen because the planet is getting further away from the sun. There are people who are taught that the phases of the moon are caused by Earth's shadow. There are lots of people who are taught by their teachers that no one before Columbus knew that the Earth is round; that economies are full of rational actors; that human psychology is based on the ego, id, and superego; that corn ethanol is a clean and efficient substitute for gasoline; and, apparently, that order of operations is always dictated by parentheses.

Those people have received bad information, and counterevidence isn't always immediately available. Helping to correct the bad information is kind of a nice thing to help with; pointing and laughing at those people, not so much.

If you go back through the thread, you will see that this started out as me trying to help them. I have made only sarcastic remarcs that were not even about them.
I understand that people are given bad information, that is not their fault. However, when someone fights tooth and nail that they are right, and only their reasoning is correct...even when given undeniable proof that they are wrong...I lose all respect for them.

I have tried to reason, I gave respect, I have even tried to explain it MULTIPLE different times...and they still refuse to accept reality?

I'm sorry that you read a single post and thought of me as a Jerk, I am. But once you understand the rest of the situation, I doubt you'll think quite as low of me.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Transairion wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

As far as I was taught to do it, it's:

2 + 3 (=5)
x 5 = 25

That's doing it in the order it's written, but if it was written 2 + (3 x 5) = ? (Which is basically how all the ones I encountered were written), then it'd be 17 as per normal.

Why can't people just write it all the same lol?

Then yes, you were taught wrong.
In all honesty I was hoping you'd do 
A + (B x C) without thinking about it like that.
I was hoping you would just do BC first because they were already combined.
Oh, well.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:11 .

[mcz2345]

over 9000

[ryoldschool]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

I would fire you if you wrote software code like that, lol. Its the kind of cheap gotcha question you would see on an intro to programming first quiz to see if somebody knew how to prioritize operators. If you were interested in communicating you would make anything unusual very clear, which you went out of your way not to do. Most people looking at code like that would assume you forgot to put the brackets around everything before the *, and a maintenance programmer would probably do that thinking he was cleaning up the code....... Yeah breaking program...

...WHAT are you TALKING about?

Brackets are not needed unles you need to actually separate parts of an equation.

The equation is not written wrong.
The answer is 13. Period.

10 followed by a -1, then 4, and a 1*0

10-1+4+0=13

I would still fire you.  That the equation is written wrong or not depends on the purpose.  If the purpose is to communicate a mathimatical operation to somebody else so that they may easily do the calculation, then I would say that your equation as written failed.   If there is any doubt about the operations you should put brackets in, required or not.

However, I would guess that you were not really trying to write a clear equation, and you have succeeded in that.

Again, the equation is PERFECTLY clear if you understand basic math.
I've practically turned into a teach on this thread...just read the posts and realize that you are wrong as well.
If you understand the basic rules of math you would know full well to multiply first, as should anyone else.

But it is nice to know you'd fire me even though I work IN said industry...

You are in IT?   I hope you don't write software then, because with an attitude like that you are going to cause people trouble trying to read and modify anything you write.     The code should not only be clear to you but to somebody that did not write it.

I don't think you understand what PERFECTLY clear means.....

[ParatrooperSean]

abristow wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

If you're going to insult the intelligence of others you might want to make sure you're not wrong.

Why would you use an example where the numbers in the parenthesis are being multiplied? 

Lookie here: 

1 + (1+1+1) x 0 = 1

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = 3

But thank you for the awesome irony.

Modifié par ParatrooperSean, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Vandicus]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

abristow wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

If you're going to insult the intelligence of others you might want to make sure you're not wrong.

Why would you use an example where the number in the parenthesis are being multiplied? 

Lookie here: 

1 + (1+1+1) x 0 = 1

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = 3

But thank you for the awesome irony.

The equations illustrate ghost parentheses, the existence of which was being questioned.

[spudspot]

Transairion wrote...

As far as I was taught to do it, it's:

2 + 3 (=5)
x 5 = 25

That's doing it in the order it's written, but if it was written 2 + (3 x 5) = ? (Which is basically how all the ones I encountered were written), then it'd be 17 as per normal.

Why can't people just write it all the same lol?

Well it seems that you guys were taught a different convention for leaving away brackets then. I thought as well that "multiplication and division before addition and subtraction" was used everywhere, but if you were taught a different convention then that doesn't mean you're ignoring a rule...

Modifié par spudspot, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:17 .

[Vandicus]

spudspot wrote...

Transairion wrote...

As far as I was taught to do it, it's:

2 + 3 (=5)
x 5 = 25

That's doing it in the order it's written, but if it was written 2 + (3 x 5) = ? (Which is basically how all the ones I encountered were written), then it'd be 17 as per normal.

Why can't people just write it all the same lol?

Well it seems that you guys were taught a different convention for leaving away brackets then. I thought as well that "multiplication and division before addition and subtraction" was used everywhere, but if you were taught a different convention then that doesn't mean you're ignoring a rule...

I had suspected that it could be a cultural difference as well, but he lives in a country where the convention should be taught the same.

[Yajuu Omoi]

ryoldschool wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

I would fire you if you wrote software code like that, lol. Its the kind of cheap gotcha question you would see on an intro to programming first quiz to see if somebody knew how to prioritize operators. If you were interested in communicating you would make anything unusual very clear, which you went out of your way not to do. Most people looking at code like that would assume you forgot to put the brackets around everything before the *, and a maintenance programmer would probably do that thinking he was cleaning up the code....... Yeah breaking program...

...WHAT are you TALKING about?

Brackets are not needed unles you need to actually separate parts of an equation.

The equation is not written wrong.
The answer is 13. Period.

10 followed by a -1, then 4, and a 1*0

10-1+4+0=13

I would still fire you.  That the equation is written wrong or not depends on the purpose.  If the purpose is to communicate a mathimatical operation to somebody else so that they may easily do the calculation, then I would say that your equation as written failed.   If there is any doubt about the operations you should put brackets in, required or not.

However, I would guess that you were not really trying to write a clear equation, and you have succeeded in that.

Again, the equation is PERFECTLY clear if you understand basic math.
I've practically turned into a teach on this thread...just read the posts and realize that you are wrong as well.
If you understand the basic rules of math you would know full well to multiply first, as should anyone else.

But it is nice to know you'd fire me even though I work IN said industry...

You are in IT?   I hope you don't write software then, because with an attitude like that you are going to cause people trouble trying to read and modify anything you write.     The code should not only be clear to you but to somebody that did not write it.

I don't think you understand what PERFECTLY clear means.....

Again, if you understand the laws that govern them, they are perfectly clear.
Here's a perfect example from IN-GAME.

There can be no more than 8 enemies on the maps at any given time, pets do not effect this ratio.
That is one part of the game.
It may SEEM like there are more than 8 enemies on the field at once, but there never are, because if you understand the laws that govern them, you'd see it.

And just for you:
http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/perfect

[ParatrooperSean]

Vandicus wrote...

ParatrooperSean wrote...

abristow wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

If you're going to insult the intelligence of others you might want to make sure you're not wrong.

Why would you use an example where the number in the parenthesis are being multiplied? 

Lookie here: 

1 + (1+1+1) x 0 = 1

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = 3

But thank you for the awesome irony.

The equations illustrate ghost parentheses, the existence of which was being questioned.

I've never heard the term "ghost parenthases" but I suspect it's just another way of stating the order of operation, i.e. since you mutiply *before* you add, those numbers being multiplied have imaginary parenthases around them.

If my assumption is correct then the whole concept of "ghost parenthases" is redundant and unnecessary.

Modifié par ParatrooperSean, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:21 .

[Yajuu Omoi]

mcz2345 wrote...

over 9000

Thank you...I needed that smile! :happy:

[poonts]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Transairion wrote...

Order of Operations:
Parentheses
Exponents
Multiply/Divide
Add/Subtract

The answer of 13 is only correct if we deem this "correct".

I find it a little hard to believe this is deemed correct across the entire planet and every school in the world is teaching it, lol? I just don't understand why doing the multiplaction first (which is placed at the end) must be right.

Am I butthurt? Probably but according to you all my Maths teachers got it wrong too...

perfectly stated

You...trolling? Or are you ACTUALLY that dumb?
1+1=2 kid. Fact of life.
Here's another equation just for you, even has a story with it.

2+2+2+2*3

if four people each have two apples, and one of them goes and tripples their apple, how many total apples?
2+2+2+2*3=
2+2+2+6=
12

not
6+6+6+6

Think before you post, the point of this thread was to let people realize how many people here actually think before they post.
And you, have become downright bothersome on this forum.
EVERY time I read one of your posts I can't stop but think how stupid you sound.
And you keep proving it.

"Math is only true if I believe it to be so."
Thats like saying Gravity only exists if we believe in it... <_<

Float away little one, there's no such thing as gravity, so even if you jump off that cliff you won't fall to your death... 

[abristow]

Vandicus wrote...

ParatrooperSean wrote...

abristow wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

If you're going to insult the intelligence of others you might want to make sure you're not wrong.

Why would you use an example where the number in the parenthesis are being multiplied? 

Lookie here: 

1 + (1+1+1) x 0 = 1

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = 3

But thank you for the awesome irony.

The equations illustrate ghost parentheses, the existence of which was being questioned.

Exactly, the question was whether or not ghost parenthesis mattered/existed, do they exist? yes, do they matter? No. What you did was just prove what i said in a different way.
So thank YOU for the awesome irony.

[Yajuu Omoi]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

ParatrooperSean wrote...

abristow wrote...

The amount of stupidity in this thread regarding math is killing me... This problem has nothing to with parenthesis!
Lookie here:
2 + (3x5) = 17
2 + 3 x 5 = 17
Whoa! Black magic? No, this is math.

If you're going to insult the intelligence of others you might want to make sure you're not wrong.

Why would you use an example where the number in the parenthesis are being multiplied? 

Lookie here: 

1 + (1+1+1) x 0 = 1

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = 3

But thank you for the awesome irony.

The equations illustrate ghost parentheses, the existence of which was being questioned.

I've never heard the term "ghost parenthases" but I suspect it's just another way of stating the order of operation, i.e. since you mutiply *before* you add, those numbers being multiplied have imaginary brackets around them.

If my assumption is correct then the whole concept of "ghost parenthases" is redundant and unnecessary.

It SHOULD be unnecessary...but as this thread has proven...some people still don't understand the Order of Operations, even WITH the ghost symbols...

[Chamroeun]

13...I don't get it. What is this about?

õ.ó?

Modifié par Chamroeun, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:23 .

[Wookie_Smuggler]

Order of operations is a worldwide standard. Some of you know about it, and the others either had an incomplete maths education, are forgetful or are just being trolls/pigheaded.

I personally don't care about any of these things so long as you can be a reliable player on ME3 MP, and support your team well (including helping with objectives and appropriate reviving of the fallen).
Also, I don't approve of anyone who takes a level 1 Geth Pulse Rifle into a gold or even a silver match.

[spudspot]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Again, if you understand the laws that govern them, they are perfectly clear.
Here's a perfect example from IN-GAME.

You do know that "multiplication and division before addition and subtraction" is a convention that allows us to leave away brackets in a certain way, right? It's not a "law". 

For example, if you would have the convention "addition and subtraction before multiplication and division", then (A + * C = A + B * C, while we would write it as A * C + B * C with "multiplication and division before addition and subtraction". 

There is a slight difference between a convention and a law. 

Wookie_Smuggler wrote...

Order of operations is a worldwide standard. Some of you know about it, and the others either had an incomplete maths education, are forgetful or are just being trolls/pigheaded.

It is, right? (That's a completely serious question!)

Modifié par spudspot, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:32 .

[rmccowen]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

I'm sorry that you read a single post and thought of me as a Jerk, I am. But once you understand the rest of the situation, I doubt you'll think quite as low of me.

I did read the thread, and you jumped on him pretty fast.

I'm not trying to say it's all on you, but it's worth going back and considering the value of the OP. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who's now spent several years looking at the gritty details of academic testing and assessment.)

The question will discriminate between participants based on two different kinds of errors: reading errors (e.g., not noticing the -1 term) and misunderstandings of order of operations. There's already a problem, because you're conflating two totally different kinds of resposes: that is, responding correctly requires the reader to understand order of operations and pay fairly close attention. But the larger problem is that it's not being portrayed as a "test" of the participant's understanding of a particular fundamental mathematical concept, but as a test of intelligence. In other words, it's a trick question, and it's mislabeled.

So what the thread looks like overall is that you posted a trick question, and then jumped on the first person that genuinely misunderstood the math part. What Transairion is displaying is a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, and I really do understand that it's frustrating, but your eventual response couldn't be better calculated to raise his resistance further--you're encouraging him to identify the mistake as an indicator of a personal weakness or failure.

[Blazed Iron X]

Anything multiplied by 0 is.... Bingo! Yahtzee! 0

[ParatrooperSean]

Blazed Iron X wrote...

Anything multiplied by 0 is.... Bingo! Yahtzee! 0

True, but in this case the 0 is only being multiplied by the last 1, not the sum of the entire string of 1's.

[Yajuu Omoi]

rmccowen wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

I'm sorry that you read a single post and thought of me as a Jerk, I am. But once you understand the rest of the situation, I doubt you'll think quite as low of me.

I did read the thread, and you jumped on him pretty fast.

I'm not trying to say it's all on you, but it's worth going back and considering the value of the OP. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who's now spent several years looking at the gritty details of academic testing and assessment.)

The question will discriminate between participants based on two different kinds of errors: reading errors (e.g., not noticing the -1 term) and misunderstandings of order of operations. There's already a problem, because you're conflating two totally different kinds of resposes: that is, responding correctly requires the reader to understand order of operations and pay fairly close attention. But the larger problem is that it's not being portrayed as a "test" of the participant's understanding of a particular fundamental mathematical concept, but as a test of intelligence. In other words, it's a trick question, and it's mislabeled.

So what the thread looks like overall is that you posted a trick question, and then jumped on the first person that genuinely misunderstood the math part. What Transairion is displaying is a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, and I really do understand that it's frustrating, but your eventual response couldn't be better calculated to raise his resistance further--you're encouraging him to identify the mistake as an indicator of a personal weakness or failure.

I understand where you are trying to come from...but there are many other threads that this commenter has attempted to pose their point of view as fact and then been proven wrong multiple times, none of which they attmited to being wrong, and they were far from being the first to get the question wrong.

And for the question itself, even IF someone missed the "-1" when they were shown it they corrected themselves and continued on, even some that did not use the Order of Operations at first corrected themselves and moved on.

This question IS a test of intelligence, not whether or not you can get the question right, but whether or not one can comprehend if they DO get it wrong and are able to correct it.
Its not a math test, its a psychological one.

I'm sorry you misunderstood that, but you really weren't supposed to in the first place.

Modifié par Yajuu Omoi, 20 octobre 2012 - 03:35 .

[Blazed Iron X]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

Blazed Iron X wrote...

Anything multiplied by 0 is.... Bingo! Yahtzee! 0

True, but in this case the 0 is only being multiplied by the last 1, not the sum of the entire string of 1's.

Your absolutely right, unfortunately the common people of today have since forgotten to adhere by Order of Operations. It's basic math people!

[Zkyire]

ME3 Multiplayer board.

ME3 Multiplayer board.

ME3 Multiplayer board.

*headdesk*