x/yz
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
Re: x/yz
I'm sorry I don't see your point... Division is a non-commutative operation (x/y != y/x). I am trying to gauge people's interpretation of implied multiplication operators. If we solve for the general case, the specific case in the other thread should follow QED.erics2b wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutativity
erics2b wrote:Y'all are a bunch of dumb mofo's.
Re: x/yz
Sorry, first we establish that x/(yz) = (xy)/z does not hold true for all values of x, y and z.tca wrote:I'm sorry I don't see your point... Division is a non-commutative operation (x/y != y/x). I am trying to gauge people's interpretation of implied multiplication operators. If we solve for the general case, the specific case in the other thread should follow QED.erics2b wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutativity
erics2b wrote:Y'all are a bunch of dumb mofo's.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(x ... +x%2F(y*z)
Then, given x/yz, we evaluate both multiplication and division at the same priority, left to right. Meaning x/yz = (x/y)z.
Re: x/yz
Could you elaborate further, the example from the link you posted is : (x/y)*z = x/(y*z) . I do not see any implied multiplication in that example so it does not support the example in your last sentence. Maybe I am missing something?erics2b wrote:
Sorry, first we establish that x/(yz) = (xy)/z does not hold true for all values of x, y and z.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(x ... +x%2F(y*z)
Then, given x/yz, we evaluate both multiplication and division at the same priority, left to right. Meaning x/yz = (x/y)z.
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Re: x/yz
Man, them brackets come in SOOOOO handy at a time like this.
If someone went for a thesis using this notation, they'd get a big, glaring...
F
My $0.02.
-istp
(Yeah, I'm still bummed I got fooled on the other equation.
)
If someone went for a thesis using this notation, they'd get a big, glaring...
F
My $0.02.
-istp
(Yeah, I'm still bummed I got fooled on the other equation.
)-
GoinNowhereFast
- Rank 5
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:35 pm
Re: x/yz
I thought the answer was 288 
Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupidity
-
200hr Wonder
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
- Contact:
Re: x/yz
Blah blah blah....
NO mathematician worth his SALT would write an equitation that way. Mathematics as all about being anally retentively precise. It would and should be written with proper bracketing to ensure that you get the answer that you desire. If I saw this on an exam by a student... WRONG it is too ambiguous do it again.
NO mathematician worth his SALT would write an equitation that way. Mathematics as all about being anally retentively precise. It would and should be written with proper bracketing to ensure that you get the answer that you desire. If I saw this on an exam by a student... WRONG it is too ambiguous do it again.
Cheers,
200hr Wonder
200hr Wonder
Re: x/yz
Dagwood wrote:May I suggest this thread be locked? The first poll was good, the second one was funny, but what's the point anymore?
Or may I suggest you grow a pair and show some self restraint by not reading the threads that bother you, instead of suggesting the imposition of censorship upon others who may think a thread valid. Suck it up buttercup!!!!!!! and don't be a social/thread nazi!!! BTW this was the second thread.
Re: x/yz
You stand corrected.Dex wrote:BTW this was the second thread.
This was the first thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=72928
This was the second thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=72960
Now THIS is the third thread on the topic of convoluted and ambiguous simple math problems...
On a related note, may I suggest you grow a pair and show some self restraint by not reading my posts that bother you. You don't need to complain about my complaints.
Re: x/yz
I had better chances of you responding, to a thread you thought should be locked, if I made an error tauntingly worthy of reply after my provocative post.Dagwood wrote: You stand corrected.
This was the first thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=72928
This was the second thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=72960
Now THIS is the third thread on the topic of convoluted and ambiguous simple math problems...
I don't have a problem with people complaining/debating, I don't like social/thread nazi's calling for censorship because they don't like what is being said. If you cannot cope with what is being said in a thread do not read it and move on to the next. This is not high school, its the Internet. We have too much censorship on this site already.Dagwood wrote: On a related note, may I suggest you grow a pair and show some self restraint by not reading my posts that bother you. You don't need to complain about my complaints.
