• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

General chat thread

Reader mode
I want to worldbuild a fictional nation for a Late Pike-and-shot/Early Modern warfare setting I just made up on the spot but have no idea where to discuss it. Given how it's a relatively mundane setting that resembles earth but doesn't. Kind of like Ace Combat or any Eastern game which takes place in a mundane not-Earth.

I have no idea if that genre has a name.

Along with a desire to study the worse aspects of the Indian Caste system mixed with the bigotry of low expectations applied to a fictional setting where one of the nations is a painfully realistic dystopian state where peasants are held to a lower moral standard with caste rules enforced to the point where even in an era of blackpowder, they send waves of suicidal peasants armed with spears into Napoleonic-era firing lines.
 
I love being inside and cozy, while outside it's pouring down, and dark. Fantastic vibe, truly.
EDIT: I may in fact, wrap up warm in a big blanket, and move closer to the window so I can enjoy the sound of the storm outside. Just truly bask in it.
 
John_Oakman said:
cx1zf796sq5c1.jpeg
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

manatherindrell said:
It could go either way because it was deliberately written to be vague. I lean slightly more towards 9 as the answer because I think the proper way to write it out would replace that division sign with the horizontal line, giving you 6 over 2. That would make it (6/2)(2+1), which simplifies to 3 X 3.

The other way that it could be interperted would be 6/(2(2+1)), which would give you 1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
NotInventedHere said:
The way I was always taught it, you do Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction, in that order. So, bracket first, 2+1=3. Then you've got 6 ÷ 2 x 3, you do the division first, so 6 ÷ 2 = 3, then the multiplication, 3 x 3 = 9.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The scientific calculator solves the equation properly, the basic bitch app on the phone "solves" it first come first serve from left to right.

There's no debate to be had here, the answer is 1 (one). If you think otherwise, you've been taught wrong. Probably as a joke.

 
Guardian Box said:
The scientific calculator solves the equation properly, the basic bitch app on the phone "solves" it first come first serve from left to right.

There's no debate to be had here, the answer is 1 (one). If you think otherwise, you've been taught wrong. Probably as a joke.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, yes. I see. You have made a compelling case and I am convinced by your stunningly brilliant proof. There is definitely no ambiguity whatsoever to be seen here.
 
manatherindrell said:
Ah, yes. I see. You have made a compelling case and I am convinced by your stunningly brilliant proof. There is definitely no ambiguity whatsoever to be seen here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.
 
Guardian Box said:
There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I already said you convinced me, there's no need to invoke the Holy NASA.
 
Guardian Box said:
There really isn't. They don't have debates about something basic like order of operations in NASA. There is no ambiguity in math like this, that the result of an entire equation is dependent on whether or not someone feels like doing division or multiplication first.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's absolutely ambiguity in whether you interpret 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) or 6÷(2(2+1)), which is why you don't write it that way in a serious context.
 
Amazon Climber said:
There's absolutely ambiguity in whether you interpret 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) or 6÷2*(2+1), which is why you don't write it that way in a serious context.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is no ambiguity to be had here though, since there's nothing to interpret. Seeing 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) is simply objectively wrong.
 
Guardian Box said:
There is no ambiguity to be had here though, since there's nothing to interpret. Seeing 6÷2(2+1) as (6÷2)(2+1) is simply objectively wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do multiplication and division from left to right. Following that rule, you'd divide six by two, then multiply by three. Your rule is only unambiguous if you treat touching a parenthetical as a higher operation than ordinary multiplication. Which, once again, isn't an unambiguous rule the way multiplication and division from left to right is.

Which is why, when the entire result of an equation is dependent on whether you do the division or multiplication first, you'd make it clear which you intend instead of assuming everyone interprets the parenthetical touch the same way.
 
You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.

That said, I do believe they teach math differently in different countries and even different schools, sometimes even different classrooms, so you both may be right according to what you learned.

What you're arguing about isn't even math but math syntax. Which can indeed vary by region. And computer program, for that matter.

There is no 'right' way to solve it unless you know who wrote it and they can tell you, or you know what real physical event it's supposed to describe and can experiment or logic out what each variable actually refers to.
 
Amazon Climber said:
You do multiplication and division from left to right. Following that rule, you'd divide six by two, then multiply by three. Your rule is only unambiguous if you treat touching a parenthetical as a higher operation than ordinary multiplication. Which, once again, isn't an unambiguous rule the way multiplication and division from left to right is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Multiplication by the contents of the parentheses is a higher order operation than the division in this example though.

Amazon Climber said:
Which is why, when the entire result of an equation is dependent on whether you do the division or multiplication first, you'd make it clear which you intend instead of assuming everyone interprets the parenthetical touch the same way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Multiplication is first. The parentheses around the multiplication is implied and therefore not needed to be shown. To expand on how that equation would look like if we didn't take the shortcut of showing unnecessary parentheses, then 6÷(2(2+1)) you wrote earlier would be correct.

Scygnus said:
You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.

That said, I do believe they teach math differently in different countries and even different schools, sometimes even different classrooms, so you both may be right according to what you learned.

What you're arguing about isn't even math but math syntax. Which can indeed vary by region. And computer program, for that matter.

There is no 'right' way to solve it unless you know who wrote it and they can tell you, or you know what real physical event it's supposed to describe and can experiment or logic out what each variable actually refers to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough.

My math syntax is the correct one though.
 
Scygnus said:
You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah. I'm not going to keep arguing when the actual answer is 'put the shit that should be in the divisor under a line and the shit that should be a numerator on top of a line.' Nobody argues that this…

_48__
2(9+3)

…Is ambiguous.
 
Amazon Climber said:
Nah. I'm not going to keep arguing when the actual answer is 'put the shit that should be in the divisor under a line and the shit that should be a numerator on top of a line.' Nobody argues that this…

_48__
2(9+3)

…Is ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
2
Guardian Box said:
The parentheses around the multiplication is implied and therefore not needed to be shown.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You see, there's the problem. Any time you say "this is implied", you guarantee that some people will be confused or miss something. It doesn't even matter if you're correct, you still needed the extra step of clarification.

There is no such thing as "too obvious to not need pointing out at least once". Ever, in my experience.


Stupidity, on the other hand, is when the same thing needs to be pointed out repeatedly to the same person or people.
 
Hatless Nuance said:
You see, there's the problem. Any time you say "this is implied", you guarantee that some people will be confused or miss something. It doesn't even matter if you're correct, you still needed the extra step of clarification.

There is no such thing as "too obvious to not need pointing out at least once". Ever, in my experience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's what teachers teaching basic math are for, not me.

_48__
2(9+3)

It is the exact same thing as 48÷2(9+3) in this example.

The only reason this is in any way controversial is because some idiot hackfrauds masquerading as teachers decided to half-ass their job at teaching proper order of operations and instead went with some idiotic shortcut of 'left to right takes precedence' or something, and this somehow managed to become popular opinion is some circles.

This is just simple basic math that even scientific calculators don't have any issue of resolving.

I also don't want to call anyone being wrong on this as stupid. This has no bearing on their intellect or lack thereof. I blame it on their educational system just teaching them wrong if they think there's any ambiguity in solving problems like these.

For fucks sake, if your problem solving algorithm starts outputting garbage results depending on the user's interpretation, it's not fault of the user, it's that they are using a garbage algorithm. They've been taught wrong, simple as that.
 
Guardian Box said:
The only reason this is in any way controversial is because some idiot hackfrauds masquerading as teachers decided to half-ass their job at teaching proper order of operations and instead went with some idiotic shortcut of 'left to right takes precedence' or something, and this somehow managed to become popular opinion is some circles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

full.png
 
Scygnus said:
You guys should probably take this to the General Bitching Thread if you'd like to continue the argument.

That said, I do believe they teach math differently in different countries and even different schools, sometimes even different classrooms, so you both may be right according to what you learned.

What you're arguing about isn't even math but math syntax. Which can indeed vary by region. And computer program, for that matter.

There is no 'right' way to solve it unless you know who wrote it and they can tell you, or you know what real physical event it's supposed to describe and can experiment or logic out what each variable actually refers to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Math is taught to an international standard. Its why the math curriculum hasn't actually changed in decades. Guardian is actually right, there is not argument at all to be had here. Any classroom or nation that teaches otherwise isn't teaching to said international standard.
 
BlackHadou said:
Math is taught to an international standard. Its why the math curriculum hasn't actually changed in decades. Guardian is actually right, there is not argument at all to be had here. Any classroom or nation that teaches otherwise isn't teaching to said international standard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The USA doesn't use the International/Metric System, at least not as the default. There are most of your issues.
 
Hatless Nuance said:
The USA doesn't use the International/Metric System, at least not as the default. There are most of your issues.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
None of that has anything to do with order of operations, algebra, tan and cosin, etc. Literally all your saying is Americans use a different conversion. Congratulations, so do computers.

Its irrelevant to the discussion.
 
The ambiguity of this particular formula is how it is actually written, vs how it is interpreted.


Specifically, how people are taught to treat parenthesis isn't quite accurate. See, most places when they're teaching the math, teach you to see the 2(2+1) to read as 2x(2+1)- which, usually, is a correct read of it. But sometimes can get you in trouble.


Meanwhile, in actual order of operations reads #(#s) as all part of the parenthesis. If there is no operation between the first number and what's in the parenthesis, then you're supposed to read it as # iterations of the internal number.

2(2+1) could be just as accurately written as (2x2 + 1x2).

Not usually something that matters. Usually meaning 'exceptions exist' and this is one such exception.


The wrong way of reading parenthesis would, indeed, get a reading of 9. Because people look at it and interpret it (wrongly) as 6 ÷ 2 x (2 + 1), which absolutely comes out to 9.

While the accurate interpretation (as in, treating the 2 as connected to the parenthesis rather than a separate factor) would look something like 6 ÷ (2 x 2 + 1 x 2). Just as absolutely comes out to 1.


Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
 
Are you seriously debating elementary school math?

The hell is even going on in your schools?
 
There is no way that meme is real. I think, then I check to see if yes the phone calculators are in fact that wrong

... WTF
 
Imperator Pax said:
There is no way that meme is real. I think, then I check to see if yes the phone calculators are in fact that wrong

... WTF
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Phone calculators are, in fact, exactly that wrong.

Scientific calculators require a specific math-focused microchip, apparently, so they can calculate things properly.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)
Back
Top