÷ isn't generally used in 'real life' maths
we us fractions where the divisor is rather clear
Is the circus in town?
÷ isn't generally used in 'real life' maths
we us fractions where the divisor is rather clear
Its not arrogance - its just a simple expression with an operator that has a standard use. There is only one answer, the operator has a use, the answer is 9.... I can see why some people have trouble understanding, but they're still wrong.![]()
Your right that there is only one answer, as to any linear problem, but there are two possible questions.
÷ isn't generally used in 'real life' maths
we us fractions where the divisor is rather clear
Yeah ÷ is never used in maths and personally I think it should be removed from the education system as it confuses things (evidently lol)
So the problem is converting it to 'real life' maths and to do that you HAVE to make an assumption of where brackets should be, so there is no right answer, just an assumed right answer.
1÷2*3 is the same as (1÷2)*3
it isn't the same as 1÷(2*3)
the divisor is simply the next term on the right
It can't be interpreted 2 ways, the person who originally wrote it may have had a different interpretation in mind, but there is only one way to interpret it as its written.
Where is this definition please? Link to the axiom?
Also, you didn't answer the question about your mathematical qualifications - did you intentionally ignore that one?
I'm assuming that people who are arguing that it is ambiguous or open to interpretation have never coded anything. Whilst it is certainly more readable and less likely to confuse with an extra set of parenthesis added it doesn't stop it from having a single definition and indeed answer without the extra parenthesis.
I'm assuming that people who are arguing that it is ambiguous or open to interpretation have never coded anything. Whilst it is certainly more readable and less likely to confuse with an extra set of parenthesis added it doesn't stop it from having a single definition and indeed answer without the extra parenthesis.
You have to start with 9, read left to right
I'm assuming that people who are arguing that it is ambiguous or open to interpretation have never coded anything. Whilst it is certainly more readable and less likely to confuse with an extra set of parenthesis added it doesn't stop it from having a single definition and indeed answer without the extra parenthesis.
there is no answer
Why?
I still think your wrong though, even from a coding point of view, because different calculators have produced two different results from the same equation, implying there isn't one globally recognised rule for this type of equation.
The reason you can't find anything to confirm your answer is that your
answer is incorrect, and the teacher's is correct.
What's going on here, I suspect, is that when you look at
105 / ab
what you _see_ is
105 / (ab)
but that's not what it _says_. What it says is
(105 / a)b
because by convention, multiplications and divisions _are_ performed
left to right, in the order in which they occur.