Poll: 6÷2(1+2)

6/2(1+2) = ?

  • 9

    Votes: 516 68.9%

  • 1

    Votes: 233 31.1%
  • Total voters
    749
gambitt said:
Says the guy who's been banging on about convention for 2x^2 for the past 10 posts but won't (can't) address the convention applied to a basic integral :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well I'm just amazed that you don't quite understand that we do have arbitrary conventions in place for notation and that without these we would indeed have ambiguity or excessive parenthesis. The fact that we do have conventions in place removes ambiguity.

You mentioned calculators and programming earlier in the thread - why won't you answer the question about different languages using different conventions?
Click to expand...

Different people have implemented different languages differently. So what?
 
dowie said:
Yes and no one is saying it isn't a silly question - it still doesn't stop you from using convention to get an answer. If we didn't have any conventions for operators then we'd need parenthesis everywhere.
Click to expand...

What are you arguing for then, that is what the people you are arguing against are saying!

The question in the OP can easily be written with only one set of parenthesis - by writing it out correctly, with fractions.
 
dowie said:
Well I'm just amazed that you don't quite understand that we do have arbitrary conventions in place for notation and that without these we would indeed have ambiguity or excessive parenthesis. The fact that we do have conventions in place removes ambiguity.
Click to expand...

I thought you had better things to do than entertain someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about? Why are you still replying to my posts yet dismissing any the difficult questions as "side tracking". It's a perfectly reasonable and relevant mathematical question.

You say a whole lot of nothing.

dowie said:
Different people have implemented different languages differently. So what?
Click to expand...

So does this not tell you that some very intelligent people (ones who have created programming languages) have a different opinion to your own? Do you honestly believe you know better than these people? :o
 
gambitt said:
Dear BODMAS and "we must go left to right!!1" lovers (and ÷ symbol lovers - dowie), how would you tackle this one?

62xc.jpg


Do you divide or calculate the integral first? Do the rules of BODMAS and "left to right" apply to integration and if so, where does it come in the pecking order? Or perhaps it only applies to very basic maths which kids do.
Click to expand...

What? Even going left to right 6 divided by the integral of 2x^2 with respect to x.

Where's the ambiguity?

How could you possibly divide first?

Maybe if you put

6/2.[int]x^2.dx

you get the previous ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
gambitt said:
So does this not tell you that some very intelligent people (ones who have created programming languages) have a different opinion to your own? Do you honestly believe you know better than these people? :o
Click to expand...

No and that's a very simplistic assumption to make. It doesn't logically follow that because X language doesn't have operator precedence that the creators have ignored or are unaware or have differing opinions on mathematical notation. They will still have either had to define a precedence (which will often follow general mathematical convention) or ignore precedence altogether and simply evaluate left to right or right to left. Anyway this is again sidetracking the thread.... :rolleyes:
 
dowie said:
No and that's a very simplistic assumption to make. It doesn't logically follow that because X language doesn't have operator precedence that the creators have ignored or are unaware or have differing opinions on mathematical notation. They will still have either had to define a precedence (which will often follow general mathematical convention) or ignore precedence altogether and simply evaluate left to right or right to left. Anyway this is again sidetracking the thread.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

dowie said:
Fair point - if we're talking about programming specifically then there is nothing preventing someone from implementing an operator in a particular way when constructing a language - I'd be interested if you could give an example of one though?
Click to expand...


You didn't have a problem with discussing how it's implemented in programming languages earlier in the thread. But now that it doesn't suit your argument you've suddenly decided that it's "side tracking" :rolleyes:
 
ghost101 said:
What? Even going left to right 6 divided by the integral of 2x^2 with respect to x.

Where's the ambiguity?

How could you possibly divide first?

Maybe if you put

6/2.[int]x^2.dx

you get the previous ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Where do the implied parentheses go? Around the entire integral or just what's inside the integral? Since 2 is a constant you can remove it from the integral and have:

2[int]x² dx

Like this:

6 ÷ (2[int]x²dx)

or:

6 ÷ 2[int](x² dx)

Each clearly yielding a different answer if we invoked the "left to right rule".

I would read it as:

6
-------
2[int]x² dx

So by dowie's "convention" in this case, where are the implied parentheses? I suspect this is why he was avoiding the question.

This is just another example of sloppy, ambiguous notation but one that cannot be explained by BODMAS, hence the reason for the integral. I wanted to take BODMAS out of the equation (fnarr fnarr).
 
gambitt said:
So by dowie's "convention" in this case, where are the implied parentheses? I suspect this is why he was avoiding the question.
Click to expand...

I'm avoiding the question because its a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the thread. You still seem to assume that you don't follow any conventions in mathematics when quite blatantly you do. You'll also note that I've not referred to BODMAS whereas you have :p
 
dowie said:
I'm avoiding the question because its a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the thread. You still seem to assume that you don't follow any conventions in mathematics when quite blatantly you do. You'll also note that I've not referred to BODMAS whereas you have :p
Click to expand...

This post sums you up perfectly.

dowie - the King of the Slopey Shoulders.
 
Any yet you're in complete denial over the used of convention in mathematics - perhaps you complete your degree by rote learning and didn't truly understand anything.
 
So, we've come to the point where we each accept the futility of trying to sway the other side? Would be nice if we could at least get that far tonight :p
 
FoxEye said:
So, we've come to the point where we each accept the futility of trying to sway the other side? Would be nice if we could at least get that far tonight :p
Click to expand...

Yes, I accepted earlier that the answer is 9 when this expression is tackled by primary school kids and lazy programmers who use sloppy notation (or don't have a full understanding of how equations should be presented). In this case it's because the creators of the programming language decided to default to give an answer rather than returning a compiler error.

dowie on the other hand appears to be stuck on "no you are wrong, the answer is always 9 because convention says so" (even though he ignores my posts about where convention actually comes from!) but in general his posts say a whole lot of nothing. He then decided to take the "you obviously didn't complete your degree properly" approach and started posting 'comical' youtube videos... and at the same time accuses me of side tracking the thread. Work that one out. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom