Poll: 6÷2(1+2)
- Thread starter Barks
- Start date
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.
Well the very idea that you've decided only primary school kids have any need for convention is the flaw in your argument tbh...
And yes following convention the answer is 9
the question is a silly one and at first sight deliberately confusing but it can still be tackled.
The idea that you can simply dismiss convention is however laughable.
The idea that you don't understand how these conventions are formed is a lot worse
They're arbitrary.
Without wanting to sound like a broken record an arbitrary rule is required for us to *know* that 2x² is 2(x²) and not (2x)² despite your incorrect attempt to show otherwise earlier.
Since you started the Ad Hominem proceedings, I shall stoop to your level and play along:
myself (BSc in Pure and Applied Maths) - expression is ambiguous
BetaNumeric (PhD in Maths I believe) - expression is ambiguous
Berkley Professor in above video (complete with grey beard and cardigan):
"There is not a standard convention although there may be conventions that some people in some circles have decided on"..."I would accept both solutions".
He concludes that expression is ambiguous.
Then we have dowie. GCSE (possibly?) in Maths - probably a low grade since he ignored the question about his qualifications when asked... twice.
I think we're done here.
You're side tracking
Last edited:
Very intelligent bloke obviously agrees with what some of us have been arguing about from page 1. Question is ambiguous, it is not expressed correctly etc etc.
Just an analogy for all the BODMAS "it must be 9 cos a teacher told us so". In the real world imagine you are a doctor giving life saving medication to patients. The dosage is determined by a number of factors expressed as function of things such as age, body mass etc. You know there is a save dose, but dispensing 9 times the recommended level will prove fatal. A pharmacist has provided an equation to determine dosage and funny enough it looks exactly like the original equation we have in this question.
Do you 1) blindly follow your convention to work out the dosage, knowing if you kill your patients you will be responsible.
or 2) Ask the pharmacist to clarify his sloppy notation to make it clear what is the numerator and denominator.
What do you do?
I believe betanumeric said it was confusing however he wasn't drawn into actually answering it.
I'll concede that it is indeed silly and confusing at first glance, but I'm not conceding that you can't actually apply convention and answer it.
You on the other hand are seemingly unaware that you even follow arbitrary rules as a matter of course within mathematics.
He's got a beard! You can't trust him.
Exactly. I haven't answered it either in case you haven't noticed.
Look at the guy you're disagreeing with - the guy probably wears sandals and beige socks. Maths has probably been his life for 40 years and you still have the audacity to claim he is wrong.
What are your qualifications in maths? Or am I side tracking again?
To be fair to him he was put on the spot, its a silly question and te last time he saw anything remotely like it he was likely about 7 years old.
What are your qualifications in maths? Or am I side tracking again?
You're side tracking again.
Since you started the Ad Hominem proceedings, I shall stoop to your level and play along:
myself (BSc in Pure and Applied Maths) - expression is ambiguous
BetaNumeric (PhD in Maths I believe) - expression is ambiguous
Berkley Professor in above video (complete with grey beard and cardigan):
"There is not a standard convention although there may be conventions that some people in some circles have decided on"..."I would accept both solutions".
He concludes that expression is ambiguous.
Then we have dowie. GCSE (possibly?) in Maths - probably a low grade since he ignored the question about his qualifications when asked... twice.
I think we're done here.
You're side tracking
I'll wade back in after a seemingly infinite number of posts. It has been long noted in this thread that people who use maths to a great level will interpret the equation as the numerator as 6 and the denominator as 2(1+2). Equally you would not have a question poorly phrased in any practical aspect especially if you were to replace the numbers with variables as it is too open to interpretation. Indeed myself (bsc physics) and some of my PhD stats and physics friends also believe the question is inherently ambiguous and too open for interpretation due to it not clearly defining what the denominator is.
That is all.
Are you seriously telling me that he only gave that answer because he was put on the spot and that he would come to a different conclusion if he has time to think about it?
I repeat for emphasis:
Mathematics Professor from Berkley:
"There is not a standard convention although there may be conventions that some people in some circles have decided on"..."I would accept both solutions".
dowie - grade D in GCSE maths (assumption since he refuses to answer):
"9 is the only possible answer, everyone else is wrong".
we learned bidmas in school
Men with beards, they are always right.
Same thing, O stands for pOwers, I for Indices. Power and indices mean the same thing.
Being pedantic, O stands for Orders.
No, quite clearly he also has a beard and that changes things.
But it is hardly the sort of problem he's likely to care about or will have ever considered.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 140
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Degree and, as of today (literally!) thanks to Cambridge changing their name for their 4th year, Masters in mathematics and a PhD in string theory. I'm, by job title, a 'mathematics researcher' too.