48÷2(9+3) = ????

[wdfifteen]

This has become an epic pissing contest and I'm wondering how it stacks up against some of the other epics of the interwebs. We might be contenders for some kind of interwebs recognition (a urinary volume award?).

[island911]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Quote:
Originally Posted by island911t
"Yet the Global Warming / Climate Change Hoaxers push on..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARISC
...as island sits squirming in his chair with his hewland puckered, trying desperately to prove that 48÷2(9+3) = 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by island911
I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

...

You idiot, how freaking sarcastic do I have to be if " . .is there some thread on this?" wasn't obviously sarcastic enough?

I mean really, this thread was Pretty effn obvious (epic?) when I posted that(in another thread) to even the occasional PPOT'er --let alone an OT junky like you or me. ...and you call me thick? sheesh!

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by island911

You idiot...puff puff, whine whine, me thick? sheesh!

Can't cop out Chaff.
You're either confused,
or you're a liar.
Which is it Chaff?
Both?
One point is moot;
Bill Verburg proved you a fool.

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

...
if Art wishes to think of
-3²
as -1(3)² that is perfectly acceptable and gives the correct result

yah Bill, just for clarity's sake. I know how you got there, you just skipped some steps for pure iteration...

[artplumber]

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

see, we already have one wrong answer

the unary minus is not included in the exponential operation

the correct answer is -9

for the minus to be included in the exponential operation it must be in a parenthesis
(-3)²
-3 x -3
9

-3²
-3 x 3
-9

and no you can not arbitrarily add a parenthesis nor is it implied or implicit

no wonder this country is falling behind the rest of the world

hey, that's nuthin

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by artplumber

Horse
Bears
Repeating.
Yep.
Now watch it rise
From the dead...
Again

Re your "nil carborundum illegitimi"; when I was in the service I bought a cheap nickel plated ID bracelet and had it engraved, "illegitum non carborundum".

I know even less about Latin than I do about math. Are they both correct or is one wrong? Is it a matter of 'interpretation' maybe?

Wanna start a poll and argue about it for a dozen pages?

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Horse
Bears
Repeating.
Yep.
Now watch it rise
From the dead...
Again

I guess that Karrass seminar isn't really achieving my goal....

Originally Posted by DARISC

Re your "nil carborundum illegitimi"; when I was in the service I bought a cheap nickel plated ID bracelet and had it engraved, "illegitum non carborundum".

I know even less about Latin than I do about math. Are they both correct or is one wrong? Is it a matter of 'interpretation' maybe?

Wanna start a poll and argue about it for a dozen pages?

I think there are a number of ways of saying it, including different tenses; that is why latin is more difficult (grammatically) than say Engrish. But it's all pig latin anyway.

[72doug2,2S]

Seven things I've learned from this thread.

1) I was right in choosing 288, despite being initially confused by the equation.

2) Island is correct when he states this is debated on other forums and the formula is regarded as ambiguous.
48÷2(9+3)

3) Darisc is a Nazi clown, or a Nazi who wears clown shoes (his words).

4) Darisc is a failure. Although he gets the math and correct answer, he fails to prove that the formula is unambiguous, despite his endless groaning to the contrary.

5) Darisc believes ambiguous formulas do not equate to riddles, he also fails.

6) Bill has a grasp of maths.

7) This thread should die.

[scoe911]

This equation is not unlike a math version of the Rorschach test. Like the test it has provided us with info about individual perceptions,cognition and personalities. I guess some just see the ink dots differently regardless of the rules.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by scoe911

This equation is not unlike a math version of the Rorschach test. Like the test it has provided us with info about individual perceptions,cognition and personalities. I guess some just see the ink dots differently regardless of the rules.

Not quite.

A, B, and C are alpha characters and should be easy to communicate, however as was pointed out in the thread I linked to page 2, when it really counts they become Alpha, Charlie, Bravo.

When communicating, and for when it really counts, use enough brackets to ensure the correct answer is found.

Just stating something is not ambiguous, does not make it so.

[Tervuren]

Last night, as I lay upon my bed, I had a revelation!!!!

48÷2(9+3) = ????

Notice, four question marks?

Its a four digit answer!!!

It cannot be 2, or 288.

Had it been:

48÷2(9+3) = ???

The answer would be 288

If, instead it had been:

48÷2(9+3) = ?

The answer would be 2!

What is the four digit answer? Well...maybe I need a vision from Tom Cruise or Opra Winfrey before I can figure that out...

[scoe911]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Just stating something is not ambiguous, does not make it so.

But ambiguity is all about perception...its not ambiguous to me(knowing the rules). Hey, if Bill did not convince you I give up.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by scoe911

But ambiguity is all about perception...its not ambiguous to me.

"Ambiguity is a term used in writing and math, and under conditions where information can be understood or interpreted in more than one way and is distinct from vagueness, which is a statement about the lack of precision contained or available in the information. Context may play a role in resolving ambiguity. For example the same piece of information may be ambiguous in one context and unambiguous in another."

What you say is true, and the definition of ambiguity does not require it to be ambiguous to everyone. It may be still ambiguous, but for some it may be very clear.

I find it less interesting than you as an insightful personality case study. To me, this is more interesting as a communications study. When I am trying to communicate a maths expression, and it counts, it is no different to add the additional brackets as it is to say Alpha, Bravo, Charlie instead of A, B ,C. Both expressions communicate, but one does so with less chance of communication breakdown.

And if Bill used better grammar, he may have "communicated" his thoughts clearer in his responses. Just a thought.

[scoe911]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

"I find it less interesting than you as an insightful personality case study. To me, this is more interesting as a communications study.

I disagree. I found that (when shown the rules) most were quick to acquiesce but for some this process took longer. That has nothing to do with math IMO.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by scoe911

I disagree. I found that (when shown the rules) most were quick to acquiesce but for some this process took longer. That has nothing to do with math IMO.

You nailed the hammer on its head.

Except, some refuse to acquiesce.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by scoe911

I disagree. I found that (when shown the rules) most were quick to acquiesce but for some this process took longer. That has nothing to do with math IMO.

Who knows there may be a health issue for folks afflicted by premature acquiescence???

From my previous post, there is a physics forum that is split 50% 50%. I can not imagine, on the face of it, that half of the physics community is poor in maths. Therefore, I do not concede this formulas unambiguity.

48÷2(9+3)

[scoe911]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Except, some refuse to acquiesce.

As the coke influenced philosopher suggests its just egos at this point.

[BeyGon]

This was never about math, it was always about Darisc.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by scoe911

As the coke influenced philosopher suggests its just egos at this point.

If 2 * 2 = 4

And 2 + 2 = 4

Then * = +

Conclusion:

Mathematical notation is ambiguous.