Quote:
Originally Posted by winders
Like I have been saying all along, the equation is ambiguous.
|
Even if I were a time traveler I would say:
No it's not, or:
No, it's not, or:
No it isn't, or:
No, it isn't, or:
No it is not, or:
No, it is not and, besides not being ambiguous and/or open to interpretation, math is not English, nor is math notation based on/subject to the rules of English.
Yes, 2(9+3), by virtue of the fact that the 2 is juxtaposed to the parenth, says, "Multiply the sum of 9 and 3 by the number 2": 2(9+3)=24.
No, 2x(9+3) is not "multiplication indicated by juxtaposition", it is multiplication dictated by by the letter 'x', i.e., there is no need to consider "indication by juxtaposition": 2x(9+3)=24
However, the equation*2x(9+3) contains 'x', which is superfluous/not needed; without 'x', multiplication is indicated by juxtaposition.
Neither equation is ambiguous. The second has an 'x' inserted into it it that an eighth grade algebra teacher would fault a student for inserting.
The answer to the above, same equation, written two different ways, is 24.
Math is a universal language. A mathematician may not be able to speak a word of English but will still be able to solve 48/2(9+3)=???? and the correct answer will always be: ????=288.
Do you understand now?