• 1 Post
  • 103 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 1st, 2023
  • UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works
    to196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Glitch in the matrix
    1·
    3 months ago

    Alright there buddy, I’d like to close this.

    It’s clear that your a troll. However, on the offchance that you didn’t know, I’ll tell you where you went wrong on the first one.

    • 2(4)^2=(2x4)^2=8^2=64

    You can’t distribute into a bracket, that’s raised to the power of anything other than 1, like this. To do this you need to raise distributed number to the bracket’s power’s inverse. in this case 1/2.

    • 2(4)^2=(2^(1/2)*4)^2=(sqrt(2)*4)^2=2*4^2=2*16=32
    • or y’know 2*16=32

    Maybe if we look at it with roots you’d get it. wolfram syntax

    • 2(4)^2=2Surd[4,1/2]
    • 2Surd[4,1/2]= Surd[4*2^(1/2),1/2]= (4*sqrt(2))^2= 4^2*2= 16*2= 32

    I hope you don’t get scared from this math, you’re a teacher afterall. I have no Idea how you could have gotten a degree or not kicked from school on day 1. Unless… you are trolling me, fuck you for that. If you respond with more bullshiting, I’ll block you.

  • UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works
    to196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Glitch in the matrix
    1·
    3 months ago

    Idk where you teach, but I’m thankful you didn’t teach me.

    Let me quizz you, how do you solve 2(2+2)^2? because acording to your linked picture, because brackets are leftmost you do them first. If I were to believe you:

    • (2*2+2*2)^2
    • (4+4)^2, = 64

    but it’s just simply incorrect.

    • 2(4)^2, wow we’re at a 2x^2
    • 2*16 = 32

    The thing that pisses me off most, is the fact that, yes. Terms exists, yes they have all sorts of properties. But they are not rules, they are properties. And they only apply when we have unknows and we’re at the most simplified form. For example your last link, the dude told us that those terms get prio because they are terms!? There are no mention of term prio in the book. It just simply said that when we have a simplified expression like: 2x^2+3x+5 we call 2x^2 and 3x and 5 terms. And yes they get priority, not because we named them those, but because they are multiplications. These help us at functions the most. Where we can assume that the highest power takes the sign at infinity. Maybe if the numbers look right, we can guess where it’d switch sign.

    I don’t even want to waste energy proofreading this, or telling you the obvious that when we have a div. and a mult. and no x’s there really is no point in using terms, as we just get a single number.

    But again, I totally understand why someone would use this, it’s easier. But it’s not the rule still. That’s why at some places this is the default. I forgot the name/keywords but if you read a calculator’s manual there must be a chapter or something regarding this exact issue.

    So yeah, use it. It’s good. Especially if you teach physics. But please don’t go around making up rules.

    As for your sources, you still linked a blog post.

  • UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works
    to196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Glitch in the matrix
    1·
    3 months ago

    Fuck it, I’m gonna waste time on a troll on the internet who’s necroposting in te hopes that they actually wanna argue the learning way.

    This example is specifically made to cause confusion.

    No, it isn’t. It simply tests who has remembered all the rules of Maths and who hasn’t.

    I said this because of the confusion around the division sign. Almost everyone at some point got it confused, or is just hell bent that one is corrent the other is not. In reality, it is such a common “mistake” that ppl started using it. I’m talking about the classic 4/2x. If x = 2, it is:

    1. 4/2*2 = 2*2 = 4
    2. 4/(2*2) = 4/4 = 1

    Wolfram solved this with going with the second if it is an X or another variable as it’s more intuitive.

    Division has the same priority as multiplication

    And there’s no multiplication here - only brackets and division (and addition within the brackets).

    Are you sure ur not a troll? how do you calculate 2(1+1)? It’s 4. It’s called implicit multiplication and we do it all the time. It’s the same logic that if a number doesn’t have a sign it’s positive. We could write this up as +2*(+1+(+1)), but it’s harder to read, so we don’t.

    A fraction could be writen up as (x)/(y) not x/y

    Neither of those. A fraction could only be written inline as (x/y) - both of the things you wrote are 2 terms, not one. i.e. brackets needed to make them 1 term.

    I don’t even fully understand you here. If we have a faction; at the top we have 1+2 and at the bottom we have 6-3. inline we could write this as (1+2)/(6-3). The result is 1 as if we simplify it’s 3/3.

    You can’t say it’s ((1+2)/(6-3)). It’s the same thing. You will do the orders differently, but I can’t think of a situation where it’s incorrect, you are just making things harder on yourself.

    The fact that some people argue that you do () first and then do what’s outside it means that

    …they know all the relevant rules of Maths

    You fell into the 2nd trap too. If there is a letter or number or anything next to a bracket, it’s multiplication. We just don’t write it out, as why would we, to make it less readable? 2x is the same as 2*x and that’s the same as 2(x).

    look up the facts for yourself

    You can find them here

    I can’t even, you linked social media. The #1 most trust worthy website. Also I can’t even read this shit. This guy talks in hashtags. I won’t waste energy filtering out all the bullshit to know if they are right or wrong. Don’t trust social media. Grab a calculator, look at wolfram docs, ask a professor or teacher. Don’t even trust me!

    your comment is just as incorrect as everyone who said the answer is 1

    and 1 is 100% correct.

    I chose a side. But that side it the more RAW solution imo. let’s walk it thru:

    • 8/2(2+2), let’s remove the confusion
    • 8/2*(2+2), brackets
    • 8/2*(4), mult & div, left -> right
    • 4*(4), let go
    • 4*4, the only
    • 16, answer

    BUT, and as I stated above IF it’d be like: 8/2x with x=2+2 then, we kinda decided to put implicit brackets there so it’s more like 8/(2x), but it’s just harder to read, so we don’t.

    And here is the controversy, we are playing the same game. Because there wasn’t a an explicit multilication, you could argue that it should be handled like the scenario with the x. I disagree, you agree. But even this argument of “like the scenario with the x” is based of what Wolfram decided, there are no rules of this, you do what is more logical in this scenario. It can be a flaw in math, but it never comes up, as you use fractions instead of inline division. And when you are converting to inline, you don’t spear the brackets.

    well they don’t agree on 0^0

    Yes they do - it’s 1 (it’s the 5th index law). You might be thinking of 0/0, which depends on the context (you need to look at limits).

    You said it yourself, if we lim (x->0) y/x then there is an answer. But we aren’t in limits. x/0 in undefined at all circumstances (I should add that idk abstract algebra & non-linear geometry, idk what happens there. So I might be incorrect here).

    And by all means, correct me if I’m wrong. But link something that isn’t an unreadable 3 parted mostodon post like it’s some dumb twitter argument. This is some dumb other platform argument. Or don’t link anything at all, just show me thru, and we know math rules (now a bit better) so it shouldn’t be a problem… as long as we are civilised.

    side note: if I did some typos… it’s 2am, sry.