I can't even
Hejibits #1 71
I cam BELIEVE IT!
as ‘raw ME I MAE
r moaarr.
2014 JOHN CLEC KN ER . atom
I cam BELIEVE IT!
as ‘raw ME I MAE
r moaarr.
2014 JOHN CLEC KN ER . atom
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
78 comments displayed.
#7 to #3
-
mcnizzlezz (10/12/2014) [-]
Mean is the same as average, median and mode are two separate things.
#36 to #7
-
pokemonstheshiz (10/12/2014) [-] Median and mode are types of averages. Average has two close definitions
"Arithmetic mean."
and
"A quantity intermediate to a set of quantities."
The latter of which is commonly referred to as measures of central tendency, i.e. mean, median, and mode.
"Arithmetic mean."
and
"A quantity intermediate to a set of quantities."
The latter of which is commonly referred to as measures of central tendency, i.e. mean, median, and mode.
#9
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] But wouldn't the answer be 8 because of order of operations, not 5?
#13 to #11
-
chuckbillrow (10/12/2014) [-] look how its written the whole term is clearly in the numerator so the parenthesis are implied
#18 to #17
-
chuckbillrow (10/12/2014) [-] *sigh* you are either a troll an idiot or a child and i am not going to continue to try to correct you
#20 to #18
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] See, now you're being an asshole. If you plug that **** into a calculator, it's going to ******* give you 8. Math isn't open to interpretation. Either it's in parenthesis or it's not. You can't imply **** to a calculator - and a human is to do math as a calculator would, or you're gonna get the question wrong. Cunt.
#22 to #20
-
chuckbillrow (10/12/2014) [-] okay child go get your mommy or daddy and show them the picture and they can explain to you how having the equation written out like that is the same as having parenthesis around the 6+4
then show them your last comment and they can explain how calculators are computers and they need things written out expressly because computers lack the ability to think but math has existed for much longer than computers and is done by people who are capable of recognizing that putting a term in the numerator is equivalent to putting parenthesis around the term
and then show them my comment and they will agree that i am being an asshole but you are still wrong
then show them your last comment and they can explain how calculators are computers and they need things written out expressly because computers lack the ability to think but math has existed for much longer than computers and is done by people who are capable of recognizing that putting a term in the numerator is equivalent to putting parenthesis around the term
and then show them my comment and they will agree that i am being an asshole but you are still wrong
#43 to #22
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] You know, **** it, let's start implying parenthesis. Why don't we replace the multiplication sign with a cute little heart? Maybe we can just all agree that every equation equals 69, because who gives a **** about the singular order of mathematics when we can just make it an art of interpretation? Math doesn't need to a concrete language of numbers.
#37 to #20
-
pokemonstheshiz (10/12/2014) [-] Implied parenthesis are improper, yes, but in this case it's pretty clear due to the division line's placement.
#45 to #44
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] That is never a thing. Replace the numbers. Doing that, or pretending there's parenthesis, you still get 5, but if you do it with any other numbers, they're two different answers.
#46 to #45
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] That... is always a thing. It's literally never worked another way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_function
Have a look at those, this is an extremely useful function that only works if you divide the result on the top by the result on the bottom. Particularly, the taylor series.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_function
Have a look at those, this is an extremely useful function that only works if you divide the result on the top by the result on the bottom. Particularly, the taylor series.
#47 to #46
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] I can't read that. The math in that is far more complex than the math we're discussing, which I do understand.
#48 to #47
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] You clearly don't, if you think that a long division line doesn't mean divide everything above it by everything below it.
Think of the square root symbol - On a computer, you have to write
√(37+12) = 7
In real life, you just draw the top line to cover everything you want it to. There are examples of this in that link I sent as well.
Think of the square root symbol - On a computer, you have to write
√(37+12) = 7
In real life, you just draw the top line to cover everything you want it to. There are examples of this in that link I sent as well.
#50 to #48
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] I'm not saying I'm some great magic math wizard, but I have taken many classes on algebra, and not once was that a thing.
#55 to #52
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] I know ******* algebra. Foil and **** . But the thing you're trying to say is a thing, I have never been introduced to it. I am furthermore fairly confident that In a situation with a long division symbol like that, you don't divide **** separately. My school's math program to do homework had a way you had to have a long division symbol for dividing equations by eachother, but if nothing is in parenthesis, then you're just going to follow the order of operations and divide first.
#57 to #55
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] You might know some of algebra, you don't know all of it. You're being introduced to it now. The equation in the content, whether described as 6/2 + 4/2 or (6+4)/2, will work out to the same thing.
Look at the first section of this equation. You do everything on top, then everything on bottom, then divide the top by the bottom. It doesn't work otherwise. This is common and correct practice in math.
Look at the first section of this equation. You do everything on top, then everything on bottom, then divide the top by the bottom. It doesn't work otherwise. This is common and correct practice in math.
#59 to #57
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Well **** , that does work. I did the math of that last night with different numbers, and it didn't work.
#60 to #59
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] Have a thing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_fraction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_fraction
#40 to #11
-
anon (10/12/2014) [-]
If you're trolling props to you for making me reply. In computer writing you cannot emphasise that it's 6+4 devided by two without using paranthesis so when you try to write that equation it must look like this (6+4)/2 so you know that it's the sum divided by 2 (in the image you can take that from the fact that the division line stretches under both the numbers. What you're saying 6 + 4/2 is correct only if the division line in the picture would stretch under just 4 (meaning 4 is divided by 2 and then result added to 6) which would indeed give you 8. But that's not the case so it's 5.
#42 to #40
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] You can't stretch the division line on a calculator.
#53 to #49
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] The thing you're saying is totally different, not some implied parenthesis ********
#51 to #49
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Oh don't you even start, you don't agree with that guy either. If they meant to use parenthesis, they'd have used parenthesis. There's no point in mathematics where you just wing it and hope your math is understood. You don't use a plus sign to mean multiplication hoping it's obvious from context what you were trying to do. Math is win or lose, right or wrong, there's no interpretation.
#54 to #51
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] This isn't interpretation, you're just wrong. The numerator of a fraction can be an equation that requires solving. If it's easier for you to think of it as implied brackets, then by all means think of it like that.
...Hold up, do you know what a numerator is?
...Hold up, do you know what a numerator is?
#56 to #54
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] See, now you're being a cunt.
You just tried to correct me on a thing where the guy was wrong. According to your theory, that guy is also wrong. Is my reasoning for why he's wrong incorrect? No. And again, that would only work if it was in parenthesis
You just tried to correct me on a thing where the guy was wrong. According to your theory, that guy is also wrong. Is my reasoning for why he's wrong incorrect? No. And again, that would only work if it was in parenthesis
#61 to #58
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Again, there's no need to be a cunt. Asking me if I know what a numerator is is ******* condescending - and only one type of person is condescending in a reasonable conversation: a cunt.
#64 to #63
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] You asked in the same message you first used the term.
#67 to #64
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] Yes, because if you had been out of school for thirty years and didn't know what the term meant that message would have meant nothing to you. If you hadn't known what numerator meant, I would have stated it's the top part of a fraction.
If we were talking about programming and I said "So I used an increment operator", would you know what I was talking about? Would you be offended if I double checked that you did, when I have no idea what your experience with programming is?
If we were talking about programming and I said "So I used an increment operator", would you know what I was talking about? Would you be offended if I double checked that you did, when I have no idea what your experience with programming is?
#69 to #67
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Numerator is simple **** , it's just the top of a fraction. You should assume that someone who would willingly get into an argument about math would at least know what a numerator is.
#71 to #70
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] A simple concept that's only ever used in complex math.
#73 to #72
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] You have to admit that you only need to use the long division symbol in a complicated situation where parenthesis would be too confusing. If it's simple math, just use parenthesis. Otherwise you're just making things more complicated.
#75 to #74
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] It's not much easier, but it's just the normal way to write that out. Maybe programmers do **** differently?
#14 to #11
-
rickastleylynched (10/12/2014) [-] I was always taught that P included both parethesis and division lines in fractions
#16 to #14
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] I guess that makes sense, but that for it to matter would be a weird place to put a fraction instead of a decimal
#21 to #19
-
demandsgayversion (10/12/2014) [-] Why are you dividing the 6? In neither version that's being discussed is that a thing to do.
#76 to #9
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/13/2014) [-] We ran out of space, so I'll reply here.
It's not a programmer thing, and it's not the default way - It might have been the first way you were taught to do it, but there's not really a default way. Math is a language with it's own rules and **** , saying there's a default way to do a particular equation is like saying there's a default way to express something. In some equations, such as my complex math I've been using, it makes way more sense write it out that way, but before that point it's essentially personal preference.
It's not a programmer thing, and it's not the default way - It might have been the first way you were taught to do it, but there's not really a default way. Math is a language with it's own rules and **** , saying there's a default way to do a particular equation is like saying there's a default way to express something. In some equations, such as my complex math I've been using, it makes way more sense write it out that way, but before that point it's essentially personal preference.
#77 to #76
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] It would be personal preference if anyone did it like that, but the fact that I was so confused about the concept just because I had never seen it done with simple math, and therefore thought it was ******** , demonstrates that it's not a typical technique used for simple **** . Technically it would work, but technically so would a lot of **** I don't understand - because nobody does it. There's probably an example of something in a non-math genre that technically works under a strange set of circumstances, but that never happens for some reason, and people keep doing it the normal way. But I can't/don't want to think of that example. There's enough things that you can just assume there's another thing like that. The point really proves itself when it's up to you to do it.
#79 to #78
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Or applying obscure algebraic concepts to rudimentary arithmetic comes more naturally to some people than others.
#81 to #80
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] Refer back to the example I told you think of for me. Then apply it here in a way that refutes what you're saying because of how things do different at levels. You know in your heart that it is true.
#84 to #82
-
demandsgayversion (10/13/2014) [-] #77. Find an example of something that is usually used on a higher level of a thing, and never on a lower level, but would technically work, but nobody ever does it. Then compare that to the thing we're talking about to make a point about obscurity being relative to usage or something.
#85 to #84
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (10/14/2014) [-] "Never on a lower level"
Everyone in this thread except you used it for the entirety of their childhoods in all of the simple math. I do not know of any primary schools that even teach PEMDAS (Or as it is here in Australia, BIMDAS)
You keep acting as if having an expression for the numerator is an uncommon, obscure thing, and nothing could be further from the truth. It is the common practice, and putting brackets around things is the uncommon one.
Everyone in this thread except you used it for the entirety of their childhoods in all of the simple math. I do not know of any primary schools that even teach PEMDAS (Or as it is here in Australia, BIMDAS)
You keep acting as if having an expression for the numerator is an uncommon, obscure thing, and nothing could be further from the truth. It is the common practice, and putting brackets around things is the uncommon one.
#86 to #85
-
demandsgayversion (10/14/2014) [-] "Never on a lower level" - grossly generalizing, incorrect
"Everyone in this thread...used it for the entirety of their childhoods in all of the simple math" - not putting words in people's fingers or generalizing things that nobody ever typed ever
"Everyone in this thread...used it for the entirety of their childhoods in all of the simple math" - not putting words in people's fingers or generalizing things that nobody ever typed ever
