x
Click to expand

fpsnoob

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:8/06/2010
Last Login:4/21/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12704
Highest Content Rank:#959
Highest Comment Rank:#3238
Content Thumbs: 6179 total,  6754 ,  575
Comment Thumbs: 6299 total,  7097 ,  798
Content Level Progress: 41% (41/100)
Level 156 Content: Faptastic → Level 157 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 260 Comments: Pure Win → Level 261 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:15
Content Views:175397
Times Content Favorited:812 times
Total Comments Made:1910
FJ Points:12090
Favorite Tags: lolcat (3) | compilation (2) | Pokemon (2)

latest user's comments

#150 - You know, it's very hard to be a single mother, especially whe… 08/15/2013 on Um. +1
#76 - The site wouldn't get taken down by posting porn in SFW. Only … 08/14/2013 on Ignorance is bliss +2
#38 - I use them all the time in an engine shop, not hard at all. 08/10/2013 on (untitled) 0
#300 - Comment deleted 08/10/2013 on handy 0
#234 - I remember playing zombie mod on CSS years ago. Was so much fu… 08/10/2013 on Video Game Facts #18 0
#370 - One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of n… 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#368 - Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it w…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#365 - That's just it though. Original rules of math were made as peo…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#366 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math advances because we need more advanced maths for the calculations were doing in nature.
User avatar #368 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it was created by the nature. Take a jet plane for example. Yes, it works in nature, and follows the natural laws of physics, but are there any jet engines or anything like them in nature?
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#367 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
And therefore the current math we use which is based on basic axioms which can't be proven true or just haven't been up to now and nature.
User avatar #370 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of numbers. In regular languages we use letters, which we put together into words, which then go together into sentences used to describe things. Math uses numbers instead of letters, operations instead of words, equations instead of sentences. Yes it is used to calculate things in nature, but it is in no way restricted to the nature, and didn't come for it. That's like saying that nature created languages.
#349 - You also give an example in the end of your original reply sho… 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#347 - Because we created math in order to explain nature. That's why…  [+] (8 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#362 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We still can't arbitrarily choose the rules. They are defined by the maths which we go through in order for it to fit.
User avatar #365 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
That's just it though. Original rules of math were made as people saw fit. Initially we only had a tiny fraction of mathematical calculations that we currently used. Hell in prehistoric math numbers went 1, 2, many. Mathematics as we know them now were not necessary back then as people lived in much simpler ways. As we developed and progressed we started developing more advanced calculations necessary for our lifestyles.

It's really fascinating to learn about things like this if you're interested in human development through history. If you want the wiki page shows quite a lot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
#366 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math advances because we need more advanced maths for the calculations were doing in nature.
User avatar #368 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it was created by the nature. Take a jet plane for example. Yes, it works in nature, and follows the natural laws of physics, but are there any jet engines or anything like them in nature?
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#367 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
And therefore the current math we use which is based on basic axioms which can't be proven true or just haven't been up to now and nature.
User avatar #370 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of numbers. In regular languages we use letters, which we put together into words, which then go together into sentences used to describe things. Math uses numbers instead of letters, operations instead of words, equations instead of sentences. Yes it is used to calculate things in nature, but it is in no way restricted to the nature, and didn't come for it. That's like saying that nature created languages.
#343 - I do apologize for that one. When I read that sentence I didn'…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/10/2013 on Math +1
User avatar #348 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Your apology is accepted. Granted, when reading something fast or skimming it (as everyone does on funnyjunk when presented with large amounts of writing) that sentence could get easily misread like that, especially if whoever reads it isn't a native English speaker.

Perhaps I should have written it instead as: "If it had been written properly all these mother fucking idiots would realize just how unapproachably stupid they are when they say the answer is one." XD
#339 - We created it, and we laid out the rules based on how we made …  [+] (10 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#342 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We defined the basic pillars on which math expands the so called "axioms" which we try to get rid of all together or reduce them to a minimum. If math couldn't be watched in nature why do you think we started using it. Math exists where our answers correlate to chemistry, physics and biology.
User avatar #347 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Because we created math in order to explain nature. That's why in chemistry and physics you often have constants you have to memorize for your equations. These constants often seem like a bunch of numbers bunched together, but using them is the only way we can make our math work for the science we're using it in.
#362 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We still can't arbitrarily choose the rules. They are defined by the maths which we go through in order for it to fit.
User avatar #365 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
That's just it though. Original rules of math were made as people saw fit. Initially we only had a tiny fraction of mathematical calculations that we currently used. Hell in prehistoric math numbers went 1, 2, many. Mathematics as we know them now were not necessary back then as people lived in much simpler ways. As we developed and progressed we started developing more advanced calculations necessary for our lifestyles.

It's really fascinating to learn about things like this if you're interested in human development through history. If you want the wiki page shows quite a lot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
#366 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math advances because we need more advanced maths for the calculations were doing in nature.
User avatar #368 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it was created by the nature. Take a jet plane for example. Yes, it works in nature, and follows the natural laws of physics, but are there any jet engines or anything like them in nature?
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#367 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
And therefore the current math we use which is based on basic axioms which can't be proven true or just haven't been up to now and nature.
User avatar #370 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of numbers. In regular languages we use letters, which we put together into words, which then go together into sentences used to describe things. Math uses numbers instead of letters, operations instead of words, equations instead of sentences. Yes it is used to calculate things in nature, but it is in no way restricted to the nature, and didn't come for it. That's like saying that nature created languages.
#338 - If you want to use proper grammar as an example for dumbing do…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
User avatar #341 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
I did mention the word "technically" which means in a base, simple form, there is one answer. But if looked into a deeper level. it might be able to be something else as well...
and it is not trying to "dumb it down", but trying to make it easier so we can get through the problem quicker. A tool which is easy in our fast pace world.

And if you pardon me, I must be heading towards my campus because some of us actually care about education over arguing over silly manners and ignoring proof.
User avatar #349 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
You also give an example in the end of your original reply showing that "technicality" and giving people a wrong answer. Nowhere in there did you say that the first "more parenthesis" example you showed was the correct way to solve it.

Also it's over 8 PM in my timezone, on a Saturday, so you can take your high and mighty attitude to your campus, but I have a full time job allowing me to spend my weekend evenings doing whatever I want.
#332 - Wait, you're a Physics major, and you think that 6 / 2(1+2) = …  [+] (3 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math -1
User avatar #334 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? I said everyone would see the PROBLEM with arriving at 1.

The answer is fucking nine. Illiteracy is a crime just as unjustifiable in English as it is in math.
#343 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
I do apologize for that one. When I read that sentence I didn't comprehend your word "problem" as "error". Instead for some reason I thought you said "problem" as in "mathematical problem".
User avatar #348 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Your apology is accepted. Granted, when reading something fast or skimming it (as everyone does on funnyjunk when presented with large amounts of writing) that sentence could get easily misread like that, especially if whoever reads it isn't a native English speaker.

Perhaps I should have written it instead as: "If it had been written properly all these mother fucking idiots would realize just how unapproachably stupid they are when they say the answer is one." XD
#329 - The only reason for it to be "misleading" is because…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
User avatar #333 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh. and if you haven't noticed. I have stated that I do think that the answer is 9. But the thing I am arguing is the same thing as arguing for why to have proper grammar in languages. Because it makes it easier for everyone to understand. Education or not.

So please. Stop your bitching.
User avatar #338 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
If you want to use proper grammar as an example for dumbing down this question for people, then you might as well ask all textbooks and literature to be written at a first grade level because people might not understand it otherwise.

I like how you claim "that I do think that the answer is 9", yet your original comment stated "It technically could be both depending on how you do PEMDAS". That definitely doesn't state that there's only one answer, that states that it could be both.
User avatar #341 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
I did mention the word "technically" which means in a base, simple form, there is one answer. But if looked into a deeper level. it might be able to be something else as well...
and it is not trying to "dumb it down", but trying to make it easier so we can get through the problem quicker. A tool which is easy in our fast pace world.

And if you pardon me, I must be heading towards my campus because some of us actually care about education over arguing over silly manners and ignoring proof.
User avatar #349 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
You also give an example in the end of your original reply showing that "technicality" and giving people a wrong answer. Nowhere in there did you say that the first "more parenthesis" example you showed was the correct way to solve it.

Also it's over 8 PM in my timezone, on a Saturday, so you can take your high and mighty attitude to your campus, but I have a full time job allowing me to spend my weekend evenings doing whatever I want.
#318 - Did you actually watch the video you linked yourself? "Th…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
User avatar #320 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
Well... the problem I am pointing out is the fact that it can be misleading if it is written an awkward way (as he pointed out in the video). So can I ask you a question. Did you watch the video? If you did, why are you arguing over a point I already explained why I am right. even by using your own source.
User avatar #329 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
The only reason for it to be "misleading" is because people don't know how to do math. It's not the question that's misleading, it's your education that is.
User avatar #333 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh. and if you haven't noticed. I have stated that I do think that the answer is 9. But the thing I am arguing is the same thing as arguing for why to have proper grammar in languages. Because it makes it easier for everyone to understand. Education or not.

So please. Stop your bitching.
User avatar #338 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
If you want to use proper grammar as an example for dumbing down this question for people, then you might as well ask all textbooks and literature to be written at a first grade level because people might not understand it otherwise.

I like how you claim "that I do think that the answer is 9", yet your original comment stated "It technically could be both depending on how you do PEMDAS". That definitely doesn't state that there's only one answer, that states that it could be both.
User avatar #341 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
I did mention the word "technically" which means in a base, simple form, there is one answer. But if looked into a deeper level. it might be able to be something else as well...
and it is not trying to "dumb it down", but trying to make it easier so we can get through the problem quicker. A tool which is easy in our fast pace world.

And if you pardon me, I must be heading towards my campus because some of us actually care about education over arguing over silly manners and ignoring proof.
User avatar #349 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
You also give an example in the end of your original reply showing that "technicality" and giving people a wrong answer. Nowhere in there did you say that the first "more parenthesis" example you showed was the correct way to solve it.

Also it's over 8 PM in my timezone, on a Saturday, so you can take your high and mighty attitude to your campus, but I have a full time job allowing me to spend my weekend evenings doing whatever I want.
#309 - It's not the equation that is badly written, it's the people t…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math +1
User avatar #316 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Yea, but it uses elementary school notation. Pemdas still works for that because children are taught to do math from left to right, which in that format will always prevent you from multiplying something that needs to be divided by, but doing something because it is rote is bad science as well as bad math. It's better to understand what your doing rather than just knowing the motions. That even applies to dividing.

If the equation had been written properly everyone would immediately see the problem with arriving at the answer of 1.
User avatar #332 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Wait, you're a Physics major, and you think that 6 / 2(1+2) = 1?

Excuse me while I go lose the rest of my faith in humanity.
User avatar #334 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? I said everyone would see the PROBLEM with arriving at 1.

The answer is fucking nine. Illiteracy is a crime just as unjustifiable in English as it is in math.
#343 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
I do apologize for that one. When I read that sentence I didn't comprehend your word "problem" as "error". Instead for some reason I thought you said "problem" as in "mathematical problem".
User avatar #348 - PgFalcon (08/10/2013) [-]
Your apology is accepted. Granted, when reading something fast or skimming it (as everyone does on funnyjunk when presented with large amounts of writing) that sentence could get easily misread like that, especially if whoever reads it isn't a native English speaker.

Perhaps I should have written it instead as: "If it had been written properly all these mother fucking idiots would realize just how unapproachably stupid they are when they say the answer is one." XD
#308 - I've actually used this argument before, but it turned out the… 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#305 - I'm sorry but that is possibly the most retarded statement I h…  [+] (23 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math -1
User avatar #315 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
and in the link you provided above. it actually says in the mnemonic section that it can be misleading and give you the wrong answer. Even your source to prove me wrong proves me right.
#312 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math is not constructed by humans. We "created" it but we don't really lay out the rules.
User avatar #339 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
We created it, and we laid out the rules based on how we made it. Multiplication doesn't exist without math we created. Where in the natural world would you ever see it?
#342 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We defined the basic pillars on which math expands the so called "axioms" which we try to get rid of all together or reduce them to a minimum. If math couldn't be watched in nature why do you think we started using it. Math exists where our answers correlate to chemistry, physics and biology.
User avatar #347 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Because we created math in order to explain nature. That's why in chemistry and physics you often have constants you have to memorize for your equations. These constants often seem like a bunch of numbers bunched together, but using them is the only way we can make our math work for the science we're using it in.
#362 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We still can't arbitrarily choose the rules. They are defined by the maths which we go through in order for it to fit.
User avatar #365 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
That's just it though. Original rules of math were made as people saw fit. Initially we only had a tiny fraction of mathematical calculations that we currently used. Hell in prehistoric math numbers went 1, 2, many. Mathematics as we know them now were not necessary back then as people lived in much simpler ways. As we developed and progressed we started developing more advanced calculations necessary for our lifestyles.

It's really fascinating to learn about things like this if you're interested in human development through history. If you want the wiki page shows quite a lot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
#366 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math advances because we need more advanced maths for the calculations were doing in nature.
User avatar #368 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it was created by the nature. Take a jet plane for example. Yes, it works in nature, and follows the natural laws of physics, but are there any jet engines or anything like them in nature?
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#367 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
And therefore the current math we use which is based on basic axioms which can't be proven true or just haven't been up to now and nature.
User avatar #370 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of numbers. In regular languages we use letters, which we put together into words, which then go together into sentences used to describe things. Math uses numbers instead of letters, operations instead of words, equations instead of sentences. Yes it is used to calculate things in nature, but it is in no way restricted to the nature, and didn't come for it. That's like saying that nature created languages.
User avatar #317 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
THANK YOU! Some one gets it! There are many laws and properties of mathematics like in calculus or algebra that we still do not understand, but they some how work.
User avatar #311 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh... and the video is actually called The Order of Operations is Wrong!
User avatar #310 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
how about an accredited physicist agreeing with me... (and i have more sources) The Order of Operations is Wrong
User avatar #318 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Did you actually watch the video you linked yourself? "The order of operations isn't technically wrong... it's morally wrong because it turns humans into robots" The video is basically ecouraging people to understand the basis of mathematics instead of memorizing garbage like PEMDAS.

Which brings me back to my original point, the order of operations is a law in mathematics, and just because people don't know it correctly doesn't mean it's wrong.
User avatar #320 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
Well... the problem I am pointing out is the fact that it can be misleading if it is written an awkward way (as he pointed out in the video). So can I ask you a question. Did you watch the video? If you did, why are you arguing over a point I already explained why I am right. even by using your own source.
User avatar #329 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
The only reason for it to be "misleading" is because people don't know how to do math. It's not the question that's misleading, it's your education that is.
User avatar #333 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh. and if you haven't noticed. I have stated that I do think that the answer is 9. But the thing I am arguing is the same thing as arguing for why to have proper grammar in languages. Because it makes it easier for everyone to understand. Education or not.

So please. Stop your bitching.
User avatar #338 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
If you want to use proper grammar as an example for dumbing down this question for people, then you might as well ask all textbooks and literature to be written at a first grade level because people might not understand it otherwise.

I like how you claim "that I do think that the answer is 9", yet your original comment stated "It technically could be both depending on how you do PEMDAS". That definitely doesn't state that there's only one answer, that states that it could be both.
User avatar #341 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
I did mention the word "technically" which means in a base, simple form, there is one answer. But if looked into a deeper level. it might be able to be something else as well...
and it is not trying to "dumb it down", but trying to make it easier so we can get through the problem quicker. A tool which is easy in our fast pace world.

And if you pardon me, I must be heading towards my campus because some of us actually care about education over arguing over silly manners and ignoring proof.
User avatar #349 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
You also give an example in the end of your original reply showing that "technicality" and giving people a wrong answer. Nowhere in there did you say that the first "more parenthesis" example you showed was the correct way to solve it.

Also it's over 8 PM in my timezone, on a Saturday, so you can take your high and mighty attitude to your campus, but I have a full time job allowing me to spend my weekend evenings doing whatever I want.
#300 - Mathematicians don't argue over order of operations.  [+] (25 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math 0
User avatar #301 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
yes they do...
they actually argue over many topics because there are still so much about math that we are still learning about and still trying to comprehend.
User avatar #305 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but that is possibly the most retarded statement I have ever heard. We created math, so there's no "trying to comprehend". It's not like most sciences such as Chemistry, Biology, or Physics. Math doesn't exist in natural world, instead it is something that we created in order to explain things, and used it as a basis in science. If you're so confident that there's mathematicians arguing about order of operations, please provide some solid proof.
User avatar #315 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
and in the link you provided above. it actually says in the mnemonic section that it can be misleading and give you the wrong answer. Even your source to prove me wrong proves me right.
#312 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math is not constructed by humans. We "created" it but we don't really lay out the rules.
User avatar #339 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
We created it, and we laid out the rules based on how we made it. Multiplication doesn't exist without math we created. Where in the natural world would you ever see it?
#342 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We defined the basic pillars on which math expands the so called "axioms" which we try to get rid of all together or reduce them to a minimum. If math couldn't be watched in nature why do you think we started using it. Math exists where our answers correlate to chemistry, physics and biology.
User avatar #347 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Because we created math in order to explain nature. That's why in chemistry and physics you often have constants you have to memorize for your equations. These constants often seem like a bunch of numbers bunched together, but using them is the only way we can make our math work for the science we're using it in.
#362 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
We still can't arbitrarily choose the rules. They are defined by the maths which we go through in order for it to fit.
User avatar #365 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
That's just it though. Original rules of math were made as people saw fit. Initially we only had a tiny fraction of mathematical calculations that we currently used. Hell in prehistoric math numbers went 1, 2, many. Mathematics as we know them now were not necessary back then as people lived in much simpler ways. As we developed and progressed we started developing more advanced calculations necessary for our lifestyles.

It's really fascinating to learn about things like this if you're interested in human development through history. If you want the wiki page shows quite a lot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
#366 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math advances because we need more advanced maths for the calculations were doing in nature.
User avatar #368 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Just because we something works with nature, doesn't mean it was created by the nature. Take a jet plane for example. Yes, it works in nature, and follows the natural laws of physics, but are there any jet engines or anything like them in nature?
#371 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Can't answer to your last question.
Math is absolutely not like a language a language is made up by a arbitrarily defined set of rules. Which math isn't.
#369 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
Math might be created by humans but it's nature that lays out how it works.
#367 - uldification (08/10/2013) [-]
And therefore the current math we use which is based on basic axioms which can't be proven true or just haven't been up to now and nature.
User avatar #370 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
One way to look at math is just to consider it a language of numbers. In regular languages we use letters, which we put together into words, which then go together into sentences used to describe things. Math uses numbers instead of letters, operations instead of words, equations instead of sentences. Yes it is used to calculate things in nature, but it is in no way restricted to the nature, and didn't come for it. That's like saying that nature created languages.
User avatar #317 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
THANK YOU! Some one gets it! There are many laws and properties of mathematics like in calculus or algebra that we still do not understand, but they some how work.
User avatar #311 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh... and the video is actually called The Order of Operations is Wrong!
User avatar #310 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
how about an accredited physicist agreeing with me... (and i have more sources) The Order of Operations is Wrong
User avatar #318 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Did you actually watch the video you linked yourself? "The order of operations isn't technically wrong... it's morally wrong because it turns humans into robots" The video is basically ecouraging people to understand the basis of mathematics instead of memorizing garbage like PEMDAS.

Which brings me back to my original point, the order of operations is a law in mathematics, and just because people don't know it correctly doesn't mean it's wrong.
User avatar #320 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
Well... the problem I am pointing out is the fact that it can be misleading if it is written an awkward way (as he pointed out in the video). So can I ask you a question. Did you watch the video? If you did, why are you arguing over a point I already explained why I am right. even by using your own source.
User avatar #329 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
The only reason for it to be "misleading" is because people don't know how to do math. It's not the question that's misleading, it's your education that is.
User avatar #333 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
oh. and if you haven't noticed. I have stated that I do think that the answer is 9. But the thing I am arguing is the same thing as arguing for why to have proper grammar in languages. Because it makes it easier for everyone to understand. Education or not.

So please. Stop your bitching.
User avatar #338 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
If you want to use proper grammar as an example for dumbing down this question for people, then you might as well ask all textbooks and literature to be written at a first grade level because people might not understand it otherwise.

I like how you claim "that I do think that the answer is 9", yet your original comment stated "It technically could be both depending on how you do PEMDAS". That definitely doesn't state that there's only one answer, that states that it could be both.
User avatar #341 - actinglead (08/10/2013) [-]
I did mention the word "technically" which means in a base, simple form, there is one answer. But if looked into a deeper level. it might be able to be something else as well...
and it is not trying to "dumb it down", but trying to make it easier so we can get through the problem quicker. A tool which is easy in our fast pace world.

And if you pardon me, I must be heading towards my campus because some of us actually care about education over arguing over silly manners and ignoring proof.
User avatar #349 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
You also give an example in the end of your original reply showing that "technicality" and giving people a wrong answer. Nowhere in there did you say that the first "more parenthesis" example you showed was the correct way to solve it.

Also it's over 8 PM in my timezone, on a Saturday, so you can take your high and mighty attitude to your campus, but I have a full time job allowing me to spend my weekend evenings doing whatever I want.
#298 - Forget your silly grade school phonetics and learn correct mat… 08/10/2013 on Math 0
#278 - Think of multiplication and division the same way as you would… 08/10/2013 on Math +2
#272 - You do electric calculations, and you don't know basic math? M…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/10/2013 on Math +1
User avatar #277 - bizzar (08/10/2013) [-]
Thanks, seems like teachers I had never put effort to learn me or anybody I know that, They`ve allways said multiplication first, but never that division is first if in order.

And luckily for me I am just a regular electrician apprentice, that works with Fuseboxes, switches, lights and sockets, so I have max and min requirements for that
User avatar #278 - fpsnoob (08/10/2013) [-]
Think of multiplication and division the same way as you would of addition and subtraction. They are on the same level in the order of operations so you would never skip one to do the other unless one is inside parenthesis.
#270 - That's why some people are right and some people are wrong.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/10/2013 on Math +1
#283 - Blasphemer (08/10/2013) [-]
If there are no parenthesis the right of the left side is in order, thus there is only one answer.

6 / 2(1+2)
3(1+2)
3+6=9

Or:

6 / 2(1+2)
6 / 2 * 3
3 * 3=9

Where still, left side goes first.
#269 - k bro, so you're smarter than everyone that made a calculator,… 08/10/2013 on Math +1

items

Total unique items point value: 2052 / Total items point value: 7132
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - baesdgod (02/10/2014) [-]
how are you?
User avatar #2 - pull (12/15/2013) [-]
Hey, do people ever bug you about your fj points? Because if you're not doing anything with them, could you send them to me?
 Friends (0)