OT: Sparty No - I can't believe this is what we are up against
This thread is full of fail:
http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/48293--1787217/1
I hope they didn't major in FINANCIAL MATHEMATICS!!!
That said, it goes a long ways towards explaining:
And, by the way, the answer to 48/2(9+3) = 288.
Well I guess I fail at math
At least you admit to it. There are some fools still insisting it's 2, despite being shown repeatedly how they're wrong.
Agree to disagree. All I've seen are people changing the equation. As it is written, the answer is 2. Plain and simple.
"24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = x + 3"
I miss magic division.
Not getting in to the algebra but 2 is the correct answer. The 2 in the equation is part of the parenthetical. Completing the addition within the brackets does not complete that portion of the equation. It is irrelevant that 2(12) is multiplication, as long as the brackets remain, that must be done first.
seriously, you make me want to die
Someone disagreeing with you on a message board makes you want to die? Seriously, there are far more concerning issues in life should be upsetting you to that degree then this.
no, i don't want to die. However, stop posting things like this. You are completely wrong and are making us look bad.
Your grammar is embarassing as well.
No, if I'm wrong, I'm making me look bad. Thankfully, I'm right.
Also making fun of someone's grammar while talking about embarrassing us as a collective is redundant. Not to mention spelling embarrassing wrong...
You say 288, I say 2. End of argument.
For the hundredth time, parenthetical statements only affect the terms INSIDE of the parentheses. Putting a number next to a parenthetical statement is identical to multiplying it by the term inside the parentheses. Because this is just multiplcation, it's on the same order as division, and goes left to right. Hence you divide 48 by 2 first, then multiply that quotent by the terms inside the parentheses.
And I disagree. That 2 is attached to the parentheticals, it becomes part of the first stage of the order. Those brackets haven't been removed simply by doing the addition, they only disappear once 2(12) has been completed. ONLY THEN can you move on to division/multiplication which gives you 2.
Done arguing. We disagree, and no level of banter will change that.
It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Just because parentheses are still there doesn't mean you have to get rid of them first, you just resolve any operations inside the parentheses before resolving external operations.
Besides, what is your math background where you're so sure in your misguided opinion?
I have a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and am currently working on a Master's then a Ph.D. There are no opinions on this question, you are just objectively wrong.
And that's very impressive.
The answer IMO is 2.
You're arguing the wrong side of a factual statement, if you want to keep insisting though, be my guest.
The world IMO is flat, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You realize that there can be no "IMO" when it comes to math problems, right? As I said before, there is a correct way to do it and an incorrect way. You have also chosen the incorrect way. Have fun being stubborn and ignorant.
Hockey's on dude. And the answer is 2.
Yes, that is our current score. It's also UMD's score. It is not the answer to the math question.
In your opinion.
It's not an opinion. There is no interpretation in math problems. There are correct and incorrect answers.
And it's your opinion that I'm incorrect.
Quit trolling.
Not trolling, honestly trying to see how long people would keep going like this.
Like I've said in a number of posts, I feel the answer is 2. That's my conclusion having used my knowledge of mathematics and nothing provided has dissuaded me from that answer.
What I find hilarious is that some people can't just leave well enough alone. It could be easy for someone to neg me and move on and settle with thinking I'm wrong but no. Some people get so uppity about people disagreeing with them (about anything).
In the interest of really tiny boxes, I'll stop. This isn't as pleasing as it was 3 hours ago. I say it's 2, you don't. One of us is right. Difference is, I'm not the one butthurt and trying to prove the other wrong.
Sounds like you are trolling to me.
A little yeah. Just building to my above point is all. I can live with being wrong if I am. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again. Not sure others can handle it though...
Holding a conversation with you is like conversing with a child. At this point, we can all tell you know you are wrong. It isn't a matter of disagreeing about the problem. It is ok to say that you are wrong. Very few people here really care enough to be "butthurt," but when you argue just to argue knowing you are wrong, that makes you ignorant. And you are definitely trolling at that point also. We might as well add condescending prick to the list too.
Never said I was wrong. As for the condescending prick part, that's an awful big leap for someone to make off of a message board. To each their own though.
Congrats on being wrong. These boxes are so small!!!!!
It really isn't that big of a leap when you act like you post the way you have. You were proven wrong and instead of admitting it, you said "my opinion is this so we disagree." This is a math problem so there is no opinion and there is no disagreeing. You are either wrong or right. The condescending part comes in when people tell you that you are wrong and you reply with "well that's your opinion." No, it isn't their opinion. You are actually wrong. Now keep thinking you are taking the high road by chastising everyone for pointing out that you are wrong.
The answer is 2.
April 17th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
And by posting this on a U of M themed blog, are a representation of my alma mater, and are embarassing my school. Fuck you.
April 17th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
Neither is mathematical aptitude.
You feel the answer is 2. Indeed. This is the whole point. While the math problem at the crux of this debate seems silly, at the root there is a stronger ethical/metaphysical conflict:
-The 288 camp, in the words of Walter Sobchak, "gives a shit about the rules."
-The 2 camp thinks rules should be subjectively interpreted so that everyone can be right all the time.
This debate is centered on, as Colbert puts it, "Truth" vs. "Truthiness." This is why you see such inflamed responses... it's bigger than the math.
PLEASE MAKE IT STOPPPPPP!!!!!
The answers obvious to me. 288.
The non-believers seem to be hung up on the parentheses, thinking 2(9+3) gets priority.
48 ÷ 2(9+3)
Now let's look at an equation of this form
y = 2 ÷ x(x+6)
If the x(x+6) were to be evaluated first, then there would be two asymptotes (one at 0, one at -6) on the graph, since the equation would be 2 ÷ (x^2+6x), or 2 / [(x+6)x].
But there's only one asymptote. Which means that the 2/x is evaluated first, so the equation simplified is (2x+12)/(x).
Yeah, I could have just posted a pic of 48 ÷ 2(9+3) and the calculator saying it's 288, but where's the fun in that?
Good night, folks.
The difference is a select few (two, I believe) versus the entirety of RCMB.
I do have to give you some credit for speaking resonably and politely, aside from that last crack about our "superior intellect" at the end. Most people will insult people they don't know because they are on an "enemie's" blog. That being said, you're welcome to your input here as long as it remains polite and reasonable. I'm sure you would expect the same from our fans on RCMB.
Brings up a good point though...anyone know how much traffic MGoBlog gets as opposed to RCMB and other sites? Or know how to figure that out?
SpartanLove,
Most of the shots at MSU and the RCMB are in good fun. Sure there are those who cross the line, but there are pleanty on the MSU side who do the same. It's standard with this rivalry.
What I find perplexing is your need to come to a Michigan message board and take shots at us directly; i.e:
"Anywho, carry on with your superior intellect. I think I'm in over my head here at mgoblog where the true master minds of the modern age reside."
Frankly there is no need for that. You made some valid points, but you completely lost any credibility when you ended with insults.
It's statements like those that project an image lacking in confidence. It's that lack of confidence that fuels the "Little Brother" stereotype.
Your board is full of "Walmart Wolverine" quotes and pictures, but I would never take any of that seriously enough to have to post a defensive statement nor insults back at you.
I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you're above the insults.
April 10th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
The problem is that the equation is not poorly written. If you understand simple order of operations (middle school level stuff) the equation is pretty clear. It is, however, written in such a way that people who don't know their order of operations will interpret it differently.
What really surprises me is how adamant the people in the 2 camp are. I don't know whether they really believe their own ignorance. or are just too proud to admit they were wrong. Getting 2 on the first pass by just quickly looking at the problem is understandable as it is habit to multiply the external term by the terms in the parentheses, because coefficients + parenthetical statements are usually separated from other terms by addition/subtraction. Also, if that division sign was a multiplication sign, I bet there would be way less confusion, but division throws people for a loop somehow. But for people to still insist it's two, despite their only factual support being a 20 year old calculator with faulty programming and some random website insiting that "more dominant multiplication" is a real thing (which it is not), vs. all the other evidence presented to the contrary (i.e. any caculator in the last 20 years, Wolfram Alpha, googling the problem, the opinion of math majors and mathematicians as stated multiple times in this thread, and theoretical examples/proofs), the people who think it's two are basically plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALA CAN"T HEAR YOU".
However, if you go through the thread, there's a total of 3 people who actually believe it's 2, and everyone else on the thread calling them an idiot, and one troll who just, well, trollers gonna troll. The hilarity of the RCMB thread was 20-something pages in and people couldnt come to a conclusion, there seemed to be a real split between whether it was 2 or 288, which is evidenced by your claim that the equation is "poorly written". While it would've been less hypocritical and far more entertaining if none of us thought it was 2, sure, there are idiots in every fanbase, it just seems MSU has a much higher concentration of them. And that's the key point, it's concentration of idiots, not volume. We've got 3 idiots in a near 400 post 7 page thread, which is what, maybe 5-10% of the posters? The RCMB thread is much closer to a 50/50 split of those who know their middle school math and those who don't.
April 10th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
_a_ = _a_
bc (bc)
However,
a/(bc) = _a_
bc
a/bc = a(c)
b
yeilds two different quantities.
If you want to divide a series of terms, ex. ab, cd, ef :
it's written (ab) / (cd) / (ef)
or (ab) ÷ (cd) ÷ (ef)
or ab
_cd_
ef
If you don't use parentheses, you violate left to right associativity, and will get an incorrect answer. It's that simple.
you would then get:
ab / cd / ef = ((((a* b) /c) * d ) / e) * f
or ab ÷ cd ÷ ef = (((a *b) ÷ c) * d) ÷ e) * f
It yields a different quantity.
That's why, to get the answer of 2, you need parentheses :
48÷(2(9+3))