What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Kepler said:
1. PEMDAS. M > D.

Edit: oh sh-t. That's wrong. How on earth can I have been wrong about this for 55 years and never actually gotten a wrong result? I guess parens have become ubiquitous.
Click to expand...

I was going to say you should re-read your link, but looks like you got there. Clown is correct, M = D, so proceed from left to right.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

jerphisch said:
I was going to say you should re-read your link, but looks like you got there. Clown is correct, M = D, so proceed from left to right.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that I have been wrong about this. It's like finding out you have the alphabet wrong. I just assume at some point in my life I'd have hit something which conclusively corrected me. It's not as if I don't use algebra ALL THE TIME EVERY F-CKING DAY. I've got a quantitative methods degree for god's sake.
 
Kepler said:
It amazes me that I have been wrong about this. It's like finding out you have the alphabet wrong. I just assume at some point in my life I'd have hit something which conclusively corrected me. It's not as if I don't use algebra ALL THE TIME EVERY F-CKING DAY. I've got a quantitative methods degree for god's sake.
Click to expand...
time to up the requirements on those degrees! ;)
 
joecct said:
6÷2(2+1)

Is the answer 9 or 1?

One calculator gave the answer as 9, the other 1.

Using ()MDAS, the answer is 1.
If you treat ÷ & * equally, and solve it as 6÷2*3 the answer is 9.

Opinions??
Click to expand...

IMHO, none of the above, since the usage of symbols is not correct. It’s wrong to mix the symbols like that.

It’s either 6÷2x(2+1) or 6/2(2+1). Using the implied and the intentional at the same time is wrong syntax.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

alfablue said:
IMHO, none of the above, since the usage of symbols is not correct. It’s wrong to mix the symbols like that.

It’s either 6÷2x(2+1) or 6/2(2+1). Using the implied and the intentional at the same time is wrong syntax.
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation as to why it was so confusing.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

alfablue said:
IMHO, none of the above, since the usage of symbols is not correct. It’s wrong to mix the symbols like that.
Click to expand...

It's confusing but it's not "wrong." That is a well-formed expression. It's not undefined.
 
Kepler said:
It's confusing but it's not "wrong." That is a well-formed expression. It's not undefined.
Click to expand...

It’s a syntax error.

You can’t mix styles like that and pretend the implied operations still work. That’s the entire reason there are rules to the operations.
 
alfablue said:
It’s a syntax error.

You can’t mix styles like that and pretend the implied operations still work. That’s the entire reason there are rules to the operations.
Click to expand...

I'd definitely prefer it if what you're saying were formally true, but is it? Can you point to any sort of reference or authority on this?
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

No, but the whole equation is written to confuse the reader, hence the issue with the calculation.

It’s more an example of poor communication than it is of real math. Which is why you see more rigorous math have a very specific structure to remove as much confusion as possible.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

alfablue said:
No, but the whole equation is written to confuse the reader, hence the issue with the calculation.

It’s more an example of poor communication than it is of real math. Which is why you see more rigorous math have a very specific structure to remove as much confusion as possible.
Click to expand...

Ding ding
 
alfablue said:
No, but the whole equation is written to confuse the reader, hence the issue with the calculation.

It’s more an example of poor communication than it is of real math. Which is why you see more rigorous math have a very specific structure to remove as much confusion as possible.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

It's purely a discussion on notation, not math. And arithmetic isn't "real math" anyway, regardless of how you notate it.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

LynahFan said:
And arithmetic isn't "real math" anyway, regardless of how you notate it.
Click to expand...

Giuseppe Peano called. He said "pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!"
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Ever watch a set of N honest-to-god-gainfully-employed-as-mathematicians (where N>2) try to settle a restaurant bill? That's one of the unintentionally funniest things you'll ever see - like watching a tarpon try to juggle chainsaws.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

LynahFan said:
Ever watch a set of N honest-to-god-gainfully-employed-as-mathematicians (where N>2) try to settle a restaurant bill? That's one of the unintentionally funniest things you'll ever see - like watching a tarpon try to juggle chainsaws.
Click to expand...

Contrafactual. At any given time there are at most 2 employed mathematicians.
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

LynahFan said:
Ever watch a set of N honest-to-god-gainfully-employed-as-mathematicians (where N>2) try to settle a restaurant bill? That's one of the unintentionally funniest things you'll ever see - like watching a tarpon try to juggle chainsaws.
Click to expand...

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read
 
Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Isn’t that an old video?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top