cborgman said:

dJJ said:

So, the answer is the singing son of Richard on youtube?

I agree with Dave in the sense that the order of operations is fairly irrelevant to mathematics ("as a science"). It's usually relevant to just computing and in, well, school.

I find it interesting though that the example given doesn't require the use of the "PEMDAS" rule once you just take a good look at it and realize what's really expressed there.

[Edited 1/1/13 10:13am]

novabrkr said:

I find it interesting though that the example given doesn't require the use of the "PEMDAS" rule once you just take a good look at it and realize what's really expressed there.

[Edited 1/1/13 10:13am]

How so?

imago said:

Here:

6÷2(1+2) =

go!

1

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/psyc.jpg[/img:$uid]

Man, he really has you guys over a barrel...

This whole 1 or 9 business... CLEARLY A RUSE!!

By Imago's logic 1 = and 9 = :butthole:

Dave1992 said:

novabrkr said:

I find it interesting though that the example given doesn't require the use of the "PEMDAS" rule once you just take a good look at it and realize what's really expressed there.

[Edited 1/1/13 10:13am]

How so?

It's just a simple multiplication operation (with the "a x b" form).

6

--- x (1+2)

2

Which is the same as

6 1+2

--- x -----

2 1

You can do that in any order you want to.

It's interesting to me how the online arguments (there's a silly amount of them) focus mostly on PEMDAS. While using PEMDAS provides the correct answer, the problem with this meme is that it's expressed with bullshit syntax that obscures the terms involved in it.

The original one circulating as a meme was even worse, because it was written like

6 ÷ 2(1+2)

with BIG gaps on both sides of the division sign.

It also mixes up two different notation conventions by first using the "bog standard" version of the division sign and then applying the more "advanced" convention of omitting the multiplication sign after it. It's not an "illegit" thing to do, but obviously just done to obscure what the multiplier really is.

novabrkr said:

Dave1992 said:

How so?

It's just a simple multiplication operation (with the "a x b" form).

6

--- x (1+2)

2

Which is the same as

6 1+2

--- x -----

2 1

You can do that in any order you want to.

It's interesting to me how the online arguments (there's a silly amount of them) focus mostly on PEMDAS. While using PEMDAS provides the correct answer, the problem with this meme is that it's expressed with bullshit syntax that obscures the terms involved in it.

The original one circulating as a meme was even worse, because it was written like

6 ÷ 2(1+2)

with BIG gaps on both sides of the division sign.

It also mixes up two different notation conventions by first using the "bog standard" version of the division sign and then applying the more "advanced" convention of omitting the multiplication sign after it. It's not an "illegit" thing to do, but obviously just done to obscure what the multiplier really is.

Well, yeah, but it could also be a simple fraction if you ignore the fact that the (a x b) form is more common (which you have to in maths).

And yes, the syntax is very quite helpless in this scenario. Again, if someone arrived at this equation, he/she is quite likely to not have understood a step they had done before.

NDRU said:

imago said:

And NDRU's math is the most embarassing of them all.

I can't take this anymore. ANYMORE.

GOOD.....BYE........

Hey I said "yeah!" I get how it works using pemdas or whatever, but since I got through calculus without ever learning about pemdas I am thinking that good clean math has parentheses for a reason and I'm taking Dave's side!! (Plus he's handsome) Grenade out!!! [Edited 1/1/13 9:06am]

Actually, he is handsome, so I'm going to agree with him too.

But, since you're handsome, I'll agree with you as well.

Fuck, I have to agree with half the posters on this thread now. For you ugly folks reading this, I'll decide on whether I agree with you on a one-on-one basis.

So, who gets the bonus points and why?