Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 [All]

Author Topic: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?  (Read 98217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« on: July 16, 2012, 10:47:56 am »
+6

I am such a masochist sometimes.

Every so often, there is some question or poll or graphic on Facebook (and I'm sure other social media sites and forums) where someone asks a simple algebra question. This question comes in many flavors, but the one that I saw most recently was:

7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?

The author is challenging what the average person knows. The correct answer is, of course, 4. So many people out there insist that it's 1. After all, anything times 0 is 0. I've even seen some people claim the answer is 7, but I suspect that's a matter of glossing over the details and mistaking the multiplication for addition.

Whenever I see one of these, I feel compelled to help out. I read the comments, which are full of kids (at least I hope they're kids) screaming at each and calling each other retarded for not knowing that their answer is correct. And it drives me crazy. It really drives me crazy that someone who got the wrong answer is calling someone a moron for coming up with the right answer. Like a fool, I try to explain order of operations, but I get shouted down as well. It doesn't bother me that someone goofed or is simply not that knowledgeable, but it does bother me when that person refuses to even listen to the reasons why 4 is the correct answer. It's willful ignorance at that point.

It also doesn't help that the standard calculator doesn't do order of operations. You have to have a "scientific" calculator. That annoys me too. I can see the purpose of the adding machine, but it just encourages bad math. Even the Windows calculator has a standard setting that ignores order of operations. I believe it's the default calculator, so the layperson probably doesn't even know that there is a more accurate setting (fun fact: The actuarial exams in the early 90s required the use of a calculator that looked similar to a scientific calculator but in fact did not use the order of operations either—madness).

I think the next time I feel the need to step into one of these warzones, I will include directions on how to use the scientific mode of the Windows calculator. It's actually very difficult to disabuse someone of his wrong answer when he can just type in the formula and see for himself that the answer is clearly 1.

Sorry, I felt the need to rant. I figured that aside from a math forum, you guys could relate, even though you probably don't suffer my obsessive need to correct people on the internet.
Logged
A man has no signature

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2012, 10:57:52 am »
+6

Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2012, 10:58:37 am »
0

You mean the answer isn't 7?

And its not on the normal calculator because normal calculations dont really need BODMAS. You only really need it if you are in a scientific job, and if you are in a scientific job, why wouldn't you have a scientific calculator?

But the lack of knowledge thing is annoying, I agree


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2012, 11:00:01 am »
0

Also, could be worse, you could be one of these people!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1855
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2012, 11:00:08 am »
+4

I disagree with the convention that multiplication takes precedence over addition when it's written with a times sign, and I wish we had a left-to-right convention. (That's all it is, by the way, a convention. We could have a convention that any string is meaningless unless it has enough parentheses to specify the order of operations, but that would be annnoying, so instead we have to choose another one.) That being said:

1. For some reason we as a society think it's important to make middle schoolers feel stupid by teaching them arbitrary conventions and then labeling them as bad at math for not being able to remember/follow them. Given that everybody had to learn this unfortunate convention, I guess we should keep using it, for the same reason we don't switch to the metric system. So, fine, the answer to your question is 4.

2. I do agree with the convention that multiplication should take precedence over addition in an expression like

8 + 5y

or

12 + 7(3)

as I feel it's intuitive in these contexts, just not when you denote multiplication by X or *.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 11:01:12 am »
+4

You mean the answer isn't 7?

And its not on the normal calculator because normal calculations dont really need BODMAS. You only really need it if you are in a scientific job, and if you are in a scientific job, why wouldn't you have a scientific calculator?

But the lack of knowledge thing is annoying, I agree


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Wait, what is BODMAS? Is that the english version of PEMDAS?
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2012, 11:01:56 am »
+2

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2012, 11:04:31 am »
+1

You mean the answer isn't 7?

And its not on the normal calculator because normal calculations dont really need BODMAS. You only really need it if you are in a scientific job, and if you are in a scientific job, why wouldn't you have a scientific calculator?

But the lack of knowledge thing is annoying, I agree


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Wait, what is BODMAS? Is that the english version of PEMDAS?

Brackets over Division, Multiplation, addition, Subtraction.
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2012, 11:04:43 am »
+3

Sometimes it's not that the speicfic convention is any better than another one, but that it's just much better to have some sort of convention. Like driving on the right (or left) side of the road.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2012, 11:04:57 am »
+2

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
Multiplication coming before addition is more objectively better than the reverse than Fahrenheit is objectively better than Celsius.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2012, 11:05:40 am »
0

Brackets over Division, Multiplation, addition, Subtraction.

And what about exponents. What do I do with all these exponents!
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2012, 11:06:56 am »
0

Brackets over Division, Multiplation, addition, Subtraction.

And what about exponents. What do I do with all these exponents!

By the time I knew about exponents I was old enough not to need silly words to remember how to do things *grins*
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2012, 11:15:16 am »
+2

Quote
For some reason we as a society think it's important to make middle schoolers feel stupid by teaching them arbitrary conventions and then labeling them as bad at math for not being able to remember/follow them.
From my (limited) experience the problem with math for most people is that they only see a string of characters, try to remember something that looks similar and now do the same thing they have done with the similar looking thing.
Instead of trying to understand what is written there, and once you would do this, there is not much point in arguing. Either you think, if someone writes 7-4+3x0+1, they mean 'take 7, substract 4, add 3 multiply everything with zero and finally add 1'. Then this is probably not what the person has meant, but at least you should likely to be convinced by someone who says: 'Hey, remember, multiplication has higher priority than addition, so someone who writes 7-4+3x0+1 probably means "take 7, substract 4, add the result of the mulitplication 3 and 0, and add 1". Jo, thanks, I have forgotten kkthxbb.

Instead people think "OMG, math, ... PANIC!!!. OK, there IS a "x0", and EVERYTHING x0 is ZERO !!!!!!11111eleven11!!!!!". 'Hey, but remember, multiplication has higher.-.' "EVERTHING ... ZERO LOLWUT!!!!11!".


On the other hand, from other experience, most people on the internetz discussing these topics are trolls.
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2012, 11:33:50 am »
+4

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.

I think that multiplication over addition is not that arbitrary.

Purchase orders use the rule all the time. If you say that you bought 5 apples at 20 cents apiece and 3 oranges at 30 cents apiece, you naturally would work it out as 5*20 + 3*30. Any time you deal with groups of similarly quantified objects, you go into PEDMAS mode, even if it's really DMAS mode. It's a convenient method because grouping works very well with it.

I do sometimes feel like the "Duty Calls" guy. With this one, I know better than to get involved with a flame ware there. I can only state my case. If others cannot see it, then they either are not far enough along in their algebra to know the difference or are too far gone. The math tutor in me just cannot let these errors persist, but I'm not getting paid to argue on the internet.

Sadly, DStu, I don't think many of these people are trolls. Maybe I'm just naοve, but I've seen enough people struggle with math, that I'm willing to believe that they honestly don't know. But perhaps I have been trolled very well. People who create these topics, however, probably are trolling, but I don't mind bringing these problems to the forefront. Whatever it takes to make people think
Logged
A man has no signature

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2012, 12:17:38 pm »
0

You're all crazy.  The acronym is BEDMAS, E for Exponents.

But I guessed that Ozle's O was "Orders", which means the same thing.  And searching on Google seems to confirm that, though Ozle disagrees?

I think I liked PEDMAS more because () are technically not brackets.  But I learned what I learned!
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2012, 12:21:57 pm »
0

You're all crazy.  The acronym is BEDMAS, E for Exponents.

But I guessed that Ozle's O was "Orders", which means the same thing.  And searching on Google seems to confirm that, though Ozle disagrees?

I think I liked PEDMAS more because () are technically not brackets.  But I learned what I learned!

I definately learnt it as Over, but as I said I learnt it very young before I knew about powers and such!
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2012, 12:35:06 pm »
0

In a math book I once had there were three kinds of brackets: parantheses, square brackets and curly brackets!

It was MADNESS I tell you!
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2012, 12:35:38 pm »
0

In a math book I once had there were three kinds of brackets: parantheses, square brackets and curly brackets!

It was MADNESS I tell you!

(parentheses)
[square brackets]
<angle brackets>
{braces}
Logged

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +389
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2012, 12:43:36 pm »
0

Braces is the plural of bracket. I think as long as we're nit-picking math we should nit-pick vocabulary too.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2012, 12:47:01 pm »
0

You're all crazy.  The acronym is BEDMAS, E for Exponents.

But I guessed that Ozle's O was "Orders", which means the same thing.  And searching on Google seems to confirm that, though Ozle disagrees?

I think I liked PEDMAS more because () are technically not brackets.  But I learned what I learned!

I went to a French immersion school until high school when I switched to an English school. In French I learned PEDMAS = Parentheses, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Soustraction. (Now that I type it out, I'm surprised that all the words are the same except for subtraction and a missing accent in Parentheses.)

In English, I learned BEDMAS = Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. It really just seems that the instruction of arbitrary conventions has also become arbitrary.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2012, 12:47:52 pm »
+3

We should just use
Reverse Polish Notation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Cuz its the best, easiest to implement, and needs no brackets.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2012, 12:48:10 pm »
+1


In English, I learned BEDMAS = Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. It really just seems that the instruction of arbitrary conventions has also become arbitrary.

Surely you learnt it in Maths......BADOOM TSCH!
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2012, 12:48:48 pm »
0

Braces is the plural of bracket. I think as long as we're nit-picking math we should nit-pick vocabulary too.

Source?  I've always learned that braces refer to {}, and we say "square/angle braces" sounds super weird.  Wikipedia says this is common in the US, which makes me a little wary because I'm Canadian. ;)
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2012, 12:49:48 pm »
0

We should just use
Reverse Polish Notation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Cuz its the best, easiest to implement, and needs no brackets.

Ie, your equation would translate into:

7 4 - 3 0 * + 1 +

(to used to mafia so I just doublepost instead of editing in forums too)  :'(
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2012, 12:52:16 pm »
+1


In English, I learned BEDMAS = Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. It really just seems that the instruction of arbitrary conventions has also become arbitrary.

Surely you learnt it in Maths......BADOOM TSCH!

There was this BBC show called "Look Around You", which was a parody of those grainy classroom instructional videos.  There was one episode for Maths.  I thought the s was just to make it sound funnier... didn't realize it was the Queen's English.  We just call it "Math" in North America.

I really wish I could link it, but most of the Look Around You videos appear to have been removed from Youtube.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2012, 12:53:25 pm »
0

Braces is the plural of bracket. I think as long as we're nit-picking math we should nit-pick vocabulary too.

Source?  I've always learned that braces refer to {}, and we say "square/angle braces" sounds super weird.  Wikipedia says this is common in the US, which makes me a little wary because I'm Canadian. ;)

Those are called curly brackets.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2012, 12:55:56 pm »
0

Braces is the plural of bracket. I think as long as we're nit-picking math we should nit-pick vocabulary too.

Source?  I've always learned that braces refer to {}, and we say "square/angle braces" sounds super weird.  Wikipedia says this is common in the US, which makes me a little wary because I'm Canadian. ;)

Those are called curly brackets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braces_(punctuation)#Braces

I am infected by America but I don't care. :P
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2012, 12:56:03 pm »
0


In English, I learned BEDMAS = Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. It really just seems that the instruction of arbitrary conventions has also become arbitrary.

Surely you learnt it in Maths......BADOOM TSCH!

There was this BBC show called "Look Around You", which was a parody of those grainy classroom instructional videos.  There was one episode for Maths.  I thought the s was just to make it sound funnier... didn't realize it was the Queen's English.  We just call it "Math" in North America.

I really wish I could link it, but most of the Look Around You videos appear to have been removed from Youtube.

Ahh, Peter Serafinowic, so under rated.
Also did the voice for Darth Maul !
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2012, 12:57:25 pm »
0

We should just use
Reverse Polish Notation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Cuz its the best, easiest to implement, and needs no brackets.

Ie, your equation would translate into:

7 4 - 3 0 * + 1 +

(to used to mafia so I just doublepost instead of editing in forums too)  :'(

this is called post fix, you do not need brackets for post fix or pre fix. IN FIX however is the forum that most people are used to seeing is ambiguous without brackets
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2012, 01:00:27 pm »
+1

Yeah, I learned it as "postfix notation" in college but later learned that most people refer it to as reverse Polish (Polish being prefix notation).

Edit: and while you are at it, also change the numbering system to hexadecimal and make my life helluva easier.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2012, 01:05:15 pm »
0

Yeah, I learned it as "postfix notation" in college but later learned that most people refer it to as reverse Polish (Polish being prefix notation).

Edit: and while you are at it, also change the numbering system to hexadecimal and make my life helluva easier.

Hexadecimal I don't understand. All these numbers are written 0x..., and that SHOULD BE ZERO !!!!!111!!!!, or?

edit: some hints...
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:20:58 pm by DStu »
Logged

qmech

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1918
  • Shuffle iT Username: qmech
  • What year is it?
  • Respect: +2320
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2012, 01:08:07 pm »
0

Brackets over Division, Multiplation, addition, Subtraction.

And what about exponents. What do I do with all these exponents!

As well as orders, we sometimes had the more accessible powers of.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2012, 01:12:54 pm »
0

0x is just a prefix that people soemtimes use to identify that number is written in hexadecimal. Other common method is adding h on end.
It has actually no meaning except to identify number as hexadecimal instead of something else by mistake.

digits 0-9 have same value, A,B,C,D,E,F have value of 10-15, respectfully.

162 = 100 * 1 + 10 * 6 + 1 * 2 = 162.
So, A2 (can be written as 0xA1 or A1h or just A1) = 16 * A + 1 * 2 = 162
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 01:14:46 pm »
+3

Let the English major step up to the plate.

The answer... is 4. Am I right? I think I'm right. Yep, definitely 4. Take that middle schoolers. The (comparatively) old man still gots it.

The Oxford comma is great and often necessary. Who wants to say otherwise? I dare you.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 01:15:01 pm »
+1

... maybe I should have written more caps.
Edit: The sad thing is that it's really a plausible assumption that someone thinks like that...
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:21:44 pm by DStu »
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 01:42:03 pm »
0

The Oxford comma is great and often necessary. Who wants to say otherwise? I dare you.

I'm a fan.

I can concur that in most sentences, there is no confusion if there is not an Oxford comma. I'm more concerned about those other sentences. You eliminate more confusion than you introduce if you use the Oxford comma, but you introduce more confusion than you eliminate if you omit the Oxford comma.

I also like calling it the serial comma, because why should Oxford own it? Screw them!
Logged
A man has no signature

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2012, 01:45:00 pm »
0

Let the English major step up to the plate.

The answer... is 4. Am I right? I think I'm right. Yep, definitely 4. Take that middle schoolers. The (comparatively) old man still gots it.

The Oxford comma is great and often necessary. Who wants to say otherwise? I dare you.

If the Oxford comma eliminates confusion, use it.
If the Oxford comma introduces confusion, don't use it.
If it doesn't matter either way, why use it?

In the third case I usually leave it out, though sometimes I use it if it "sounds" better.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2012, 01:59:50 pm »
0

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
Multiplication coming before addition is more objectively better than the reverse than Fahrenheit is objectively better than Celsius.

Except for the fact that Celsius is objectively better than Fahrenheit, I absolutely agree.

Meanwhile, all of this can be solved by placing parentheses/brackets/etc.  Not to mention that the only places order of operations matters is:

Grade school math;
Stupid problems like these.

This is because the order of operations generally matters only for pure arithmetic; as soon as variables are introduced, the ambiguity tends to disappear.  The only place I can think of in real life that needs this sort of thing was invoices, as described above, but those are calculated with a line-by-line notation anyway for obvious reasons.  (OK, another example is calculating molar mass of a compound, which also is generally done line-by-line and order of operations is obvious.)
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 02:03:42 pm »
0

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
Multiplication coming before addition is more objectively better than the reverse than Fahrenheit is objectively better than Celsius.

Except for the fact that Celsius is objectively better than Fahrenheit, I absolutely agree.

Of course, its a no-brainer like metric vs imperial.
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 02:05:19 pm »
0

I never learned the acronym for PEDMAS (or its variants), but I have seen how it's been misused. The problem with PEDMAS is that it can be interpreted to mean that you divide before you multiply and that you add before you subtract, when those operator pairs are equal in priority (and should therefore be done left to right).

For example, we have:
8-6+4=?

If you literally read PEDMAS as doing addition first, then you conclude the answer is -2. But since addition and subtraction have the same priority, you go from left to right, so the answer is actually 6.

Instead of learning PEDMAS, I just learned that the operators were grouped together, which makes sense, since subtraction is just addition and division is just multiplication. I just learned that multiplication happens before addition. Then we learned parentheses. Exponents would have come later. By the time I got to that point, we had known the order of operations.

I wouldn't teach PEDMAS if I were in a classroom. From what it sounds like, it's fairly ubiquitous, so I guess I'd be doing a disservice by ignoring the acronym. I would definitely teach it as PE(DM)(AS). Maybe use colors PEDMAS. It was actually one of those annoying trolling equations where I saw someone claim an entirely different answer because she used PEDMAS incorrectly, so now I'm wary of that tool.
Logged
A man has no signature

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 02:11:40 pm »
0

If the Oxford comma eliminates confusion, use it.
If the Oxford comma introduces confusion, don't use it.
If it doesn't matter either way, why use it?

In the third case I usually leave it out, though sometimes I use it if it "sounds" better.

I agree with the first two points, though I'm at a loss when trying to think of examples where a serial comma would add confusion. If such a thing exists, I would imagine that semicolons would help out.

As for the third case, I'm a strong proponent of consistency. If it doesn't matter then why use it? Because it's very likely that elsewhere in the document, it has been used in order to eliminate confusion, and that inconsistency can be distracting.

I always use a serial comma, even if it's not needed to eliminate confusion. It doesn't hurt anything, and it delineate s the items in crisp, clean fashion.
Logged
A man has no signature

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 02:11:47 pm »
+3

Good job its not : Parenthesis, Exponents, Division, Operations.
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2012, 02:20:23 pm »
0

If the Oxford comma eliminates confusion, use it.
If the Oxford comma introduces confusion, don't use it.
If it doesn't matter either way, why use it?

In the third case I usually leave it out, though sometimes I use it if it "sounds" better.

I agree with the first two points, though I'm at a loss when trying to think of examples where a serial comma would add confusion. If such a thing exists, I would imagine that semicolons would help out.

As for the third case, I'm a strong proponent of consistency. If it doesn't matter then why use it? Because it's very likely that elsewhere in the document, it has been used in order to eliminate confusion, and that inconsistency can be distracting.

I always use a serial comma, even if it's not needed to eliminate confusion. It doesn't hurt anything, and it delineate s the items in crisp, clean fashion.

The Wikipedia article has good discussion on this.  Here is their example for where it introduces ambiguity:

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

In this sentence, is Ayn Rand a third party, or is Ayn Rand the speaker's mother?  Removing the Oxford comma removes that ambiguity.

Consistency is great, but since removing the comma is sometimes necessary to reduce ambiguity, you'll have some inconsistencies either way.  This is why I don't take a hard-line "you must" or "you must not" on the issue, though I dislike it when people argue vehemently that the Oxford comma is never wrong.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 02:38:48 pm »
0

If the Oxford comma eliminates confusion, use it.
If the Oxford comma introduces confusion, don't use it.
If it doesn't matter either way, why use it?

In the third case I usually leave it out, though sometimes I use it if it "sounds" better.

I agree with the first two points, though I'm at a loss when trying to think of examples where a serial comma would add confusion. If such a thing exists, I would imagine that semicolons would help out.

As for the third case, I'm a strong proponent of consistency. If it doesn't matter then why use it? Because it's very likely that elsewhere in the document, it has been used in order to eliminate confusion, and that inconsistency can be distracting.

I always use a serial comma, even if it's not needed to eliminate confusion. It doesn't hurt anything, and it delineate s the items in crisp, clean fashion.

The Wikipedia article has good discussion on this.  Here is their example for where it introduces ambiguity:

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

In this sentence, is Ayn Rand a third party, or is Ayn Rand the speaker's mother?  Removing the Oxford comma removes that ambiguity.

Consistency is great, but since removing the comma is sometimes necessary to reduce ambiguity, you'll have some inconsistencies either way.  This is why I don't take a hard-line "you must" or "you must not" on the issue, though I dislike it when people argue vehemently that the Oxford comma is never wrong.

Really?
I have always used that double comment to indicate the name of someone. So when you put that I read the italiscised as the mothers name is Ayn Rand always. If you took out the second comma then it would become three people to me.
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 02:53:09 pm »
+2

Ozle: Ah, yes, but if you altered it slightly:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God

Now the sentence is ambiguous unless the Oxford comma is present.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2012, 02:55:04 pm »
+1

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
Multiplication coming before addition is more objectively better than the reverse than Fahrenheit is objectively better than Celsius.

Except for the fact that Celsius is objectively better than Fahrenheit, I absolutely agree.

I believe WW was referring to this discussion from earlier.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2012, 02:55:36 pm »
0

Ozle: Ah, yes, but if you altered it slightly:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God

Now the sentence is ambiguous unless the Oxford comma is present.

Thats a better example
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2012, 02:57:28 pm »
0

Ozle: Ah, yes, but if you altered it slightly:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God

Now the sentence is ambiguous unless the Oxford comma is present.

Thats a better example

eHalcyon's point is that sometimes the Oxford comma introduces ambiguity:

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

And sometimes it gets rid of ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God

So regardless of whether you use the Oxford comma, you're always going to have ambiguity.

Perhaps a better example is this:

To my audience, Ozle, and eHalcyon

No matter whether that comma is there or not, you are going to be ambiguous.  Do I mean "audience", "Ozle", and "eHalcyon", or do I mean "audience consisting of Ozle" and "eHalcyon", or do I mean "audience consisting of Ozle and eHalcyon"?
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2012, 03:07:35 pm »
0

"To my audience, Ozle, and eHalcyon"

Except I would always read that as Ozle being the audience.

Whereas:

"To my audience, Ozle and eHalcyon"
That to me reads three seperate things.

Obviously I dont follow the rules of English grammar properly, but thats how I have always done it, and thats how I write.
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2012, 03:22:43 pm »
0

To my audience, Ozle, and eHalcyon

No matter whether that comma is there or not, you are going to be ambiguous.  Do I mean "audience", "Ozle", and "eHalcyon", or do I mean "audience consisting of Ozle" and "eHalcyon", or do I mean "audience consisting of Ozle and eHalcyon"?

The easy fix for that is to remove the ambiguity entirely.

To eHalcyon and my audience, Ozle.

Sometimes, the onus lies on the writer to ensure that punctuation is used as assistance and not as a detriment.

Of course, if you're transcribing, then you're on your own. Good luck.
Logged
A man has no signature

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2012, 03:28:37 pm »
0

"To my audience, Ozle and eHalcyon"
That to me reads three seperate things.

Incidentally, I read that as two people. I see eHalcyon and Ozle as the audience. This may not have been the writer's intention upon writing it, but that's how it reads to me.

It's such a strangely worded sentence that I would read To my audience, Ozle[,] and eHalcyon as having three items, regardless of whether the serial comma is there. If I were writing this and I wanted to include one or both of them as the audience, then I'd rewrite the sentence.
Logged
A man has no signature

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2012, 03:42:25 pm »
0

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown, and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

How many people did you meet?
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #52 on: July 16, 2012, 03:52:16 pm »
+9

Except for the fact that Celsius is objectively better than Fahrenheit, I absolutely agree.

Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #53 on: July 16, 2012, 03:52:31 pm »
0

Heh, sure enough, I saw where someone misused PEDMAS.

He wrote that 7 – 4 + 0 + 1 was actually 7 – 5 and came up with 2.

Granted, he didn't say that he was using PEDMAS, but I'm willing to bet that's exactly what it was.
Logged
A man has no signature

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #54 on: July 16, 2012, 03:53:31 pm »
+1

Now, C_F is probably trolling but
0 = water freezes.
100 = water boils.
Is pretty much better than "really hot" and "really cold".
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #55 on: July 16, 2012, 03:56:52 pm »
0

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown, and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."
2, because the second comma ends the description of Rrenaud the clown.

Quote
"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."
This is the ambiguos one I agree, that could be 1 or 3


Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #56 on: July 16, 2012, 04:09:23 pm »
+6

Now, C_F is probably trolling but
0 = water freezes.
100 = water boils.
Is pretty much better than "really hot" and "really cold".

Well - I am a stupid american - and I agree 100% we should move to the metric system. 

That said - the freezing and boiling points of water are not especially useful when it comes to me intuitively understanding how warm or gold something is. 

The nice thing about Fahrenheit is that 0 and 100 are near the lower and upper bounds for human safety - this is a nice range of things that you can actually experience.  0 degrees outside?  You might die.  100 degrees outside?  You might die.

If you truly want it to be anchored on something that makes sense - then you have to go with Kelvin... and at that point it doesn't matter how big a degree is, we're talking about huge numbers to answer the question "How hot is it outside"?



Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #57 on: July 16, 2012, 04:10:56 pm »
0

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown, and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

How many people did you meet?

See in the second sentence, I would always read that as just one person: You met rrenaud, who is a former circus clown and your favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances.

The first sentence I would probably read as three people.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #58 on: July 16, 2012, 04:11:52 pm »
+1

Now, C_F is probably trolling but
0 = water freezes.
100 = water boils.
Is pretty much better than "really hot" and "really cold".

Except Water doesn't always boil at 100 degrees...
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #59 on: July 16, 2012, 04:15:41 pm »
0

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown, and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

How many people did you meet?

See in the second sentence, I would always read that as just one person: You met rrenaud, who is a former circus clown and your favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances.

The first sentence I would probably read as three people.

As would I.  Of course, you could always remove the ambiguity by putting rrenaud as the the 3rd person in the list.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2012, 04:52:20 pm »
0

Now, C_F is probably trolling but
0 = water freezes.
100 = water boils.
Is pretty much better than "really hot" and "really cold".

Well - I am a stupid american - and I agree 100% we should move to the metric system. 

That said - the freezing and boiling points of water are not especially useful when it comes to me intuitively understanding how warm or gold something is. 

The nice thing about Fahrenheit is that 0 and 100 are near the lower and upper bounds for human safety - this is a nice range of things that you can actually experience.  0 degrees outside?  You might die.  100 degrees outside?  You might die.

If you truly want it to be anchored on something that makes sense - then you have to go with Kelvin... and at that point it doesn't matter how big a degree is, we're talking about huge numbers to answer the question "How hot is it outside"?

Thats how you base your imperial system too - based on personal, subjective stuff.
You use "how hot it is outside" only in personal life, anywhere other than that (science, industry, even with fridge and freezer and house appliances stuff!), Celsius is better. (Kelvin too!).

@Ozle - no, its under some conditions (air pressure and so) but its a pretty good estimate IIRC. Actually is defined through Kelvin nowadays.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2012, 05:17:55 pm »
+2

On the Oxford comma:



@Ozle - no, its under some conditions (air pressure and so) but its a pretty good estimate IIRC. Actually is defined through Kelvin nowadays.

Fine, fine, 99.97 °C at 1 atm or 99.61 °C at 100 kPa.  And interestingly, the Kelvin scale is defined using the triple point of water, not the boiling and freezing points.  (And hopefully as of 2014 will be defined by defining the Boltzmann constant instead.  Pretty, pretty please, CIPM, please make the standard kilogram obsolete!)
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2012, 05:22:31 pm »
0

And interestingly, the Kelvin scale is defined using the triple point of water, not the boiling and freezing points.

So is Celsius nowadays. Abs. zero and triple point (though I don't really know what this is :D). That's what I meant. But still old rules apply.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2012, 05:24:37 pm »
0

"To my audience, Ozle, and eHalcyon"

Except I would always read that as Ozle being the audience.

Whereas:

"To my audience, Ozle and eHalcyon"
That to me reads three seperate things.

Obviously I dont follow the rules of English grammar properly, but thats how I have always done it, and thats how I write.

There is ambiguity in that second line too though, because maybe it is a single thing, "audience", which consists of "Ozle and eHalcyon".

Edit: did not notice there was a third page, so I was ninja'd AGES ago.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2012, 05:28:50 pm »
+1

Now, C_F is probably trolling but
0 = water freezes.
100 = water boils.
Is pretty much better than "really hot" and "really cold".

Well - I am a stupid american - and I agree 100% we should move to the metric system. 

That said - the freezing and boiling points of water are not especially useful when it comes to me intuitively understanding how warm or gold something is. 

The nice thing about Fahrenheit is that 0 and 100 are near the lower and upper bounds for human safety - this is a nice range of things that you can actually experience.  0 degrees outside?  You might die.  100 degrees outside?  You might die.

If you truly want it to be anchored on something that makes sense - then you have to go with Kelvin... and at that point it doesn't matter how big a degree is, we're talking about huge numbers to answer the question "How hot is it outside"?

This is one of my favourite internet discussion topics.

0 F ~= -18 C, which is pretty cold but not terrible.  And in that image above, where 0 C was "fairly cold"?  Ha, no it's not. ;)
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #65 on: July 16, 2012, 05:37:38 pm »
0

This is one of my favourite internet discussion topics.

0 F ~= -18 C, which is pretty cold but not terrible.  And in that image above, where 0 C was "fairly cold"?  Ha, no it's not. ;)

Depends on where you live.  As someone who's grown up in the northeast US, I agree.  0C is not that bad, but you're still wearing a jacket.  I spent some time in Atlanta for work - and laughed my ass off when people were wearing fur hats to work when it was 50 degrees (F) outside.

If you really wanted to define the scale based on human safety, I'd probably go with -20F -> 0 Degrees Frisk, and 120 degress F -> 100 Degrees Frisk.

It was this discussion that actually caused me to look up how Fahrenheit came up with the scale.  Pretty interesting read.  He basically defined 3 points - the temperature of a brine mixture, the temperature of icewater, and human body temperature.  He used brine as 0, and then defined the difference betwen ice water and and human body temp as 64 degrees because it was a power of 2, so it was easy to bisect the differences in powers of 2 on his scale. 

It's just a fortunate co-incidence that the helps in conversationally discussing the temperature of things you can touch.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #66 on: July 16, 2012, 05:40:05 pm »
0

This is one of my favourite internet discussion topics.

0 F ~= -18 C, which is pretty cold but not terrible.  And in that image above, where 0 C was "fairly cold"?  Ha, no it's not. ;)

Depends on where you live.  As someone who's grown up in the northeast US, I agree.  0C is not that bad, but you're still wearing a jacket.  I spent some time in Atlanta for work - and laughed my ass off when people were wearing fur hats to work when it was 50 degrees (F) outside.

If you really wanted to define the scale based on human safety, I'd probably go with -20F -> 0 Degrees Frisk, and 120 degress F -> 100 Degrees Frisk.

It was this discussion that actually caused me to look up how Fahrenheit came up with the scale.  Pretty interesting read.  He basically defined 3 points - the temperature of a brine mixture, the temperature of icewater, and human body temperature.  He used brine as 0, and then defined the difference betwen ice water and and human body temp as 64 degrees because it was a power of 2, so it was easy to bisect the differences in powers of 2 on his scale. 

It's just a fortunate co-incidence that the helps in conversationally discussing the temperature of things you can touch.

Light jacket that isn't even zipped.

OTOH, I think what I define as "hot" is barely even warm to some people around here.
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #67 on: July 16, 2012, 06:00:10 pm »
0

I'm with eHalcyon on the temperature debate! I'm not sure where in Canada he's from, but Edmonton gets some pretty extreme temperature swings. We typically get at least one day of -40 C but this past week was around 30-35 C
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #68 on: July 16, 2012, 06:02:22 pm »
0

I'm with eHalcyon on the temperature debate! I'm not sure where in Canada he's from, but Edmonton gets some pretty extreme temperature swings. We typically get at least one day of -40 C but this past week was around 30-35 C

Except it cooled off yesterday and today... *cough*
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #69 on: July 16, 2012, 06:11:38 pm »
0

We typically see like up to -10C over winter here at Serbia.
Last winter it was like all the way to almost -30C, it was damn cold, but still, life went pretty normally (cept for traffic), didn't stop me  going out, having long walks and or stuff. You just really needed to get dressed.

@Canada folks - but guys.. its summer now?
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2012, 06:13:40 pm »
0

-40C?  That's obscenity.  It doesn't even sound like a plausible temperature on this earth.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #71 on: July 16, 2012, 06:21:05 pm »
0

-40C?  That's obscenity.  It doesn't even sound like a plausible temperature on this earth.

I think we've had -45 C with windchill.  Without windchill, I think it's only been down to -35 C.  But windchill (frost)bites.

Fun fact: -40 is the same temperature in F and C.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2012, 06:23:46 pm »
+2

-40C?  That's obscenity.  It doesn't even sound like a plausible temperature on this earth.

Last winter here (worst in my 23 years):


:D
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #73 on: July 16, 2012, 06:40:27 pm »
0

For Edmonton, Celsius really does make sense. The center of our temperature range is near 0 and we range from -40 to 40 (give or take a bit). Now with Farenheit, we'd range from about -40 to a little over 100.
Logged

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +389
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #74 on: July 16, 2012, 06:49:51 pm »
0

Braces is the plural of bracket. I think as long as we're nit-picking math we should nit-pick vocabulary too.

Source?  I've always learned that braces refer to {}, and we say "square/angle braces" sounds super weird.  Wikipedia says this is common in the US, which makes me a little wary because I'm Canadian. ;)

I can't find one. Maybe the person who drilled this into my head (who I can no longer remember either) was just making it up. Awesome.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #75 on: July 16, 2012, 08:42:31 pm »
+7

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown, and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

"While visiting New York, I met rrenaud, a former circus clown and my favorite purveyor of fine illicit substances."

How many people did you meet?
One - the other people were on their way BACK from St. Ives!
What do I win?

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2012, 05:30:41 pm »
0

Order of operations seems like such a silly thing.  It isn't a property intrinsic to the number system, but just a set of rules for interpreting our chosen method of expressing numbers and operations.  There's no particular reason multiplication has to come before addition, just convention.
It's a convention, but it's the only convention that makes sense. Any convention should be able to write polynomials without parentheses: 2x^3 - x^2 + 1. To do this, you need exponentiation to happen first, then multiplication, then (from left to right) addition and subtraction.

Valid nitpick: this doesn't say anything about division. Nobody really uses the division symbol "χ" in mathematics (instead using fractions), so that's okay. Programmers use a division operator (usually "/"), but programmers are accustomed to memorizing arbitrary conventions, so that's also okay.

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #77 on: July 18, 2012, 01:52:31 am »
0

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I'm definitely don't want to change the order of operation, but I'm not sure if that is true? How often do you want to add polynomials? Btw it is a good representation to multiply them. And, probably more important, to find its zeros. On the other hand, it's more difficult to differentiate/integrate (Because you would have to add factored polynomials. OK, here we go...).  But it's easier to start factorized and transform into standard than the other way round. Especially for degree >4.
So this form contains more information (for suitable definition of "information").
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2012, 02:25:27 am »
+1

It's a convention, but it's the only convention that makes sense. Any convention should be able to write polynomials without parentheses: 2x^3 - x^2 + 1. To do this, you need exponentiation to happen first, then multiplication, then (from left to right) addition and subtraction.

And of course, tetration should precede exponentiation, but I suppose that's a discussion for a different thread.

Quote
But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I disagree that it's less important (finding zeroes), but since the form is written, as a standard, with parentheses, it doesn't worry about order of operations.

Short version:  Standard order of operations is good.  Using them to do arithmetic can be annoying, but properly using parentheses (or RPN if you must) makes things simpler.  Creating a gotcha "puzzle" like this with no parentheses just to mess with people's minds is just plain annoying and tantamount to trolling.

Friends don't let friends abuse mathematical conventions for cheap laughs at the expense of someone who doesn't remember conventions that don't matter if you write the math out properly.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

toaster

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2012, 05:24:33 am »
+1

Favorite Oxford comma example:

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

vs.

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK and Stalin.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #80 on: July 18, 2012, 05:52:16 pm »
0

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I'm definitely don't want to change the order of operation, but I'm not sure if that is true? How often do you want to add polynomials? Btw it is a good representation to multiply them. And, probably more important, to find its zeros. On the other hand, it's more difficult to differentiate/integrate (Because you would have to add factored polynomials. OK, here we go...).  But it's easier to start factorized and transform into standard than the other way round. Especially for degree >4.
So this form contains more information (for suitable definition of "information").
Adding polynomials is common. For example, off the top of my head, for defining finite fields (which are used for tons of things, such as cryptography). Even doing polynomial division needs polynomial addition.

Maybe I just should have written "less fundamental" instead of "less important". It's simple to define addition and multiplication algorithms for standard form polynomials, and a polynomial you get in any form can (usually) be easily put into standard form.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #81 on: July 18, 2012, 05:55:36 pm »
+2

7 - 4 + 3 * 2, 4, and 6?
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #82 on: July 18, 2012, 09:11:56 pm »
0

Favorite Oxford comma example:

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

vs.

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK and Stalin.

Borderline NSFW

http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Oxford-Comma.jpg
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2012, 11:42:37 pm »
+1

Favorite Oxford comma example:

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

vs.

At the party I danced with the strippers, JFK and Stalin.

At the party I danced with the stripper, JFK, and Stalin.

vs.

At the party I danced with the stripper, JFK and Stalin.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #84 on: July 19, 2012, 01:30:35 am »
0

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I'm definitely don't want to change the order of operation, but I'm not sure if that is true? How often do you want to add polynomials? Btw it is a good representation to multiply them. And, probably more important, to find its zeros. On the other hand, it's more difficult to differentiate/integrate (Because you would have to add factored polynomials. OK, here we go...).  But it's easier to start factorized and transform into standard than the other way round. Especially for degree >4.
So this form contains more information (for suitable definition of "information").
Even doing polynomial division needs polynomial addition.

Not if you write it in factored form...
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #85 on: July 19, 2012, 02:40:28 am »
0

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I'm definitely don't want to change the order of operation, but I'm not sure if that is true? How often do you want to add polynomials? Btw it is a good representation to multiply them. And, probably more important, to find its zeros. On the other hand, it's more difficult to differentiate/integrate (Because you would have to add factored polynomials. OK, here we go...).  But it's easier to start factorized and transform into standard than the other way round. Especially for degree >4.
So this form contains more information (for suitable definition of "information").
Even doing polynomial division needs polynomial addition.

Not if you write it in factored form...
I might be missing something, but if there's a remainder, I don't think the factorization will help.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #86 on: July 19, 2012, 03:48:41 am »
0

Invalid nitpick: what about writing factored polynomials? Like (x - 2)(3x - 1)(x^2 + 4). That requires a lot of parentheses. But the factorization of a polynomial is not a good way to represent it, because it's difficult to add them together. This form is less important.

I'm definitely don't want to change the order of operation, but I'm not sure if that is true? How often do you want to add polynomials? Btw it is a good representation to multiply them. And, probably more important, to find its zeros. On the other hand, it's more difficult to differentiate/integrate (Because you would have to add factored polynomials. OK, here we go...).  But it's easier to start factorized and transform into standard than the other way round. Especially for degree >4.
So this form contains more information (for suitable definition of "information").
Even doing polynomial division needs polynomial addition.

Not if you write it in factored form...
I might be missing something, but if there's a remainder, I don't think the factorization will help.
I think in this case we must first specify in which form we want to write polynomials with remainder, but enough of that now...
Logged

Teproc

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
  • Shuffle iT Username: Teproc
  • aka Le Teproc
  • Respect: +356
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2013, 07:15:18 pm »
0

You guys have an acronym for resolving operations in algebra ? Crazy.

And did I seriously read someone suggesting Fahrenheit was better than Celsius ? That's funny.
Logged
Mafia play advice: If you are not content with the way the game is going, always assume that it is your fault.

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
  • Respect: +1793
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #88 on: November 27, 2013, 07:33:34 pm »
+3

Pffff, the metric system only makes sense to humans. Water? Who cares about water? Earthlings, that's who. Everything is in base 10*? Why, because you happened to evolve 10 wiggly appendages for some reason? How arbitrary.

*Yes, I know that every base is base 10 in its own base, so don't even go there pal! :P
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

Archetype

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
  • Suffers from Fancy Play Syndrom
  • Respect: +690
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #89 on: November 27, 2013, 08:27:55 pm »
0

Pffff, the metric system only makes sense to humans. Water? Who cares about water? Earthlings, that's who. Everything is in base 10*? Why, because you happened to evolve 10 wiggly appendages for some reason? How arbitrary.
Um every base is base 10 in its own base.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #90 on: November 27, 2013, 08:51:18 pm »
0

Did this thread really need to get bumped?
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2013, 09:14:59 pm »
0

Did this thread really need to get bumped?

Sure, why not? People talk about things.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2013, 09:33:05 pm »
0

Did this thread really need to get bumped?

Sure, why not? People talk about things.

Ehh. I just feel like there's nothing really to discuss that wasn't discussed when the thread was first up.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2013, 10:30:31 pm »
+4

And did I seriously read someone suggesting Fahrenheit was better than Celsius ? That's funny.

Fahrenheit is awesome! "Rate on a scale of 0 to 100 how hot or cold the weather is, where 0 is 'really cold weather' and 100 is 'really hot weather'"!
Logged

Teproc

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
  • Shuffle iT Username: Teproc
  • aka Le Teproc
  • Respect: +356
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #94 on: November 28, 2013, 06:13:51 am »
0

Huh, I don't know why I stumbled upon this thread, I didn't realize it was a few months old. I must have seen someone reading it in the "Who's online" and the title intrigued me. Sorry !
Logged
Mafia play advice: If you are not content with the way the game is going, always assume that it is your fault.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2013, 06:25:10 am »
+1

Huh, I don't know why I stumbled upon this thread, I didn't realize it was a few months old.
It was from 2012, it's more than just a few months old.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #96 on: November 28, 2013, 09:11:13 am »
0

Thread necromancy at work.
Logged
A man has no signature

Warfreak2

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1149
  • KC->KC->[Scavenger, Scavenger, Lookout]
  • Respect: +1324
    • View Profile
    • Music what I do
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #97 on: November 28, 2013, 01:58:20 pm »
+4

Vi Hart already killed this kind of thing.
Logged
If the only engine on the board is Procession->Conspirator, I will play it.

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #98 on: November 28, 2013, 04:21:19 pm »
+2

One of the benefits of the metric system -- versus the imperial system -- is that you have fewer conversions.  Rather than having inches, feet, miles, furlongs, rods, hectares, acres, gallons, fluid ounces, teaspoons, and so forth you have meters.  Then you can have centimeters, kilometers, square meters, cubic centimeters etc., but you can convert amongst them trivially.

The temperature scale didn't have that issue.  These days, the main advantage of the Celsius scale is its near universal ubiquity (which is a significant advantage, by the way!).
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #99 on: January 28, 2014, 06:50:06 pm »
0

One of the benefits of the metric system -- versus the imperial system -- is that you have fewer conversions.  Rather than having inches, feet, miles, furlongs, rods, hectares, acres, gallons, fluid ounces, teaspoons, and so forth you have meters.  Then you can have centimeters, kilometers, square meters, cubic centimeters etc., but you can convert amongst them trivially.
Well, YOU can, because you're very comfortable with using base 10. But the appendage comment enough points out this is a peculiarity to members of our species, rooted in cultures which use mathematical systems which eventually owe something back to the fact that a recessive trait is near-ubiquitous.

Yes, polydactylism is dominant.

Quote
The temperature scale didn't have that issue.  These days, the main advantage of the Celsius scale is its near universal ubiquity (which is a significant advantage, by the way!).
Well, except that your grams, metres, and litres aren't entirely arbitrary in their definitions. I mean, one of them is, but the others are based on having water having a density of 1 and handy conversions between the units (1 ml = 1 cm^3) under "standard atmospheric Earth conditions" (another way that the system is Earth-centric). Celsius scale has this advantage as well - 0 and 100 are special for water in such conditions. Actually, it's somewhat strange to my mind that the figures work out on round degrees in Fahrenheit. Probably if I looked a bit more into the history, I'd find that there is a reason for this (like it got rounded or changed at some point).

And yes, this is another thread ne-ne-ne-ne-necro.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2014, 10:14:32 am »
+1

One of the benefits of the metric system -- versus the imperial system -- is that you have fewer conversions.  Rather than having inches, feet, miles, furlongs, rods, hectares, acres, gallons, fluid ounces, teaspoons, and so forth you have meters.  Then you can have centimeters, kilometers, square meters, cubic centimeters etc., but you can convert amongst them trivially.
Well, YOU can, because you're very comfortable with using base 10. But the appendage comment enough points out this is a peculiarity to members of our species, rooted in cultures which use mathematical systems which eventually owe something back to the fact that a recessive trait is near-ubiquitous.

Yes, polydactylism is dominant.

I... I'm not sure how polydactyly being a dominant trait matters at all here.  Having ten digits may be recessive, but so is not being a dwarf.  Meanwhile, pentadactyly, despite being recessive, traces back to ancestral tetrapods.  Having ten fingers is the basal state.

Quote
Quote
The temperature scale didn't have that issue.  These days, the main advantage of the Celsius scale is its near universal ubiquity (which is a significant advantage, by the way!).
Well, except that your grams, metres, and litres aren't entirely arbitrary in their definitions. I mean, one of them is, but the others are based on having water having a density of 1 and handy conversions between the units (1 ml = 1 cm^3) under "standard atmospheric Earth conditions" (another way that the system is Earth-centric). Celsius scale has this advantage as well - 0 and 100 are special for water in such conditions. Actually, it's somewhat strange to my mind that the figures work out on round degrees in Fahrenheit. Probably if I looked a bit more into the history, I'd find that there is a reason for this (like it got rounded or changed at some point).

And yes, this is another thread ne-ne-ne-ne-necro.

Yes, obviously all of the original metric definitions are Earth-centric, which seems entirely reasonable given our lack of contact with extraterrestrial lifeforms.  It's not exactly a cultural ethnocentrism that causes systemic discrimination.

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2014, 12:20:26 pm »
0

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.

The mole relies on the definition of the gram...
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2014, 12:24:02 pm »
0

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.

The mole relies on the definition of the gram...

Ah yes, good point.

Edit:  Have I mentioned anywhere that I simply cannot wait for the new SI definitions to be adopted?  It's like Christmas for people who are interested in metrology!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 12:25:25 pm by Kirian »
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2014, 12:27:52 pm »
0

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.

The mole relies on the definition of the gram...

Ah yes, good point.

Edit:  Have I mentioned anywhere that I simply cannot wait for the new SI definitions to be adopted?  It's like Christmas for people who are interested in metrology!

...There's new SI definitions?!?!?

EDIT: I just looked into it, I see now that they're redefining them without a change to their actual measurement.  That makes more sense.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 12:38:23 pm by sudgy »
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #104 on: January 29, 2014, 12:37:47 pm »
+1

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.

The mole relies on the definition of the gram...

Ah yes, good point.

Edit:  Have I mentioned anywhere that I simply cannot wait for the new SI definitions to be adopted?  It's like Christmas for people who are interested in metrology!

...There's new SI definitions?!?!?

Yep.  Just like we have defined the speed of light as a specific nine digit number, and the value of the meter depends on that, the plan is to define, IIRC, Planck's constant for the kg, electron charge for the ampere, the Boltzmann constant for Kelvin, and the Avogadro constant for the mole.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #105 on: January 29, 2014, 12:39:21 pm »
0

And none of the original metric units were arbitrary that I know of.  The kilometer was one ten-thousandth the distance from pole to equator; the kilogram was of course based on the mass of a liter of water, with liters derived from meters.  The second was based on its traditional definition, and you've already noted how the Celsius (and therefore Kelvin) scale was derived.  I suppose the ampere, candela, and mole are not Earth-centric, except insofar as the first two rely on the definitions of the meter.

The mole relies on the definition of the gram...

Ah yes, good point.

Edit:  Have I mentioned anywhere that I simply cannot wait for the new SI definitions to be adopted?  It's like Christmas for people who are interested in metrology!

...There's new SI definitions?!?!?

Yep.  Just like we have defined the speed of light as a specific nine digit number, and the value of the meter depends on that, the plan is to define, IIRC, Planck's constant for the kg, electron charge for the ampere, the Boltzmann constant for Kelvin, and the Avogadro constant for the mole.

Yeah, I was thinking that it was going to be things like the meter is now 50% larger (it would be something that makes more sense) or something like that.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #106 on: January 29, 2014, 01:56:01 pm »
+1



Edit:  Have I mentioned anywhere that I simply cannot wait for the new SI definitions to be adopted?  It's like Christmas for people who are interested in metrology!


What your going to sit around in your underpants eating cold turkey watching Home Alone when it happens?
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2014, 08:46:56 pm »
0

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #108 on: January 30, 2014, 08:54:13 pm »
+3

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #109 on: January 30, 2014, 09:05:44 pm »
+4

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.

I'm currently grading quizzes for my differential equations class, and these students still make order of operations mistakes.

In the first homework assignment they had to check that y=e-t/2 - e-3t is a solution to y' + 3y = e-t.  My office hour was full of one student after another who was stumped because they interpreted the solution as y=e-t/(2 - 3e-3t).
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #110 on: January 30, 2014, 09:22:16 pm »
+1

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.

I'm currently grading quizzes for my differential equations class, and these students still make order of operations mistakes.

In the first homework assignment they had to check that y=e-t/2 - e-3t is a solution to y' + 3y = e-t.  My office hour was full of one student after another who was stumped because they interpreted the solution as y=e-t/(2 - 3e-3t).

To be fair, if the problem was written like that, then it was poorly written; that first term can be unambiguously written with a standard division bar, or as 0.5e-t
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2014, 09:35:51 pm »
+1

I don't see any ambiguity there. Using / for inline equations is pretty standard. I guess you could have used 0.5 instead, but what if you wanted e-t/x -e-3t? That's the most compact way to do it, unless you want to argue for the always use x-1 notation. Though if you're writing up homeworks it would be nicer to use an equation editor to make things look nicer.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2014, 09:37:53 pm »
0

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.

I'm currently grading quizzes for my differential equations class, and these students still make order of operations mistakes.

In the first homework assignment they had to check that y=e-t/2 - e-3t is a solution to y' + 3y = e-t.  My office hour was full of one student after another who was stumped because they interpreted the solution as y=e-t/(2 - 3e-3t).

To be fair, if the problem was written like that, then it was poorly written; that first term can be unambiguously written with a standard division bar, or as 0.5e-t

The standard division bar would have taken up more space.  And eww, I really don't like to see decimals used for something like that.  My preference would have been (1/2)e-3t.  But honestly, the textbook was fine here.  There shouldn't have been any confusion whatsoever.  Or at least, the students should have been able to notice the potential amibiguity and checked both solutions rather than come to my office hour just for this question.  Don't get me wrong, I like it when students come to my office hour.  But it tends to take a lot to get a student to go, so this must have genuinely stumped them.

jonts, it was in a textbook.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #113 on: January 31, 2014, 10:06:25 am »
0

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.

I'm currently grading quizzes for my differential equations class, and these students still make order of operations mistakes.

In the first homework assignment they had to check that y=e-t/2 - e-3t is a solution to y' + 3y = e-t.  My office hour was full of one student after another who was stumped because they interpreted the solution as y=e-t/(2 - 3e-3t).

To be fair, if the problem was written like that, then it was poorly written; that first term can be unambiguously written with a standard division bar, or as 0.5e-t

You must disagree with the whole point of this thread, then. Order of operations exists SO THAT there is no ambiguity. There isn't a difference between Sir Peebles's example and the title of this thread.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #114 on: January 31, 2014, 10:23:02 am »
+2

I don't have time for a full response.  As I see it, an ambiguity is a human thing.  It is when the audience sees multiple interpretations of a statement.  The order of operations present a framework for resolving certain ambiguities in mathematical exposition.  They do not prevent the ambiguities from manifesting for the audience unless the audience has fully internalized them.  It is the role of style to prevent ambiguities.  Of course, unambiguous writing can be at odds with clear writing, which is another reason conventions are set.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #115 on: January 31, 2014, 10:33:31 am »
0

This topic is the 10th most viewed on the forums?  Really?

Order of operations is serious business.

I'm currently grading quizzes for my differential equations class, and these students still make order of operations mistakes.

In the first homework assignment they had to check that y=e-t/2 - e-3t is a solution to y' + 3y = e-t.  My office hour was full of one student after another who was stumped because they interpreted the solution as y=e-t/(2 - 3e-3t).

To be fair, if the problem was written like that, then it was poorly written; that first term can be unambiguously written with a standard division bar, or as 0.5e-t

You must disagree with the whole point of this thread, then. Order of operations exists SO THAT there is no ambiguity. There isn't a difference between Sir Peebles's example and the title of this thread.

Well... in effect, yes.  Any mathematical expression can be written unambiguously without resorting to order of operations, via some combination of parens, fraction bars, and the like.  This is especially important in programming, where you're writing expressions on a single line and using functions like sqrt() for some expressions, and where you often have variables that aren't just single symbols.  I know some people think parens look ugly, but ambiguity is, in my opinion, worse.  So, for instance, to do an amortization:

$i = $yearly_rate/12;
$payment = ( $principal * $i * ( ( 1 + $i ) ^ $months ) ) ) / ( ( ( 1 + $i ) ^ $months ) ) - 1 );

The compiler can't misinterpret this because there is only one type of operation within each set of parentheses.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2014, 11:24:44 am »
+3

The problem with your statement is that human brains don't work exactly like computers. Yeah, there's no ambiguity, but I, and most people, wouldn't be able to interpret that equation quickly. Huge amounts of nested parentheses become cumbersome and I end up having to translate into an easier form. When I'm coding longer equations, I have to pay really close attention because it's easy to make mistakes in translation to how I would write and be able to easily read an equation and how the computer must read it.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2014, 11:33:02 am »
+1

The problem with your statement is that human brains don't work exactly like computers. Yeah, there's no ambiguity, but I, and most people, wouldn't be able to interpret that equation quickly. Huge amounts of nested parentheses become cumbersome and I end up having to translate into an easier form. When I'm coding longer equations, I have to pay really close attention because it's easy to make mistakes in translation to how I would write and be able to easily read an equation and how the computer must read it.

Certainly, but there are other ways to make it clearer to humans; lose the outermost parens on each side of the division, and replace the division with a fraction bar; then, because we can write the exponential in a clearer form when a human reads it, we can lose those parens; etc.  Similarly, polynomial terms can be written in specific ways that make them human-readable.  For the most part, the ambiguity only occurs when:

1. The operations are all on a single line;
2. Someone has intentionally tried to obfuscate the math.

Note that the original "problem" in the thread had both of those problems.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

StrongRhino

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 468
  • Shuffle iT Username: StrongRhino
  • Respect: +247
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #118 on: March 20, 2014, 01:55:47 pm »
0

I never learned the acronym for PEDMAS (or its variants), but I have seen how it's been misused. The problem with PEDMAS is that it can be interpreted to mean that you divide before you multiply and that you add before you subtract, when those operator pairs are equal in priority (and should therefore be done left to right).

For example, we have:
8-6+4=?

If you literally read PEDMAS as doing addition first, then you conclude the answer is -2. But since addition and subtraction have the same priority, you go from left to right, so the answer is actually 6.

Instead of learning PEDMAS, I just learned that the operators were grouped together, which makes sense, since subtraction is just addition and division is just multiplication. I just learned that multiplication happens before addition. Then we learned parentheses. Exponents would have come later. By the time I got to that point, we had known the order of operations.

I wouldn't teach PEDMAS if I were in a classroom. From what it sounds like, it's fairly ubiquitous, so I guess I'd be doing a disservice by ignoring the acronym. I would definitely teach it as PE(DM)(AS). Maybe use colors PEDMAS. It was actually one of those annoying trolling equations where I saw someone claim an entirely different answer because she used PEDMAS incorrectly, so now I'm wary of that tool.
PEDMAS? I've always heard it as PEMDAS.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #119 on: March 20, 2014, 02:07:19 pm »
+24

Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #120 on: April 08, 2014, 05:19:55 pm »
+3

Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #121 on: April 08, 2014, 05:44:19 pm »
0

Ugh, the comments on that video.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #122 on: April 08, 2014, 05:48:00 pm »
0

Ugh, the comments on that video.

I have never in my life seen someone write 5.3 feet when they meant 5'3''.  And as a math professor, I have seen some absolutely horrendous crap from my students.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #123 on: April 08, 2014, 06:15:09 pm »
+8

Ugh, the comments on that video.

"You should do this about the metric system as well. Because that is incredibly more inconsistent."
"View all 62 Replies."

Oh, this is going to be good.
Logged
A man has no signature

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #124 on: April 08, 2014, 06:17:48 pm »
+3

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #125 on: April 08, 2014, 06:24:47 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.

Yeah, I think I've mentioned already in this thread that the downside of the imperial system is that there are so many wacky conversions between units measuring the same thing.  But with temperature there is no such issue.  Imperial measures all temperatures in Fahrenheit, Metric measures all in Celsius, SI measures all in Kelvin.  While there is some scientific basis for Kelvin being superior, there is no particularly strong reason to use Celsius over Fahrenheit.  Ideally, we would just fix Boltzmann's constant and measure temperatures in units of energy rather than using Kelvin.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #126 on: April 08, 2014, 06:34:21 pm »
0

"The number 3 in itself is what destroys metric units"

Bwahahahaha! This guy must be trolling.

Theory, I agree with you that I prefer Fahrenheit, though I'm American, so I admit some bias.

But there is greater subtlety in going up or down a degree in F than in C. That would have a greater appeal to the layperson, I would think.
Logged
A man has no signature

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #127 on: April 08, 2014, 06:39:28 pm »
+2

Yeah, I think I've mentioned already in this thread that the downside of the imperial system is that there are so many wacky conversions between units measuring the same thing.  But with temperature there is no such issue.  Imperial measures all temperatures in Fahrenheit, Metric measures all in Celsius, SI measures all in Kelvin.  While there is some scientific basis for Kelvin being superior, there is no particularly strong reason to use Celsius over Fahrenheit.  Ideally, we would just fix Boltzmann's constant and measure temperatures in units of energy rather than using Kelvin.

The Kelvin thing isn't a problem. The imperial system has Rankine to fill your absolute temperature needs.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #128 on: April 08, 2014, 06:43:43 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #129 on: April 08, 2014, 06:48:47 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.

I don't use any temperature scales when I'm preparing tea.  I can tell when the water is boiling from the bubbles.  Then I let it cool a bit.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Axxle

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
  • Most Valuable Serial Killer
  • Respect: +1965
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #130 on: April 08, 2014, 06:51:11 pm »
0

"The number 3 in itself is what destroys metric units"

Bwahahahaha! This guy must be trolling.

Theory, I agree with you that I prefer Fahrenheit, though I'm American, so I admit some bias.

But there is greater subtlety in going up or down a degree in F than in C. That would have a greater appeal to the layperson, I would think.
I mean, 12 is a nice number for divisors, it's why our day is split up into 24 hours. But that's not a good enough reason to keep the imperial system around.
Logged
We might be from all over the world, but "we all talk this one language  : +1 card + 1 action +1 buy , gain , discard, trash... " - RTT

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #131 on: April 08, 2014, 06:55:55 pm »
0

"The number 3 in itself is what destroys metric units"

Bwahahahaha! This guy must be trolling.

Theory, I agree with you that I prefer Fahrenheit, though I'm American, so I admit some bias.

But there is greater subtlety in going up or down a degree in F than in C. That would have a greater appeal to the layperson, I would think.
I mean, 12 is a nice number for divisors, it's why our day is split up into 24 hours. But that's not a good enough reason to keep the imperial system around.
If everything were 12s, it really wouldn't be so bad.

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #132 on: April 08, 2014, 07:02:39 pm »
+5

Make everything base 12!

Of if you grew up that way, base 10!
Logged
A man has no signature

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #133 on: April 08, 2014, 07:08:40 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.

I don't use any temperature scales when I'm preparing tea.  I can tell when the water is boiling from the bubbles.  Then I let it cool a bit.
You shouldn't let the water boil (unless you are going to throw that water away anyway), it ruins the water.

But the point was, the time you need for cooling depends on the tea. Of course you could just do trial-and-error until you find the correct time for each kind of tea, but it's much easier to just look what the instructions say about the temperature and calculate the time, you'll get it correct on your first try.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #134 on: April 08, 2014, 07:12:52 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.

I don't use any temperature scales when I'm preparing tea.  I can tell when the water is boiling from the bubbles.  Then I let it cool a bit.
You shouldn't let the water boil (unless you are going to throw that water away anyway), it ruins the water.

But the point was, the time you need for cooling depends on the tea. Of course you could just do trial-and-error until you find the correct time for each kind of tea, but it's much easier to just look what the instructions say about the temperature and calculate the time, you'll get it correct on your first try.

I'm not going to dignify the "ruined water" comment.

If each tea is a different number that you just look up or read off of the instructions, how is Celsius more convenient than Fahrenheit?  It would be like reading the number 83 instead of 192 or something like that.  Maybe you know the Celsius numbers by heart, but you would know the Fahrenheit ones just as well if you'd learned them.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Teproc

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
  • Shuffle iT Username: Teproc
  • aka Le Teproc
  • Respect: +356
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #135 on: April 08, 2014, 07:28:26 pm »
+1

I don't see why Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. THe argument is that Fahrenheit is more precise and gives you abetter idea of how warm it actually is right ? But I don't know, 19 and 20°C are clear enough to me I guess. I don't think Celsius is incredibly superior (although I do like it better with the 0 and 100 thing), it's just that it's annoying to me when I watch an American TV show or movie and they talk about the heat with those ridiculous numbers that I don't understand. It's kind of like the British driving on the left side : it's not that driving on he right side is much better, it's just that it feels like you're being a contrarian for the sake of it.
Logged
Mafia play advice: If you are not content with the way the game is going, always assume that it is your fault.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #136 on: April 08, 2014, 07:39:02 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.

I don't use any temperature scales when I'm preparing tea.  I can tell when the water is boiling from the bubbles.  Then I let it cool a bit.
You shouldn't let the water boil (unless you are going to throw that water away anyway), it ruins the water.

But the point was, the time you need for cooling depends on the tea. Of course you could just do trial-and-error until you find the correct time for each kind of tea, but it's much easier to just look what the instructions say about the temperature and calculate the time, you'll get it correct on your first try.

I'm not going to dignify the "ruined water" comment.

If each tea is a different number that you just look up or read off of the instructions, how is Celsius more convenient than Fahrenheit?  It would be like reading the number 83 instead of 192 or something like that.  Maybe you know the Celsius numbers by heart, but you would know the Fahrenheit ones just as well if you'd learned them.
Well, I guess it doesn't matter if you are doing it your way (letting it cool down), but you can also tell the temperature of the water while it's warming up by looking at the water and listening to the sound it makes:

158-176 F / 70-80 C: tiny bubbles at the bottom of the pot
176-194 F / 80-90 C: the tiny bubbles begin to rise, the water makes high-pitched sounds
195-203 F / 90-95 C: the bubbles become larger, the pitch gets lower

It's obviously an approximation which is based on the Celsius scale, but still, the Celsius numbers are a lot nicer. Being able to tell 70, 80 and 95 Celsius is also enough for most teas.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #137 on: April 08, 2014, 08:18:41 pm »
0

I had a little argument with some others on this forum when I defended the use of Fahrenheit over Celsius.  In all other aspects, I think the metric system is generally preferable, but you will never convince me that Celsius is better for everyday use than Fahrenheit.
I think Celsius is pretty convenient when you are preparing tea.

I don't use any temperature scales when I'm preparing tea.  I can tell when the water is boiling from the bubbles.  Then I let it cool a bit.
You shouldn't let the water boil (unless you are going to throw that water away anyway), it ruins the water.

But the point was, the time you need for cooling depends on the tea. Of course you could just do trial-and-error until you find the correct time for each kind of tea, but it's much easier to just look what the instructions say about the temperature and calculate the time, you'll get it correct on your first try.

I'm not going to dignify the "ruined water" comment.

If each tea is a different number that you just look up or read off of the instructions, how is Celsius more convenient than Fahrenheit?  It would be like reading the number 83 instead of 192 or something like that.  Maybe you know the Celsius numbers by heart, but you would know the Fahrenheit ones just as well if you'd learned them.
Well, I guess it doesn't matter if you are doing it your way (letting it cool down), but you can also tell the temperature of the water while it's warming up by looking at the water and listening to the sound it makes:

158-176 F / 70-80 C: tiny bubbles at the bottom of the pot
176-194 F / 80-90 C: the tiny bubbles begin to rise, the water makes high-pitched sounds
195-203 F / 90-95 C: the bubbles become larger, the pitch gets lower

It's obviously an approximation which is based on the Celsius scale, but still, the Celsius numbers are a lot nicer. Being able to tell 70, 80 and 95 Celsius is also enough for most teas.
One assumes the Celsius numbers are nicer because they are imprecise, and whoever wrote what you looked at rounded them FOR the Celsius scale. At any rate, I don't think these numbers ARE actually any nicer, but if you want to make this argument, it seems to me that you would bow to the one about air temperatures in Fahrenheit. I don't buy that one, either, really (for me anyway) - to me, neither is really a nicer scale than the other.

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #138 on: April 08, 2014, 08:53:07 pm »
+1

I always considered the freezing and boiling points of water to be useful from a practical point of view for calibration.  While you don't need to assign these points the values 0 and 100, they at least seemed to me to be relatively well defined values for an extremely abundant substance on Earth that easy enough to distill.  But today I realized that back in the 1700s, it would have been pretty difficult to freeze water on demand in order to calibrate your thermometer.  Did they only calibrate thermometers in the winter?  Boiling water was of course simple enough.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #139 on: April 08, 2014, 09:57:01 pm »
+5

So it finally occurred to me after reading some of this that the reason Fahrenheit keeps hanging on (other than stubborn arrogant Americans) has nothing to do with precision.  In fact, it's exactly the opposite; it has to do with imprecision.  And--amusingly--it's because of base 10.  Let's face it, most people, if asked to estimate the temperature, are not going to estimate to within one degree--either Fahrenheit or Celsius.  You might have some super-savants who can tell the temperature to within 2 °C, but those are going to be few and far between.

But when we talk about the temperature, we don't worry about that sort of precision anyway.  "It's in the low 50s" is pretty much as good as anyone ever uses or needs for determining what to wear outside.  But "in the low 50s" Fahrenheit is a much smaller range than "in the low teens" Celsius.  In fact, "the low teens" Celsius stretches over the whole "fifties" Fahrenheit.  And since we humans, with our ten-digit set of upper appendages, like to group things into 10s, we'd rather have that group of ten be somewhat smaller rather than somewhat larger.  That way we can say "Yeah, it's about 50" when it's 45, and those around us can't really complain, but it's much harder to say "yeah, it's about 10" and not get grumbles when it's actually 5.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #140 on: April 08, 2014, 10:01:09 pm »
+1

Did they only calibrate thermometers in the winter?

My guess is that yes, they would only do those sorts of calibrations when ice was readily available.

Also, consider that the size of the (old) Fahrenheit scale was based on the difference between water's freezing point (32) and the human body's temp (96) was set to exactly 64, so that Fahrenheit could do his calibrations simply by marking halves.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

florrat

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: florrat
  • Respect: +748
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #141 on: April 08, 2014, 10:13:22 pm »
0

@Kirian: That might be a small argument in favor of the Fahrenheit scale, but estimating temperature in multiples of 5 °C is almost as good.

To the people who prefer Fahrenheit over Celsius, can you give arguments why it's better. I grew up using Celsius, and I agree that the difference in usefulness between Fahrenheit and Celsius is very small, there are at least two small reasons in favor of Celcius:
-The 0 °C is useful as freezing point of water (and 100 °C might be useful as boiling point).
-Easier conversion between Kelvin and Celcius (this is similar to Fahrenheit and Rankine, but is the Rankine temperature scale ever used?)
Are there such arguments in favor of Fahrenheit (Kirian gave one, are there others)?
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #142 on: April 08, 2014, 10:17:04 pm »
0

@Kirian: That might be a small argument in favor of the Fahrenheit scale, but estimating temperature in multiples of 5 °C is almost as good.

To the people who prefer Fahrenheit over Celsius, can you give arguments why it's better. I grew up using Celsius, and I agree that the difference in usefulness between Fahrenheit and Celsius is very small, there are at least two small reasons in favor of Celcius:
-The 0 °C is useful as freezing point of water (and 100 °C might be useful as boiling point).
-Easier conversion between Kelvin and Celcius (this is similar to Fahrenheit and Rankine, but is the Rankine temperature scale ever used?)
Are there such arguments in favor of Fahrenheit (Kirian gave one, are there others)?

Oh dear, I've been mistaken for a booster of the Fahrenheit scale!  I haz a sad now.  I was just pointing out an extra reason it persists, despite Americans claiming that the scale is more precise or some such bullshit.

As far as Rankin: I finished my engineering degree in 1998.  At that time, we were still doing calculations involving Rankin, pound-moles, and BTUs.  </shudder>
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #143 on: April 08, 2014, 10:20:41 pm »
0

-Easier conversion between Kelvin and Celcius (this is similar to Fahrenheit and Rankine, but is the Rankine temperature scale ever used?)

Yep. Anyone doing heat transfer type engineering work in America often has to use Rankine.
Logged

florrat

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: florrat
  • Respect: +748
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #144 on: April 08, 2014, 10:28:16 pm »
0

Oh dear, I've been mistaken for a booster of the Fahrenheit scale!  I haz a sad now.
Sorry to make you sad, but I didn't mistake your for a booster of the Fahrenheit scale, I just (tried to) objectively state(d) that you gave a small argument in favor of the Fahrenheit scale...
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: 7 – 4 + 3 x 0 + 1 = ?
« Reply #145 on: April 08, 2014, 11:08:13 pm »
0

To the people who prefer Fahrenheit over Celsius, can you give arguments why it's better.

No.

I prefer it, but I cannot say for certain that it's not because of cultural bias. Even the fact that I say that it the measurements are smaller may only be a justification because F is ingrained in my four decades of hearing temperatures. Honestly, if it ever switches to C (or K), then I'd struggle for a bit, but I'd get used to it. I don't think F is inherently better than C.
Logged
A man has no signature
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 [All]
 

Page created in 0.19 seconds with 20 queries.