๐งต Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:48:38 UTC No. 16122345
I want to do a simple experiment
What do you think this simplifies to?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:50:43 UTC No. 16122347
>>16122345
It simplifies to me giving you a 0 and moving on to the next student
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:19:58 UTC No. 16122378
>>16122345
It doesnt simplify to anything because it's not standard mathematical notation.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:40:57 UTC No. 16122414
>>16122378
This.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:41:02 UTC No. 16122415
>>16122345
It's sqrt(64/17) which simplifies to 8/sqrt(17). I don't know how the fuck you got anything else. Use Wolfram alpha to confirm that you are a fucking retard.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:41:42 UTC No. 16122417
>>16122415
Then my professor is wrong. thanks for confirming that for me :)
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:54:40 UTC No. 16122441
>>16122415
>>16122417
You are both very mistaken, because that fraction is ambiguous, which means the only correct interpretation of OP's image is "what the fuck do you mean".
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:04:58 UTC No. 16122450
>>16122345
poor syntax since one can't tell which fraction takes priority.
either one fraction bar should be wider than the other, or one fraction should be in brackets
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:07:29 UTC No. 16122453
PLEASE BE BAIT
>>16122345
>>16122378
>>16122415
>>16122417
>>16122450
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:16:29 UTC No. 16122470
>>16122453
lol
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:28:06 UTC No. 16122483
Personally i say 4sqrt(17)/17 but i'm also pretty leftbrained
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:34:00 UTC No. 16122493
6srqt(17)/17
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:20:06 UTC No. 16122659
>>16122441
>>16122450
>>16122453
Bottom of the bottom is the top. Dividing a fraction by two is the same as multiplying the numerator by two. You should be able to prove this with high school algebra. If you can't then you need to review and practice your fundamentals.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:22:45 UTC No. 16122664
>>16122345
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:25:20 UTC No. 16122668
32/17/2 is to be read as (32/17)/2 and not as 32/(17/2), so it's 4sqrt(17)/17
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:51:06 UTC No. 16122715
>>16122345
easy
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:06:45 UTC No. 16122843
>>16122345
write it in a better notation, if the answer is ambiguous you've failed as the creator of the question
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:36:04 UTC No. 16122896
>>16122345
neither because the sqrt of 17 does not exist
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:40:34 UTC No. 16122901
>>16122415
>Use Wolfram alpha to confirm that you are a fucking retard.
To input this into Wolfram Alpha requires making a choice of how to parse the ambiguous fraction. So it confirms nothing.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:15:41 UTC No. 16122979
>>16122949
if only I pointed it out 4 posts above yours
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:21:57 UTC No. 16122989
>>16122979
You showed your work but forgot to fill in an answer.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:25:16 UTC No. 16122994
>>16122989
it was left for the reader as an exercise
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:46:26 UTC No. 16123038
>>16122345
why are the mathematically illiterate so intrigued by order of operation conventions?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:55:15 UTC No. 16123055
>>16123038
Because to the mathematically illiterate, it looks like a hole in our understanding of math that is simple enough that they can contribute to it.
Garrote at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:47:27 UTC No. 16123303
Division is not associative but you give no clear indication of precedence.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:13:25 UTC No. 16123355
>>16122345
Who cares? Nobody writes a fraction like that without at least making one fraction line smaller or using some parentheses
What does
>1++2-*5
equal? That's right, nobody cares because it's fucking gibberiish. Retard.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:22:36 UTC No. 16123371
>>16122715
>>16122949
>OP does some shitty MS paint lines
>OMG guysss it means something
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:44:17 UTC No. 16123462
>>16123371
>>OMG guysss it means something
It literally does though? As written it can be mathematically interpreted.
I'm not speaking on the intent of the creator, but of the lines themselves.