Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

First Cause

Page 10 of 10 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Previous topic | Next topic

sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2015, 5:43 am

Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Feb 2015, 6:21 am

sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2015, 6:36 am

Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


I don't recognize those rules.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Feb 2015, 6:57 am

sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


I don't recognize those rules.

Sorry, I'm not sure which rules you mean.
Are you saying you don't agree with the reversible rule (the 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 rule)?
Or are you saying that you're not aware of the rule which makes this equation work?
2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2015, 7:32 am

Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


I don't recognize those rules.

Sorry, I'm not sure which rules you mean.
Are you saying you don't agree with the reversible rule (the 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 rule)?
Or are you saying that you're not aware of the rule which makes this equation work?
2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6


Your commutative rule.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Feb 2015, 7:47 am

sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


I don't recognize those rules.

Sorry, I'm not sure which rules you mean.
Are you saying you don't agree with the reversible rule (the 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 rule)?
Or are you saying that you're not aware of the rule which makes this equation work?
2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6


Your commutative rule.

Sophi, you're playing with me.

I spent several years in IT and learned not to use Jargon around people.
And when people do use jargon words, it's a red flag to me.
You just used the proper jargon word for that rule - "commutative."


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2015, 7:58 am

Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).


I don't recognize those rules.

Sorry, I'm not sure which rules you mean.
Are you saying you don't agree with the reversible rule (the 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 rule)?
Or are you saying that you're not aware of the rule which makes this equation work?
2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6


Your commutative rule.

Sophi, you're playing with me.

I spent several years in IT and learned not to use Jargon around people.
And when people do use jargon words, it's a red flag to me.
You just used the proper jargon word for that rule - "commutative."


In the real world it is not necessarily commutative

On paper it is (cept for matrices), but not necessarily in the real world. And I only use math for the real world.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Feb 2015, 8:06 am

I used maths in the real world for decades before I turned to teaching it.
You're not that silly... you're playing with me.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Feb 2015, 9:33 am

I've been using math since at least the age of five.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,147
Location: temperate zone

18 Feb 2015, 11:20 am

Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Expressed in an equation, the month shown above would look like this:

2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
And you don't need brackets because of the maths rules.

But using your logic, the answer would be 41.3, which is incorrect.


My answer would be 39.6

Because I'd treat 0 as the multiplicand.

Why now?

Under your normal rule, 1.7 x 0 would equal 1.7

In mathematics, pure expressions such as 1.7 x 0 are not open for interpretation.
There is only one meaning for that expression, and only one answer.

Question: When I mentioned "maths rules," what rules am I talking about?


A few posts ago , I said that I would from now on consider the first number in the equation as the multiplier and the second number as the multiplicand so as to avoid confusing others.

1.7 x 0 = 0
0 x 1.7 = 1.7 or undefined

Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

One of the rules about mathematics is that + and x are reversible.
In other words 0 x 1.7 and 2 + 3 are both reversible.
In mathematics, saying 0 x 1.7 is identical to saying 1.7 x 0
just as saying 2 + 3 is identical to saying 3 + 2.
This is not my rule. It's a mathematics rule.

As someone who was an engineer in my younger life, someone who had to know calculus,
and as someone who ran the books for 3 businesses, as audited by my tax accountant,
and as someone who teaches mathematics for a living...
Your definition is wrong! It's that simple.
You may like to see it that way, but in the real world, it only works one way.
0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0

I return to my question about the equation 2.2 x 5 + 1.3 x 22 + 1.7 x 0 = 39.6
Why did I say it works because of the rules?
This is something they teach in primary school (or as some call it, grade school).

I have to step in here.

Two points

1) in sophies world it makes a difference which way you do it. BUT...

2) oddly enough ALSO in sophie's world it DOESNT make a difference (read the above exhange we had).
2x3 can be read either as "two times three", OR as "three times two" (in Sophie's universe)

3) So in sophie's universe the syntax is reversible, but the mathematics is NOT reversible. You can write it either way. But she is now settling on the convention READING the operation left to right.

4) But mathematically You are right: subtraction and division are NOT reversible; and you're right that in our universe addition, and multiplication ARE reversible. In the universe that you and I live in there is no difference between two times three, and three times two. Nor is there between 9 times zero, and zero times nine.

But in Sophie's universe two times three and three times two are two different things apparently! :D

4)