#
First Cause

kraftiekortie wrote:

In case you're interested: My great-uncle is named Max Kortlander. He died the year I was born.

I inherited none of his musical talent, nor the visual artistic talent of my third cousin, William Kortlander.

I inherited none of his musical talent, nor the visual artistic talent of my third cousin, William Kortlander.

Speaking of avatars, yours has always reminded me of Kelsey Grammer, in his long hair days.

_________________

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.

naturalplastic wrote:

A young WP lady with one of those cartoon people as an avatar posted her real pic recently, and I was amazed at how well her avatar matched her real self-not just in general looks-but even in "personality" for lack of better word.

Is there some vast catalog of cartoon faces you all pick from here on WP?

Is there some vast catalog of cartoon faces you all pick from here on WP?

From time to time, movie and tv sites affiliate with artistic programmers for a short time. There used to be a site called Simpsonize Me. You would upload a pic of yourself and the software would produce a Simpsons character from it. And soon after the film Avatar was released, they had a thing on their website where you could get a Na'vi caricature of yourself. I'm sure there's other websites that do similar things.

_________________

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.

I have no idea who this person is. He just looks a little bit like me (not much, though).

He has a bit of that intellectual "air." When people meet me, they don't discern that "air" at all. I'm more like an amiable court jester.

I don't have the strong chin, for example.

My hair was sandy, sometimes blond, when I was younger. Depending on what I wear, I could appear mostly gray or "salt-and-pepper."

naturalplastic wrote:

Yeah, I was wondering about how avatars work here on WP.

Among the things that amaze me is how folks on WP (like Krafty) find these cartoon "quasi portraits" of themselves to use as avatars(like that guy in Krafty's avatar). I might go for some other kinda graphic, but Im curious as to where you all find these pre drawn pics of people who-arent you- but could play you on TV (so to speak).

A young WP lady with one of those cartoon people as an avatar posted her real pic recently, and I was amazed at how well her avatar matched her real self-not just in general looks-but even in "personality" for lack of better word.

Is there some vast catalog of cartoon faces you all pick from here on WP?

Among the things that amaze me is how folks on WP (like Krafty) find these cartoon "quasi portraits" of themselves to use as avatars(like that guy in Krafty's avatar). I might go for some other kinda graphic, but Im curious as to where you all find these pre drawn pics of people who-arent you- but could play you on TV (so to speak).

A young WP lady with one of those cartoon people as an avatar posted her real pic recently, and I was amazed at how well her avatar matched her real self-not just in general looks-but even in "personality" for lack of better word.

Is there some vast catalog of cartoon faces you all pick from here on WP?

http://all-free-download.com/free-vector/cartoon-characters-images.html

Here's one site that offers free downloads, and also you can just do a google search on cartoon character faces and literally thousands will come up, per potential jpeg image downloads.

When the new avatar function operates properly with the new software, it automatically converts any jpeg image under the size of 2GB to a potential avatar of your liking, including homemade digital photo images, of course.

You can still change the avatar on your account page but for some reason now it does not show on regular posts.

That problem started with the last major software update for the profile page that ended up being a downgrade, overall, unfortunately that I guess the administrators of the original new software are trying to get sorted out.

I like doing non-verbal physical comedy, drama, or even horror leaning stuff, and or free verse visual poetry, so a new Facebook profile photo of me, per the art of that is a common occurrence, and with the new easy functionality of the avatar feature here, I was doing it everyday here too, until the software glitch came about...

_________________

KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Narrator wrote:

Here's a related question:

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

If it were 2+15+(9x0) then it would be 17

But as you have it written- I would say that the answer was zero. But on that the IRS might disagree!

You were correct with your first answer, 17,

but you don't need the brackets when you know the rules.

I'm curious , what does 9 represent and why must it be multiplied by 0 ?

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Narrator wrote:

Here's a related question:

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

If it were 2+15+(9x0) then it would be 17

But as you have it written- I would say that the answer was zero. But on that the IRS might disagree!

You were correct with your first answer, 17,

but you don't need the brackets when you know the rules.

I'm curious , what does 9 represent and why must it be multiplied by 0 ?

Huh?

Its just a hypothetical problem that he's presenting. Like a teacher for a class.

Though its probably based on something Narrator has to do for his income taxes.

Prolly some business expense of Narrator's. It costs nine dollars a month to do something, and he did it for zero months.

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Narrator wrote:

Here's a related question:

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

If it were 2+15+(9x0) then it would be 17

But as you have it written- I would say that the answer was zero. But on that the IRS might disagree!

You were correct with your first answer, 17,

but you don't need the brackets when you know the rules.

I'm curious , what does 9 represent and why must it be multiplied by 0 ?

Being based on the formula A = S + F + L x Q, the L represents an amount (9) that must be multiplied by the number of months past the event date. If it is current (not past the date), then Q must equal zero.

Here's a better example. You carry an inventory of ducks, chickens and roosters. You must maintain a monthly audit of your stock, by average weight, in a spreadsheet. It will look something like this:

I've put in both the formulas and the results, so you can see a real example at work.

In the month shown, you didn't have any roosters left, hence you had zero roosters.

But you use the same spreadsheet every month, so must use the same formulas each time.

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.

_________________

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.

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Narrator wrote:

What's the answer to this equation?

2 + 15 + 9 x 0 =

The reason I ask is that I have used equations like this in doing tax calculations.

They're usually more in this format:

A = S + F + L x Q (solve for A)

It's important for my taxes to get this right.

So calculating this correctly is critical!

If it were 2+15+(9x0) then it would be 17

But as you have it written- I would say that the answer was zero. But on that the IRS might disagree!

You were correct with your first answer, 17,

but you don't need the brackets when you know the rules.

I'm curious , what does 9 represent and why must it be multiplied by 0 ?

Being based on the formula A = S + F + L x Q, the L represents an amount (9) that must be multiplied by the number of months past the event date. If it is current (not past the date), then Q must equal zero.

Here's a better example. You carry an inventory of ducks, chickens and roosters. You must maintain a monthly audit of your stock, by average weight, in a spreadsheet. It will look something like this:

I've put in both the formulas and the results, so you can see a real example at work.

In the month shown, you didn't have any roosters left, hence you had zero roosters.

But you use the same spreadsheet every month, so must use the same formulas each time.

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.

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.

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?

_________________

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

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.

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

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.

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

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.

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

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.