mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-09-30, 16:13   #12
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2×1,087 Posts
Default

IMHO, the bigger issue is the daily corruption of Sciences by applying Democratic-Processes to them. At some point true Scientific-Authority by experts will be unrecoverable. Recently YouTube banned anti-vax content. As useful of a tool is Wikipedia, it is in desperate need of multilevel authoritarian control.
Again, IMHO.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 16:19   #13
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

140A16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepi37 View Post
I am very disappointed. I expected the math to be a little better defined after all :)
It's not the math. The individual operations of additon, subtraction, and multiplication are all defined for the integers. Division, except by zero, is defined for the rational numbers.

"Implicit operators" are not mathematically defined.

With "infix notation" (binary operators between operands, all operators explicit) the question of "operator precedence" (also not mathematically defined) becomes important, and explicit operators are essential, when you're telling a stupid machine to parse and evaluate an expression.

"Polish notation" and "Reverse Polish notation" (RPN) are unambiguous and eliminate the need for parentheses. I recall the grumbling about early HP "pocket calculators" using RPN instead of infix when they came out. There was also a limitation on how many operations could be "stacked."

(8/2)*(2+2) would be (I think!) 8 2 / 2 2 + *

8/(2*(2 + 2)) would be (I think!) 8 2 2 2 + * /
Dr Sardonicus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-06, 12:01   #14
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

52·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
(8/2)*(2+2) would be (I think!) 8 2 / 2 2 + *

8/(2*(2 + 2)) would be (I think!) 8 2 2 2 + * /
I concur on the RPN order, and as someone who's dabbled a bit in Lisp-style languages, prefix/Polish notation is superior to infix as well, at least in CS. (Try getting the uninitiated to switch to it.)

FWIW, Wolfram Alpha returned 16 for the OP's expression, which IMHO is more correct than 1 per the left-to-right ordering of the (implicit) multiplication and division, though I'd rather see an explicit operator or parentheses myself.
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-06, 15:56   #15
M344587487
 
M344587487's Avatar
 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017

2×3×5×29 Posts
Angry

BIDMAS is what is taught in UK schools for precedence left to right: brackets indices divide multiply add subtract

So the answer is 16, however this BBC page INCORRECTLY* defines BIDMAS by giving D and M equivalent precedence (ditto A and S), so even if you use BIDMAS it might not be the same as what someone else does: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topic...ticles/zj29dxs

*I don't care if they are right in their definition of BIDMAS (which alcall's link seems to back up), grouping different operations with equivalent precedence is nonsense and if computers existed when these rules were invented they'd do the sane thing and have a simple left to right convention. Why even bother teaching it as a string like that if you're going to mess it up with special-cased heathenry, good god.
M344587487 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-09, 03:20   #16
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

259116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Welcome to the world of semantics!

It is the same as (it sounds better in Russian) a some king's ruling that was passed down to minions:
"behead not pardon"
Imagine the confusion of the "project managers" of that time.
Another identical pun was just noted in the wild
"Вышла Windows 11: ставить нельзя ждать"

≈ "Windows 11 is out: install not wait"
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-11, 22:44   #17
greenskull
Xebeche
 
greenskull's Avatar
 
Apr 2019
🌺🙏🌺

2·3·73 Posts
Default

It's good that there is a plus in parentheses between the twos. If there was a minus, then some would get 0, and others - infinity.
greenskull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-12, 17:29   #18
RomanM
 
Jun 2021

2916 Posts
Default ***

God is almighty. ok. Let God create a BIG Stone, that is too big to god can't lift by blessed god arms, ok Seems that God is not too Almighty??? No. it's obviously. He just do not do such things.

Last fiddled with by RomanM on 2021-10-12 at 17:30
RomanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-12, 17:55   #19
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

28×3 Posts
Default

If I would take that story: You cannot do that, because the premise that there is anything that god could not do is false, so it is not according to your "axioms" that there could be something created which he cannot lift. It is not a question if he could do it or not, there is already a contradiction and we have no way to proceed.

That way, we can make no sensible point about anything, since we could follow anything from a false statement.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-12, 17:57   #20
slandrum
 
Jan 2021
California

23·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
That way, we can make no sensible point about anything, since we could follow anything from a false statement.
Such as the existence of an all-powerful god which leads immediate contradictions?
slandrum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-12, 20:30   #21
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

1000011111102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanM View Post
God is almighty. ok. Let God create a BIG Stone, that is too big to god can't lift by blessed god arms, ok Seems that God is not too Almighty??? No. it's obviously. He just do not do such things.
Not sure how this is relevant to operation order, but mathematically speaking that is as meaningless as saying:

Object-A has a volume that spans from -∞ to ∞ along axes x, y, and z.
Object-B has a volume greater than Object-A
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-12, 20:57   #22
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

3×372 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
Not sure how this is relevant to operation order, but mathematically speaking that is as meaningless as saying:

Object-A has a volume that spans from -∞ to ∞ along axes x, y, and z.
Object-B has a volume greater than Object-A
Object A is a cube and object B is a sphere. . .
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 02:12.


Fri Dec 3 02:12:48 UTC 2021 up 132 days, 20:41, 0 users, load averages: 1.03, 1.06, 1.01

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.