Mess? How is it a mess? What do you think about x86 nightmare-inducing backwards compatibility issues?
If you'd love an ultra-low powered system then you could have one now, if you weren't so...
Type: Posts; User: Cracklepop; Keyword(s):
Mess? How is it a mess? What do you think about x86 nightmare-inducing backwards compatibility issues?
If you'd love an ultra-low powered system then you could have one now, if you weren't so...
No, "ultrabooks" won't use mainstream cpus because apparently a notebook has to be very thin to be an "ultrabook", and so the resulting 5 minute battery life just isn't going to cut it.
There is a...
The last two computers I bought, a netbook and laptop (neither Apple), had no optical drives, and the optical drive on my desktop is unplugged (because some quirk means the machine won't boot...
I'm out, really out of this thread! It destroyed my saturday, and is about to destroy my sunday!! Curse you mips!!!!
I'm going cold turkey...........
Well that is a hairy question...on its own, yes. But if we consider that it may change the precedence of this equation chunk, should we consider the operator to be different (two identical operators...
I am exactly this guy tonight:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
:D :) :p :| :( .......
I have to wean myself off this thread...
True. I suppose the substitution isn't really an answer to people who believe there is ambiguity, it's better used as a simple rule for inexperienced people to remove any confusion they might be...
I'm sure you'll agree that I can rewrite a*(b) as a(b), yes? In that case the inverse must also be true: a(b) => a*(b)
Well, actually there have been (just in this thread) several different methods of attempting to make the answer 2.
1. ''multiplication takes precedence over division''
2. ''a(b) is (a*(b)), not...
Seems that would be the only way to satisfy some...;)
Mathematics by majority opinion! (Fortunately I think the correct side is the majority this time...)
For anyone new to the thread and...
I was too slow...see my post above this.
EDIT, understand the 2nd equation now (brackets would have been more readable). You already agreed that 2(3) = 2*(3). They can't result in different...
By the gods he's got it.
c=6 so 4/c = two thirds.
By pulling the 2(3) out to c you have more or less explicity shown the implied brackets but 4/2(3) is not the same as 4/2*(3) as 4/2*(3) is...
By the gods he's got it.
c=6 so 4/c = two thirds.
By pulling the 2(3) out to c you have more or less explicity shown the implied brackets but 4/2(3) is not the same as 4/2*(3) as 4/2*(3) is...
Not much of an elaboration...which line of mine do you disagree with, and why?
I have no idea what the second equation you've written is.
Do this for us:
If 2(3) = 2*(3)
then if c = 2(3), it...
Nope.[/QUOTE]
Ohhh, ok.....????????????? Now I'm just feeling the laughs coming on...
Care to elaborate?
If 2(3) = 2*(3)
then if c = 2(3), it must follow that c = 2*(3), agreed?
Now...
I always thought it was just because / was easier ;)
Anyway, and confusion caused is because the equation is displayed in one dimension (which can happen with either symbol) instead of two, not by...
Exactly 100% correct.
2(3) = 2*(3)
Therefore:
a(b) = a*(b)
x/a(b) = x/a*(b)
In that case the operators in both must have the same precedence. It is not possible to be otherwise.
If they are equal then any two equations which differ only by replacing one of these two with...
÷ is 100% exactly, precisely the same as /.
And btw, as an aside, in my last six years of university (CS, maths, physics) I have never once seen the ÷ symbol used.
Not at all. The coefficient in front of the brackets isn't a, it's 48/a (or more specifically: 48/a => 48*(1/a), so the coefficient is (1/a)). You CAN NOT just arbitrarily make division a lower...
If you could address the three issues I raised then your argument would be stronger...
I know what the answer is of course, you only need to follow the rules to never be wrong.
I take it you...
You went wrong in step 1.
You have gone ahead and implied parentheses: 48÷(a(9+3))
You cannot do this. a(12) is multiplication, and has *the*same* precedence as division. You have decided for...
You have an extra rule for determining precedence then: a(b) is higher than a*(b).
There are several problems with that:
- I doubt you can find it published (widely accepted by academics)
- if...
This is a long thread, I can understand there is a lot of tl:dr... ;)
gcalctool in 10.04 gives 288, gcalctool in 10.10 gives 2.
Also, for others: if you get confused about this stuff just...
?! Yes, #2 does equal that, and it's still exactly the same equation...