Ramnares P.E.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,212
- Reaction score
- 1,303
So how many folks are losing their PE license now?
Yup. that is the trick, not the complexity or the order of operations (but I'll bet that gets a lot of people too.)You know what I didn't pick up was that there was a double boot and a single boot I think that's why most of us came up with 42
stupid common core math?I still can't believe so many people have trouble with order of operations. Not in this forum, per se, but I've now seen this posted elsewhere. It's disheartening.
There has to be more to it than that. It's to the point of willful ignorance.stupid common core math?
I hated when my kids would ask me at the last minute to help with their math home work and the new method of teaching was totally confusing. I get the correct answer but they didn't see what I was doing because the method they were being taught was some ***-backwards way of looking at things that was unnatural to me. I'd need to read and go through the text book examples to see how they were explaining to the kids. I'm not convinced it's an improvement.both of my kids are in Calculus in High School, I cant really tell that they are teaching it any different than "they way we learned" although it does seem to be very watered down compared to college calculus - I admit not doing it every day it takes me a minute to remember things when I *attempt* to help them..
sounds like sour grapes from someone that did not want to participate. There's nothing wrong with stating your assumptions and devloping an answer. The assumption of assignng a numerical value to each of the symbols is logical and rational and what separates us from robots, although AI is getting to where a robot woud respond with a simialr assumptionYou're assuming the symbol with one boot is equal to half of the symbol of two boots. That's a dangerous assumption to make,since there was no definition of the one boot symbol and no operation defined to convert these symbols. IMO you can just as easily assume any value for one boot and thus there are an infinite number of solutions.
In the real world,this is sloppy problem and a careful engineer would have to do more research before making a conclusion.
This was already discussed.You're assuming the symbol with one boot is equal to half of the symbol of two boots. That's a dangerous assumption to make,since there was no definition of the one boot symbol and no operation defined to convert these symbols. IMO you can just as easily assume any value for one boot and thus there are an infinite number of solutions.
In the real world,this is sloppy problem and a careful engineer would have to do more research before making a conclusion.
No sour grapes here, and I did posit my answer long before ptato posted his solution. The fact is ptato's solution isn't any more correct than anyone else's.sounds like sour grapes from someone that did not want to participate. There's nothing wrong with stating your assumptions and devloping an answer. The assumption of assignng a numerical value to each of the symbols is logical and rational and what separates us from robots, although AI is getting to where a robot woud respond with a simialr assumption
Would you make this assumption if someone's life was on the line? There is absolutely no information in the problem statement to support this answer, and the assumptions you're making may not apply. For instance, what if this isn't base 10 (decimal) system? It's dangerous to assert an answer when you don't have all the facts.This was already discussed.
So, yes, an assumption has to be made. But, given the facts (the first three equations), it is a perfectly reasonable and logical assumption to make, when solving the question asked (the fourth line).
Enter your email address to join: