Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so," the document for the "Equitable Math" toolkit states. "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.”
6 ÷ 2 + 4usually I can see how a wrong answer could be made, but how does that person come up with 7?
If they are giving 4 as the answer to (1 + 2), they have more issues than this problem!6 ÷ 2 + 4
If they are giving 4 as the answer to (1 + 2), they have more issues than this problem!
OL
I’m getting 9.I get 1
Multiply before divide, right? So the third step should be 6/6, not 3*3. I think it can also be looked at as 6/(2*1 +2*2), which is 6/6 or 1.I’m getting 9.
P = 1 + 2 = 3
E = nothing
M/D = work left to right as the P is dropped.
6 /2(1 + 2)
6/2 * 3
3 * 3
9
@LionJim can you check my work please?
OL
Ronald Gabriel Palillo (April 2, 1949 – August 14, 2012) was an American actor and teacher.[3][4] He was best known for his role as the endearingly dim-witted character Arnold Horshack on the ABC sitcom Welcome Back, Kotter (1975–1979).[5][6]
usually I can see how a wrong answer could be made, but how does that person come up with 7?
I can vouch ... you got it right!I’m getting 9.
P = 1 + 2 = 3
E = nothing
M/D = work left to right as the P is dropped.
6 /2(1 + 2)
6/2 * 3
3 * 3
9
@LionJim can you check my work please?
OL
Multiply before divide, right? So the third step should be 6/6, not 3*3. I think it can also be looked at as 6/(2*1 +2*2), which is 6/6 or 1.
I believe OL has It right 6/2 =3 x 3= 9Multiply before divide, right? So the third step should be 6/6, not 3*3. I think it can also be looked at as 6/(2*1 +2*2), which is 6/6 or 1.
My third grade teacher mislead me! I want my money back!No. Multiply and divide are on the same level ... but work from left to right. SO OhioLion got it right!
usually I can see how a wrong answer could be made, but how does that person come up with 7?
He said the same level that is, you go left to right dividing or multiplying as they come in that orderHow can division and multiplication be the same? Is that new?
My Dear Aunt Sally.Multiply before divide, right? So the third step should be 6/6, not 3*3. I think it can also be looked at as 6/(2*1 +2*2), which is 6/6 or 1.
I was told there would be no Math on this site
My Dear Aunt Sally.
In general, acronyms in mathematics aren’t a good idea as they’re limiting. Everyone has heard of FOIL, right, for multiplying binomials. Once you get a problem like, say,I can vouch ... you got it right!
One reason I don't subscribe to the acronym PEDMAS is that many think you do division before multiplication and addition before subtraction while the correct thinking is you do division and multiplication at the same level working left to right, same for addition and subtraction.
You ask LionJim on BWI to solve the problem for you. That's what you do.In general, acronyms in mathematics aren’t a good idea as they’re limiting. Everyone has heard of FOIL, right, for multiplying binomials. Once you get a problem like, say,
(2x+5)(3x^2+4x+3), what do you do?
A-B is definitionally zero since you stated that A=B. Can't divide by zero.Apparently this problem has been going around on FB and Twitter lately because Herbie and I had a discussion about this the other week. What follows is an old riddle which I’d like to try on youse. LHS= Left Hand Side.
1. Suppose that a=b.
2. Add a to both sides: a+a=b+a
3. Simplify LHS: 2a=b+a
4. Subtract 2b from both sides: 2a-2b=(b+a)-2b
5. Factor LHS, simplify RHS: 2(a-b)=a-b
6. Divide out a-b from both sides:
2(a-b)/(a-b)=(a-b)/(a-b)
7. Simplify to get 2=1.
Okay, obviously there’s a mistake. Where’s the mistake?
It will take care of itself. Mathematics, like science, always wins in the end.But isn't the real problem that people are trying to foster the idea that math is subjective?
You should be speaking out against such nonsense.
Yes, after starving millions of people to death, Lysenkoism was eventually discredited.It will take care of itself. Mathematics, like science, always wins in the end.
But what if we changed the rules? Wouldn't that make maths subjective? It's been done 19 times in this thread alone.Yes, after starving millions of people to death, Lysenkoism was eventually discredited.
Hitler's theories on the Jewish people were also eventually discredited.
Sure wish good people would have stood up in 1937, though.
Weak, LionJim, Weak.
You’re bringing the Holocaust into the discussion?Yes, after starving millions of people to death, Lysenkoism was eventually discredited.
Hitler's theories on the Jewish people were also eventually discredited.
Sure wish good people would have stood up in 1937, though.
Weak, LionJim, Weak.
What you were told was , know math for this siteI was told there would be no Math on this site
I was told there would be no Math on this site
What you were told was , know math for this site
You’re bringing the Holocaust into the discussion?
What would you have me do? I’m retired. If I were still a college professor I suppose I’d ask my colleagues what we could or should do. But now this is my only forum. There are plenty of active mathematicians responding to this issue. Their voices will be heard and their voices will prevail, of that I have no doubt.
“Sure wish that good people would have stood up in 1937, though.” You don’t seriously think that people didn’t speak up in 1937, do you? Einstein did, Von Laue, Hilbert, Bohr. (Go wiki von Laue, he is a personal hero of mine.)
Funny you say this... I presented the problem to my dad who got the correct answer.China is laughing their asses off.
Anyone who believes that math is subjective should never vote again.
Idiots. Morons.