• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle









  • rasensprenger@feddit.detoScience Memes@mander.xyzpoggers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once you have the idea, seeing that it works if often easy. But coming up with ideas like that can be really hard, which is why gauss was the only one in his class who got it. There is no general method, you just have to think about stuff for a while, but you can get better with practice. And it feels really good when you prove something for yourself, even if it’s relatively straightforward. You can just try to prove some simple things yourself, if you want, the advanced college courses are just for proving really advanced stuff.





  • It’s weird because usually the people writing the expressions want to communicate clearly, and stuff like 1/2x is not immediately clear to everyone, so they write the 1/2 as a fraction.

    The same expression on both sides of the division sign only reduce to one if they actually bind to the division sign, which is rarely an issue, but that is exactly the thing that is in question here. I think it’s clear that 1 + 1/1 + 1 is 3, not 1, even though 1+1 = 1+1.

    But as you said, of course, the evaluation order is just convention, you can just as well write everything in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation


  • your first line is correct, but while it looks like 1 (and it might be under different conventions), evaluating according to standard rules (left to right if not disambiguated by pemdas) yields

    2(2+2)/2(2+2) = 2(4)/2(4) = 2*4/2*4 = 8/2*4 = 4*4 = 16

    Using implicit multiplication in quotients is weird and really shouldn’t happen, this would usually be written as 8/(2*(2+2)) or 8/2*(2+2) and both are much clearer

    Your second argument only works if you treat 2(2+2) as a single “thing”, which it looks like, but isn’t, in this case