8 / 2 (2 + 2) =

[Van Johnston]

Math is a singular noun. Maths is a foreign word used when the speaker wants to appear silly and/or pretentious.

Then why is mathematics plural?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Then why is mathematics plural?

For the same reason is is.

 

[nauga]

Then why is mathematics plural?

Mathematics are not plural. They is singular.

Nauga,
and the inevitability of grammar flames in a math thread

 

[TCABM]

irrelevant. I’m not, and never will be, on the moon.

Same. Except I’m not and never will be weighed on kilograms.

 

[AV8R_87]

Some hospitals will weigh you in kilograms.
And going back to the original (sarcastic) comment, your weight on the moon will be six times less than on earth, but your mass will stay the same.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Nothing wrong with expressing material quantities in units of mass, in fact it's probably technically more accurate since it doesn't change with gravity. As long as you understand the difference between weight and mass.

I was going through a 172R manual, and in the weight and balance section, they give tables in both English and SI units. In the SI unit flight envelope table, the moment is given in kilogram meters. If one of my engineers ever gave me a calculation in kilogram meters, they would be fired on the spot.

 

[szwinger]

As shown it’s really unclear. Without brackets around the 2(2+2) it is 16. Assuming brackets it’s 1. I’ve seen this many times as an engineer where someone implies a math operation but does the math wrong anyway.

Exactly. It doesn't have brackets or parathesis around 2(2+2). If it did have brackets it's a different question. In my opinion you cannot assume they meant to put brackets around 2(2+2). If you want the answer to be 1 the equation would be 8/(2(2+2)), but that is not what is written.

 

[Ed Haywood]

The order is PEMDAS: Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, and Division (from left to right), Addition and Subtraction (from left to right).

This is the way.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Some hospitals will weigh you in kilograms.
And going back to the original (sarcastic) comment, your weight on the moon will be six times less than on earth, but your mass will stay the same.

But since we’re arguing about technically correct stuff, “six times less than,” say, 200 pounds would be a negative 1000 pounds. Did you mean “one sixth the weight on earth”?

 

[Dave Theisen]

I was absent that day.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Thank God pilots don't need to know anything about math.

sics monts ago I culdt spelt pilot, now eye ist won...

 

[charheep]

Bears, Beets. Battlestar Galactica

 

[Half Fast]

sics monts ago I culdt spelt pilot, now eye ist won...

So, an ERAU graduate!

 

[Dave Theisen]

So, an ERAU graduate!

Georgia Tech Flying Club.




All in good fun.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So, an ERAU graduate!

Georgia Tech Flying Club.

Amazing how they spell so poorly that it actually spells something else.

 

[flyingpreacher]

The parentheses around 8/2 changes nothing. The answer is 16 with or without them.

The order is PEMDAS: Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, and Division (from left to right), Addition and Subtraction (from left to right).

Agreed. I believe the lack of clarity results from the way it is notated. If it were written as:

8
______
2(2+2)

then the answer is obviously 1. The linear method of writing things out is where we run into issues. For instance, we write the fraction for 0.5 linearly as 1/2 even though technically it is

1
_
2

 

[luvflyin]

Agreed. I believe the lack of clarity results from the way it is notated. If it were written as:

8
______
2(2+2)

then the answer is obviously 1. The linear method of writing things out is where we run into issues. For instance, we write the fraction for 0.5 linearly as 1/2 even though technically it is

1
_
2

The linear way of that is 8/(2(2+2))

 

[Ed Haywood]

Anyone with a computer programming background will have no problem with linear expression. Of course the OP formula won't evaluate in most languages because the multiplication operator is missing.

 

[luvflyin]

Anyone with a computer programming background will have no problem with linear expression. Of course the OP formula won't evaluate in most languages because the multiplication operator is missing.

I dunno ‘bout programming because I ain’t a programmer other than playing with Basic many moons ago. But I do have a few elaborate Excel spreadsheets I’ve made. If I do sumpin like 2(blah blah) it says unable or something like that and offers up a suggestion like 2*(blah blah) will work. Don’t make no sense to me. I’d expect Excel to be smarter than that.

 

[Bob Noel]

I dunno ‘bout programming because I ain’t a programmer other than playing with Basic many moons ago. But I do have a few elaborate Excel spreadsheets I’ve made. If I do sumpin like 2(blah blah) it says unable or something like that and offers up a suggestion like 2*(blah blah) will work. Don’t make no sense to me. I’d expect Excel to be smarter than that.

as much as I dislike microcrap software, I will give excel a pass because software can't read minds.

(if it could, I'd want to use it to try to read a woman's mind)

 

[Sac Arrow]

So, an ERAU graduate!

As an aside, they have a series of PPL prep videos. I am going to use one of them for a ground school segment I'm teaching in the spring on systems. The graphics are great and it really explains how an aircraft engine works.

The only problem is that they have the explanation of a carburetor venturi.... wrong.