Search results

What do you mean "mag #2"? If you mean the mag closest to BOTH, the "L" one, then you turned off the mag with an impulse coupling for starting purposes. It strikes me as worth checking that for wear and tear. Suppose, rather than advancing the spark to the correct specification after engine...

If you can't tell who liked and didn't, what good is it? A single soul running contrary to a huge majority makes it look 50-50. Ditch it or fix it, imo.

Hmm. Microsoft's calculator is PEMDAS too. I have to wonder if that's why my classic, recently depreciated, Windows calendar events won't migrate over to the force-fed new Outlook calendar. Was Windows Calendar made with PEJMDAS and new Outlook with PEMDAS? And then there's Boeing. Not far from...

Good morning, class! Did everybody finish their homework assignments? What a lovely treatise, wasn't it? And what a lovely girl, too. I watched it twice with closed captioning so I wouldn't miss a single word. So, why on earth would the teachers in North America want to dumb down an ordering of...

Aha! It isn't the whole world that wants to change to only PEMDAS rather than the long-time PEJMDAS, it's the North American teachers only! I can't help but think Rene sounds like this girl: Any N-A teachers in this thread?

Just do a find for juxtaposition.

It's ok, happens to the best of us. :) I think I found out where you're going wrong. You're using PEMDAS not PEJMDAS! It seems that "juxtaposition" multiplication is supposed to be done first; thus, the answer is 1. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations PEJMDAS is a more...

Maybe I got the idea from this guy? :tongue:

I have NO trouble getting 64 the first way — the cleaner, simpler looking way.

The expression 2(2+2) is welded together in my mind as a single value because of some long-ago math training. I'm not alone in this thread on that point, although feeling a bit abandoned at the moment. I'm looking for the source of it. You all miss the point that we understand what you do these...

I don't need it explained, I need validation for how I learned it. It's pretty obvious you need to talk to the computer in computer language. They didn't have them when I first took algebra in 1961, at least in high schools. We were more concerned (well, the teacher was) with historical math...

You mean we can't solve this problem without additional symbols than the original post? "Two people each have 2 red boxes and 2 green boxes and 8 apples between them. If the apples are evenly distributed, how many apples would go in each box?" That's how the OP looks to me, answer is 1ea.

I've been consulting my collection of them. The thing is, they all use the vinculum, which avoids controversy. Even my physics texts. I bet Einstein and Leibniz used 'em too. To me, and a lot of others, 2(2+2) is a single expression of an implied product and as such ought to be simplified first...

Too late. The Law of Primacy, ya know...

Not by MY logic. I'd get 10.

Which Law states that? Would Newton or Einstein agree? What piques my interest in this thread is I never heard of PEMDAS, but have heard of the various math laws at least 62 years ago. I had to learn 'em twice. Once, in algebra class, again in summer school after I flunked. :blush: I always...

Actually, I had in mind the Distributive Law mentioned in the link I posted earlier. Isn't 2(2+2) or (2+2)2 each equal to (4+4) = 8, hence as the denominator of 8 the result is 1?

In the context of the OP where the expression is the denominator of 8?

No doubt. If you want the computer to render "16" that's how you must write it. But if you follow math law, isn't the expression 2(2+2) equal to the expression (2+2)2 ? Then, the computer would come up with 4, right? A law-abiding human would still come up with 1 though, no?

I was referring to her conclusion, as taught, that the answer is "1". Btw, I didn't add any spaces anywhere. I pasted from the blog. In fact, I removed a space from the numerator that made it visually render too far removed from the rest of the fraction.