TRUST ME - I'm an engineer.

2012.10.31 submitted by kre10
  • 49
TRUST ME
Hide

Share with friends!




Demotivation.us reminds: All information found on Demotivation.us is a legal property of Demotivation.us and can not be copied or by any other means duplicated.






Comments 13
Error! Only one comment per minute is allowed
Register

Cristian before 174 d. Reply        #13
Nuotraukos nėra
Que aburrido matemáticas
Jared Bojorquez before 195 d. Reply        #12
Nuotraukos nėra
Que ha burrito matemáticas
Maria before 356 d. Reply        #11
Nuotraukos nėra
0.42×5-7
Daniel before 750 d. Reply        #10
Nuotraukos nėra
(7/3 +5/4) × 2/6
Daniel before 750 d. Reply        #9
Nuotraukos nėra
(7/3 +5/4) × 2/6
Daniel before 750 d. Reply        #8
Nuotraukos nėra
(7/3 +5/4) × 2/6
Daniel before 750 d. Reply        #7
Nuotraukos nėra
(7/3 +5/4) × 2/6
Daniel before 750 d. Reply        #6
Nuotraukos nėra
(7/3+5/4)×2/6
Wingrider before 2589 d. Reply        #5
Wingrider's photo
Anyone heard of 'BODMAS'?
kre10 before 2888 d. Reply        #4
kre10's photo
yeah, but, in high school we did this without the * sign. guess my math teacher was just wrong, or? :D
horstb before 2888 d. Reply        #3
Nuotraukos nėra
"division and multiplication are the same level operations" thats not the question thats mandatory here.

As I said, 2(2+1) is not a mathematical correct expression. So theres space how to interpret this. The correct expression would be 2*(2+1), without the multiplication sign its only a common used simplification. So the calculator has to choose how the user meant it. If the user had used the correct expression both would be correct....

99% of the people wouldnt care about this, engineer disease :-) (me included)
kre10 before 2888 d. Reply        #2
kre10's photo
@horstb - on both sides should be 9. and here's why:

division and multiplication are the same level operations, so it goes as TI interpreted.
or if you had an F in math - then it's 1. ;)
horstb before 2889 d. Reply        #1
Nuotraukos nėra
TI inteprets this as 6/2*(2+1) and Casio as 6/(2*(2+1)) I think Casio is right beacause the user didnt acciedentally missed the * so the 2(2+1) is to see as one term like (2*(2+1).