Intelligence on the internet

[jarenault]

The only answer to the original question is that, regardless of BODMAS and whatnot, nobody who wasn't an ***** would genuinely write out a sum like that in this way. You would use parentheses for clarity.

The only reason other than stupidity to write out a sum in such a way is to try to deliberately confuse people in a pretty unimaginative fashion. It's not a clever or revealing puzzle, it's just a waste of time.

It reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/169/

 

[ScottM]

The only answer to the original question is that, regardless of BODMAS and whatnot, nobody who wasn't an ***** would genuinely write out a sum like that in this way. You would use parentheses for clarity.

The only reason other than stupidity to write out a sum in such a way is to try to deliberately confuse people in a pretty unimaginative sort of way. It's not a clever or revealing puzzle, it's just a waste of time.

It reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/169/

This type of thinking is the reason that so many people get it wrong. Parentheses are ONLY used in very basic math problems because people don't get it otherwise. Parentheses are for spoon feeding math problems. They are required in complex problems (I use complex loosely) to signify block calculation, but they are not required and not used in the above problem..... other than in situations where the students/people require them to be in order to follow what's going on. It's a learning curve.

The idiots aren't the ones who don't feel the need to use pointless parentheses, believe it or not.

 

[jarenault]

The only answer to the original question is that, regardless of BODMAS and whatnot, nobody who wasn't an ***** would genuinely write out a sum like that in this way. You would use parentheses for clarity.

The only reason other than stupidity to write out a sum in such a way is to try to deliberately confuse people in a pretty unimaginative sort of way. It's not a clever or revealing puzzle, it's just a waste of time.

It reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/169/

This type of thinking is the reason that so many people get it wrong. Parentheses are ONLY used in very basic math problems because people don't get it otherwise. Parentheses are for spoon feeding math problems. They are required in complex problems (I use complex loosely) to signify block calculation, but they are not required and not used in the above problem..... other than in situations where the students/people require them to be in order to follow what's going on. It's a learning curve.

The idiots aren't the ones who don't feel the need to use pointless parentheses, believe it or not.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing "intelligent" about BODMAS. It's an arbitrary rule. It's not correct in an a priori, objective, sense. It's just a convention.
Even just from a utilitarian perspective it's of little use. It's clear from these stupid Facebook threads that it's not widely understood. Therefore it makes no pragmatic sense to rely on people's understanding. There are simpler and more intuitive ways to express calculations.
The calculation is badly communicated, allowing the person who posts it to get a cheap gloat when it's misunderstood.

BODMAS is one of these things, like cm^3 instead of ml, that only ever seems to be used in schools.

 

[Crastney]

no 'ml' and cm^3 are both volume measurements but ml is specifically used for liquids - try making a cake using 500 cm^3 of milk for instance.

 

[jarenault]

no 'ml' and cm^3 are both volume measurements but ml is specifically used for liquids - try making a cake using 500 cm^3 of milk for instance.

They're exactly the same volume. 500 ml and 500 cm^3 of milk is exactly the same. Difference is that ml wouldn't be used, as you suggest, for anything other than liquids.

My point was that schools routinely use cm^3 for all volumes. They never seem to express the quantity as ml. Yet outside of schools ml is ubiquitous for measuring liquid. From cooking to frontline scientific research.

Okay, it's important to teach that 1ml=1cm^3, but why then continue to use cm^3 for liquid when nobody else in the real world does. It's a minor but constant frustration in my work.

 

[ScottM]

The only answer to the original question is that, regardless of BODMAS and whatnot, nobody who wasn't an ***** would genuinely write out a sum like that in this way. You would use parentheses for clarity.

The only reason other than stupidity to write out a sum in such a way is to try to deliberately confuse people in a pretty unimaginative sort of way. It's not a clever or revealing puzzle, it's just a waste of time.

It reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/169/

This type of thinking is the reason that so many people get it wrong. Parentheses are ONLY used in very basic math problems because people don't get it otherwise. Parentheses are for spoon feeding math problems. They are required in complex problems (I use complex loosely) to signify block calculation, but they are not required and not used in the above problem..... other than in situations where the students/people require them to be in order to follow what's going on. It's a learning curve.

The idiots aren't the ones who don't feel the need to use pointless parentheses, believe it or not.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing "intelligent" about BODMAS. It's an arbitrary rule. It's not correct in an a priori, objective, sense. It's just a convention.
Even just from a utilitarian perspective it's of little use. It's clear from these stupid Facebook threads that it's not widely understood. Therefore it makes no pragmatic sense to rely on people's understanding. There are simpler and more intuitive ways to express calculations.
The calculation is badly communicated, allowing the person who posts it to get a cheap gloat when it's misunderstood.

BODMAS is one of these things, like cm^3 instead of ml, that only ever seems to be used in schools.

I disagree with everything other than the reason for it being posted on facebook. It is most definitely to take advantage of the average persons understanding of mathematics.

However, it is only poorly communicated in a sense that not everyone will understand the practices involved in solving it. To make it immediately solvable by everyone able to add, subtract and multiply the figures in the equation, brackets could be used in order to point them in the right direction on how to correctly solve it.

BODMAS is used in mathematics. It's a rule of mathematics. Nothing more, nothing less. I remember VERY little of the principles and rules in math, I don't use them in my daily life in order to remember them. The only reason I remember BODMAS is because of puzzles like the one I posted coming up time and time again. I use basic algebra every now and again, as well as a reasonable amount of basic Trig.

Because we don't use mathematics rules and principles doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't correct.

In this instance the answer IS 12, there is no argument. The reason for the question and the layout of it is, however, entirely debatable.... but I do agree with your reasoning in that regard..

 

[ScottM]

no 'ml' and cm^3 are both volume measurements but ml is specifically used for liquids - try making a cake using 500 cm^3 of milk for instance.

They're exactly the same volume. 500 ml and 500 cm^3 of milk is exactly the same. Difference is that ml wouldn't be used, as you suggest, for anything other than liquids.

My point was that schools routinely use cm^3 for all volumes. They never seem to use ml. Yet outside of schools ml is ubiquitous for measuring liquid. From cooking to frontline scientific research.

It's another way of keeping things simple. If all volumes are referred to as cm^3 then there will be less chance of confusion. Adding ml into the fray just leads to problems.

I don't know the exact reason why ml is used n products, etc, outside of education. I can only guess that it's more aesthetically pleasing and easier to understand (1000ml = 1L) as I believe most people know that milli = 1000th.


Edit: Just spit-balling here but is there anything in changing to metric? Perhaps most materials were pre-metric or something like that and therefore cm^3 is fundamental.

 

[jarenault]

The only answer to the original question is that, regardless of BODMAS and whatnot, nobody who wasn't an ***** would genuinely write out a sum like that in this way. You would use parentheses for clarity.

The only reason other than stupidity to write out a sum in such a way is to try to deliberately confuse people in a pretty unimaginative sort of way. It's not a clever or revealing puzzle, it's just a waste of time.

It reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/169/

This type of thinking is the reason that so many people get it wrong. Parentheses are ONLY used in very basic math problems because people don't get it otherwise. Parentheses are for spoon feeding math problems. They are required in complex problems (I use complex loosely) to signify block calculation, but they are not required and not used in the above problem..... other than in situations where the students/people require them to be in order to follow what's going on. It's a learning curve.

The idiots aren't the ones who don't feel the need to use pointless parentheses, believe it or not.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing "intelligent" about BODMAS. It's an arbitrary rule. It's not correct in an a priori, objective, sense. It's just a convention.
Even just from a utilitarian perspective it's of little use. It's clear from these stupid Facebook threads that it's not widely understood. Therefore it makes no pragmatic sense to rely on people's understanding. There are simpler and more intuitive ways to express calculations.
The calculation is badly communicated, allowing the person who posts it to get a cheap gloat when it's misunderstood.

BODMAS is one of these things, like cm^3 instead of ml, that only ever seems to be used in schools.

I disagree with everything other than the reason for it being posted on facebook. It is most definitely to take advantage of the average persons understanding of mathematics.

However, it is only poorly communicated in a sense that not everyone will understand the practices involved in solving it. To make it immediately solvable by everyone able to add, subtract and multiply the figures in the equation, brackets could be used in order to point them in the right direction on how to correctly solve it.

BODMAS is used in mathematics. It's a rule of mathematics. Nothing more, nothing less. I remember VERY little of the principles and rules in math, I don't use them in my daily life in order to remember them. The only reason I remember BODMAS is because of puzzles like the one I posted coming up time and time again. I use basic algebra every now and again, as well as a reasonable amount of basic Trig.

Because we don't use mathematics rules and principles doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't correct.

In this instance the answer IS 12, there is no argument. The reason for the question and the layout of it is, however, entirely debatable.... but I do agree with your reasoning in that regard..

My objection in a nutshell is that it is a general knowledge (BODMAS) problem trying to pass itself off as a logic (arithmetic) problem.
BODMAS is just a convention. It's not "maths". It has no objective root. It's arbitrary.

 

[ScottM]

My objection in a nutshell is that it is a general knowledge (BODMAS) problem trying to pass itself off as a logic (arithmetic) problem.
BODMAS is just a convention. It's not "maths". It has no objective root. It's arbitrary.

Here we go again, why are you stating that it's arbitrary when you clearly have no idea? You can have the opinion that it's arbitrary if you like, but that doesn't make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Excuse the use of wikipedia but I can't be bothered out sourcing any further as you clearly can't be bothered to try to understand anything that I'm putting forward.

 

[jarenault]

Here we go again, why are you stating that it's arbitrary when you clearly have no idea? You can have the opinion that it's arbitrary if you like, but that doesn't make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Excuse the use of wikipedia but I can't be bothered out sourcing any further as you clearly can't be bothered to try to understand anything that I'm putting forward.

It's arbitrary in the sense that it's just convention. Not an objective "truth" that can be arrived at a priori. I'm not disputing that the "rule", such as it is, exists.
It's you that's having the comprehension problems.

 

[Russ146]

So billions of calculators around the world get it wrong?

Sorry Scott, i'm not on a wind up here and ive just looked up BODMAS. anybody can see the answer is 18 its obvious. to get 12 you would need to use brackets, without brackets its 18.

I think you are seeing the kings new clothes my friend.

I will tell the wife i've drunk 12 pints rather than 18

she will know the answer to that one.

 

[ScottM]

It's arbitrary in the sense that it's just convention. Not an objective "truth" that can be arrived at a priori. I'm not disputing that the "rule", such as it is, exists.
It's you that's having the comprehension problems.

Seriously? Did you look at the link I posted? It's basic math and has been part of basic algebra since the 1700s! I give up though, you are clearly one of these people who cannot be wrong... ever... regardless of how wrong you are.

I quote...

In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations (sometimes called operator precedence) is a rule used to clarify which procedures should be performed first in a given mathematical expression.

So billions of calculators around the world get it wrong?

Sorry Scott, i'm not on a wind up here and ive just looked up BODMAS. anybody can see the answer is 18 its obvious. to get 12 you would need to use brackets, without brackets its 18.

I think you are seeing the kings new clothes my friend.

I will tell the wife i've drunk 12 pints rather than 18

she will know the answer to that one.

In short Russ, yes. Most simple calculators will give the wrong answer if simply bashed in without taking the order of operations into account. More advanced calculators, such as scientific ones, will take the order of operations into account and simplify the use. I posted a link of an online scientific calculator for you to try out.

I'm really struggling with being serious now though, the fact that I have explained exactly why this is the case, put forward various references, showed proof on the reasons why the rule is in place and even put forward the original requirement for the rule, yet there are still people that won't believe what is right in front of them.

In some cases I believe pride is in the way, as people don't like admitting they are wrong. In this instance I just think you haven't looked into the background of this simple puzzle.

Have a look at this, it'll only take 2 minutes of your time and you will understand exactly why it's 12. The article also explains the reason why calculators, simple ones, are wrong... basically they assume the user knows what they are doing and only calculates 1 number at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations


Here is their example, quoted for the non-clickers..

For example, in mathematics and most computer languages multiplication is done before addition; in the expression 2 + 3 × 4, the answer is 14. Brackets, "( and ), { and }, or [ and ]", which have their own rules, may be used to avoid confusion, thus the preceding expression may also be rendered 2 + (3 × 4), but the brackets are unnecessary as multiplication still has precedence without them.

 

[jarenault]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

 

[MadrikXIV]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

Bodmas does not need Convention or Objecticity

It's mathamatical law

Without any brackets you must obey Bodmas

Another thing I find fun about the intenet is, people don't like facts

 

[ScottM]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

I'll say this again...Just because someone doesn't know/use/implement the rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As I said aaaaaaaaaaages ago, I agree with your reasoning behind the original person posting such problems... it's to make people feel stupid and to thus make them feel superior in an intellectual scale.... much like the way it appears, to me, you are trying to use overly complex wording in all your retorts to try and waffle me into submission.

3+3+3*3-3 = 12

True or false. It's not objective, it's nothing to do with perception or convention, it's nothing to do with prior experience. As far as a mathematical, arithmetic as you put it earlier, problem goes, with absolutely nothing else of any relevance, is the above answer correct?

If your answer is yes, then what the hell has this last page of dross been all about? If your answer is no, then I give up entirely, the white flag is waved and you have waffled me into submission, I have lost all interest in this "debate". I feel like I'm trying to convince you that the the earth is spherical.

I have said, and apparently the last twice I said it wasn't enough, that I agree with your perception of why these questions are posted and how they are entirely unfair to the general population, thus having no actual bearing on intellectual differences between the objectives. Most people will get the answer wrong and the reasons for which have been clearly covered and shown in example after example. My point, from the very beginning, is that the answer IS 12.

 

[ScottM]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

Bodmas does not need Convention or Objecticity

It's mathamatical law

Without any brackets you must obey Bodmas

Another thing I find fun about the intenet is, people don't like facts

I've got some space on this wall over here if you like

 

[MadrikXIV]

It's like all the pic sharing, and click here and do this to stop scammers on facebook etc...

Give people cold hard facts and evidence of what a waste of time it is, they won't believe it

Harder argument, was trying to convince someone at work that a tomato is a fruit

Maybe Bodmas (Or lack of) is the reason North Korea aren't too scarey

 

[jarenault]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

I'll say this again...Just because someone doesn't know/use/implement the rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Can you actually read?

 

[jarenault]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

Bodmas does not need Convention or Objecticity

It's mathamatical law

Without any brackets you must obey Bodmas

Another thing I find fun about the intenet is, people don't like facts

It's not a mathematical law. It's a mathematical rule/convention. There's an important difference.

My point was that the puzzle presents itself as a logic problem when, in fact, its about general knowledge. Logic problems can be solved a priori. This problem needs knowledge of the BODMAS convention.

 

[ScottM]

Scott, you need to understand the difference between "convention" and "objectivity"/"a priori". This seems to be where you're losing my point.
Again, I'm not saying BODMAS doesn't exist as a conventional rule.

Bodmas does not need Convention or Objecticity

It's mathamatical law

Without any brackets you must obey Bodmas

Another thing I find fun about the intenet is, people don't like facts

It's not a mathematical law. It's a mathematical rule/convention. There's an important difference.

My point was that the puzzle presents itself as a logic problem when, in fact, its about general knowledge. Logic problems can be solved a priori. This problem needs knowledge of the BODMAS convention.

It's not a logical problem at all. It's a mathematical problem. You just appear to be back peddling.

3+3+3*3+3=?

^^math

HTH.