Poll: Lack of basic mathmatical skills

[scorptatious]

Math never really was my strong suit. Hell, I ended up having to take a remedial course in my community college I did so poorly at it.

Now-a-days, I can do PEMDAS alright, so I can do some basic math work. But I would need to write problems out on paper in order to solve them.

I've also seen someone post a PEMDAS problem on my Facebook. It was a PEMDAS problem that asked you to either like or share depending on what you think the answer is. The correct answer I believe was the one for the share button. And it seemed like nobody pressed the like button.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Well, let's be honest. Unless you're going into a specialized field, most people don't *need* anything beyond the basic levels of Math. As far as daily life is concerned, you're golden so long as you know how to operate a calculator.

Given that I'm going into WRITING, no, I do not need Math, and I wouldn't want it as I find it to be a slow, tedious pain in the ass. I am-or was-at a typical college level of algebra, but I immediately stopped taking those classes once I had my credits. From here on out, all I need is a calculator to do my taxes.

 

[Rems]

My point is that simply saying "it must be done left to right" isn't a sufficient enough rule if we consider mathematics to be a universal law. Consider an alien race that reads backwards or simply has a rule that says equations must be done right to left (and probably use octal), that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Japanese. If you write an equation properly then your left to right rule doesn't even matter.

My equation is a trick equation because its written poorly, as I said you stop writing out division equations on a single line after the 3rd grade.

Alright yes it is a convention that we use. This is the method adopted. So what?

We need that convention for consistency. It is sufficient enough for purposes of consistency and teaching basic math. Yes it becomes unnecessary at higher level (or properly done) math but this discussion (or i at least) wasn't referring to that. I was specifically addressing your 'trick' question that you posited had two answers. No it doesn't.

If only has two answers if you do it wrong.

So we agree i guess??

 

[piinyouri]

I can do most math problems alright, just can't, and never have been able to do them in my head.

Just curious, did anyone else's grade school teachers teach them how to count by that infuriating "Tap and tally" system?

That shit was horrid, and fucked me up for the longest time until I managed to unlearn it.

 

[The Ubermensch]

My point is that simply saying "it must be done left to right" isn't a sufficient enough rule if we consider mathematics to be a universal law. Consider an alien race that reads backwards or simply has a rule that says equations must be done right to left (and probably use octal), that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Japanese. If you write an equation properly then your left to right rule doesn't even matter.

My equation is a trick equation because its written poorly, as I said you stop writing out division equations on a single line after the 3rd grade.

Alright yes it is a convention that we use. This is the method adopted. So what?

We need that convention for consistency. It is sufficient enough for purposes of consistency and teaching basic math. Yes it becomes unnecessary at higher level (or properly done) math but this discussion (or i at least) wasn't referring to that. I was specifically addressing your 'trick' question that you posited had two answers. No it doesn't.

If only has two answers if you do it wrong.

So we agree i guess??

On parts of the concept yes, but on others no. I was never taught the "left to right" methodology for "basic" (read flawed) mathematics

However to go on about it would be simply nit picking

 

[Evil Smurf]

I am good at maths but I like creating things more

 

[The Ubermensch]

My point is that simply saying "it must be done left to right" isn't a sufficient enough rule if we consider mathematics to be a universal law. Consider an alien race that reads backwards or simply has a rule that says equations must be done right to left (and probably use octal), that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Japanese. If you write an equation properly then your left to right rule doesn't even matter.

My equation is a trick equation because its written poorly, as I said you stop writing out division equations on a single line after the 3rd grade.

Your right to left argument is stupid, by that logic we shouldn't say that 3 + 3 = 6 because maybe to them the + means division. No conventions for how math is written are a universal law, your argument applies to far too many things.

#OverSimplifyingAdvancedConceptsForThoseOfYouWhoRelyOnWikipediaAndOtherOpenSourceInternetDatabases

 

[The Ubermensch]

I'm sorry, but since when was the concept of left-associativity something just for 6 year olds? Hint: It isn't. There's a reason to get consistent results.

You get consistent results by using Parentheses

It doesn't need to be the same. The notation itself isn't a universal law and that isn't a problem. It isn't expected to be as I pointed out.

When you practice maths, even those of us who practice it and consider it to be a human construct will practice it under the assumption that it is law. This requires that you use correct setting out.

Also, I didn't come here to troll, but your ignorance/arrogance is simply so brilliant; and I'm on a mission to fix the internet. Let me put it this way, if you were to say "I don't need to use parentheses because I have SWAG" I wouldn't bat an eye lid. This sorta shit needs to stop and unfortunately for you, you pinged on my radar today.

 

[game-lover]

I'm in the 3rd and 5th response camp.

Because I haven't used much math lately. And I really hate it. Like REALLY hate it. And I'm not that good at it.

The facebook problems you talk about I don't know the answers to. What I thought were the answers were wrong so now I'm just confused.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

An accurate question would have brackets and things though wouldn't it? I was taught BODMAS (Brackets Of Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction)and I have never come across a question like that without brackets and things.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I'm sorry, but since when was the concept of left-associativity something just for 6 year olds? Hint: It isn't. There's a reason to get consistent results.

You get consistent results by using Parentheses

Yes, and if someone doesn't put them it makes sense to define what is meant. Just because you apparently cannot comprehend that there are reasons to define it doesn't mean they don't exist. Rail against the idea of associativity all you like, it's there regardless of whether you want it to be or not.

It doesn't need to be the same. The notation itself isn't a universal law and that isn't a problem. It isn't expected to be as I pointed out.

When you practice maths, even thoughs of us who practice it and consider it to be a human construct will practice it under the assumption that it is law. This requires that you use correct setting out.

And what you fail to understand is that it isn't incorrect, there's a defined way to do it. Your whining that an alien that reads right to left might have a different rule is bullshit because that sort of argument applies to all our notations. Explain to the alien the concept of left-associative operators and what happens if they're the same priority and it can read it.

Also, I didn't come here to troll, but your ignorance/arrogance is simply so brilliant; and I'm on a mission to fix the internet. Let me put it this way then, if you were to say "I don't need to use parentheses because I have SWAG" I wouldn't bat an eye lid.

Ignorance? You're the one who is seemingly proud of not knowing something basic like the order of operations.

But hey, what you admitted won't vanish and will still be there for the mods to see.

And you'll still be butthurt

You're just giving me more and more posts to report.

And still failing to answer why you don't get that multiplication and division are the same priority and left-associative meaning that you do them left to right at the same time.

... wait, I said that multiplication and division are the same priority, I even explained that the reason for this is that division is the inverse function of multipication (vice versa). I also explained that if you use parentheses correctly then the "Left to right" rule becomes redundant and even counter intuitive. That's your why; If an equation is written out correctly, no matter the way you were educated you will get the same answer as someone who was educated differently

At the end of the day I'm trying to explain my personal reasoning behind this, and that is that math should be treated like an (Higher-order*) instinctive universal language.

*An Epoch of intelligence (take that as a dig if you want)

As I said, you butthurt levels, even though I'm not trolling you... well I am enjoying the reaction so maybe I am, anyway... may be interfering with your ability to reason, I have determined you to be a lost cause for this evening and have decided to retire from this discourse. Good day to you sir; I hope that one day in the future you can accept that not everything that you are taught is the truth.

Edit: no wait! I have one more idea! Ok, so your aware that we exist in four different dimension's right? 3 spatial and one temporal. Ok, so how would an entity that exist purely in a spatial realm (IE the don't experience time), how would they be able to do a function first? because that's what maths is, its a concept that doesn't experience out of time.

When we apply that "left to right" bs to things like quantum entanglement it becomes counter intuitive.... there, I'm done with you now.

 

[WoW Killer]

It really is just a convention, and there's no need for arguments. Another example: the word 'or' is by convention inclusive (Latin vel) unless otherwise stated. There's no intrinsic reason why this is so; you can construct an exclusive 'or' from an inclusive one ((AvB)n~(AnB)), and you can construct an inclusive 'or' from an exclusive one (AvBv(AnB)). It's just convention.

Mathematics is about demonstrating results. It's a mathematician's job to describe a statement unambiguously to the reader. If a statement is ambiguous then it is not mathematically rigorous.

 

[Artemis923]

I'm working on a game programming degree, and was a Nuke ET in the Navy...so even though I don't LIKE math, I know how to do it.

I DnD with some people who can't add their attack bonus to a D20 roll... I just roll my eyes and let it go.