what is the final solution to the common core problem?
>>110048695they should take a screenshot and ask AIidiots without phones
>>110048695Post common core slides, make fun on them online. Find the teachers responsible for it. Make fun of them online.
>>110048695obviously the solution to standardized education is more standardized education so that students understand why education has to be standardizedonly someone uneducated would find this confusing
>>110048695kek, this is like freedom units for algebra.
juxtaposition rules haven't been consistent.
>>110048783>standardized educationalgebra rules have been the same worldwide for centuries.so nothing to do with standardization, just us bureaucracy demanding random stuff to justify it's existence.
It's called MAGA math now.
>>110048862>t. uneducated
>>110048695There is nothing wrong with OP's pic. The problem is under specified so both solutions are correct.
>>110048695>>110049061bc 1.08.2Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012-2018, 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.For details type `warranty'. 20 / 5 (2 * 2)(standard_in) 1: syntax errorcheckmate
Under strict modern rules: 16.
>>110049120>t. commoncorelet
>>110048695(* (/ 20 5) 2 2)
(* (/ 20 5) 2 2)
Any answer is correct as long as you feel it is correct
>>110049061>The problem is under specified so both solutions are correct.The problem is perfectly specified. PEMDAS is law, motherfucker. Pretending there are multiple interpretations to a thing that has a single interpretation is the problem.
>>110048695obviously ameritardia education needs to put even more emphasis on the bible than on math and science
>>110049133Łukasiewicz admits ternary operators?
>>1100491332 2 20 5 / * *
2 2 20 5 / * *
>>110049161
>>110048695
>>110048695same thing
>>110049148PEMDAS says "multiplication AND division", It doesn't say "first multiplication then division" or "first division then multiplication".
at this point it's been a decade since the first time I've seen this picture and I never found out the steps to get to 1
>>110049129>imagine thinking a slash symbol reaches into the future to grab numbers before evaluating left-to-right>ngmi
>>110049268correct, its just badly taught at school, the proper way is PE(MD)(AS)
>>110049298Correct, which means the problem is ambiguous.
>>110049275Do divisor first, assume (2 * 2) is part of it.
>>110049148The answer is ambiguous because division and multiplication are the same order.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication
>>110049291how would you solve 5 (4) retard
>>11004869520/5*(2*2) = 1620/5(2*2) = 1
>>110048808>kek, this is like freedom units for algebra.It's educational water fluoridation.
>>110049061>>110049268>>110049334operators of the same precedence are applied left to right anons..
Both are correct because it's saying if you're gonna be an ambiguous nigger, then both answers are correct.
>>110049494>5(4) is 5*4 = 20>too bad the 5 is hitched to 20/ first, genius>20/5*4 != 20/(5*4)>go back to middle school or learn what an AST is
half of this thread are boomers running on pure 80's leaded fuel fumes right now
>>110049873retardkun, i
>>110049898>posts a screenshot admitting it's a style-guide convention rather than an axiomatic math rule>ignores the final sentence literally stating authors advise against it because it's bad notation>confuses publishing house typesetting with order of operations>mfw he thinks Physical Review submission guidelines override ISO 80000-2 and every modern compiler AST>congratulations, you proved it's ambiguous shorthand that lazy academics argue about, not 1
>>110049915just because it's ambiguous doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used
>>110049920>"it's ambiguous, which is why we should use it">bro is actively advocating for unreadable blueprints>literal definition of anti-math>pack it up anon, the cope is terminal
>>110049933it's only unreadable to retards who don't know how to do math
>>110049941>what color is your bugatti, nasa genius?>"ambiguity is fine actually">"everyone else is just dumb for wanting clear notation">seethe and dilate, enjoy your 1970s slide rulehaha, look, the bridge blueprints are totally ambiguous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't build it!lmao, the prescription dosage is ambiguous, but that doesn't mean the patient shouldn't drink the whole bottle!
>>110049971again it's only ambiguous to people who don't know how to do math, go back to school
>>110049832that's not actually part of the order of operations anon. it's just a convention some people use.
>>110049227Why does everything outside of the parentheses have to happen before the division?6/2*3 is not the same as 6/(2*3)
>>110048695The common core answer is right, though.
>>110049832That would make the phone calculation in >>110049227Correct, and the calculator incorrect. This is my assumption as well but others seem to think otherwise
>>110049497 what you're thinking is20/5(2*2) = 1620/(5(2*2)) = 1You're hallucinating another pair of parentheses because you don't understand that x(y) is shorthand for x*y.
