ReconRat

Yes. 288 x 2 = 576. Not 599.

What I see is the danger of trusting calculations from a calculator. It appears to be worse than I ever thought. There is considerable variety. This presents a clear danger to people both now and in the future. Anything calculated wrong in transportation vehicle design will potentially involve people dying.

You don't get it. This isn't about the calculation in question. It's about the ability of the calculator to do a proof of that calculation. It did indeed give an answer for both. Both of the original equations for result 2 and 288 were wrong. After a change for implied distribution, one result was true, and one was false. So for the four equations, there were three wrong answers and one right. Again, this is a proof. The answers should be all be wrong, with one correct answer. The correct answer, is proof of the one original equation with answer. The purpose of a proof, is to find which one was the correct answer. I have done that. I know which one is correct. Run the proof equations yourself, and see what you get. edit: if I did what you show at wolframalpha, I would get multiple correct answers. That is not appropriate for a proof. Edit: just tried it. There are two results at wolframalpha for correct. And they cross over. That pretty much invalidates the wolframalpha ability to handle calculation of a proof.

I'm convinced. I'll switch rear to SuperSprox with the new chain. The cheapest price I found was cheapcycleparts.com. They even beat indysuperbikes, which is where I think sprocket deals are found. I have a spare stock front sprocket already. edit: Do I now have an excuse to ride around on the torn up chain for a while?

It looks like that often. It doesn't take much of a collision to change it into a parking lot. I try to see that from my parking lot and avoid it by taking a different route. If I do go up the ramp, I get one chance to wiggle onto I-71 North, if it isn't the same condition. edit: btw, that's a good traffic cam to check before trying to get home.

I get BBC news for GP racing on my droidx. BBC added mobile recently. I saw the news of the Texas track. I was wondering which track would give one up.

Not law yet. Both only passed a Senate vote, and return to House for hearings. But I don't think there will be any problem with their passage. There might be changes or modifications.

It took me what... 31 hours to get to a place where I could concentrate long enough to both figure it out and write it. Don't feel bad.

I'm curious... I posted a proof that pins down the correct answer. But I didn't say which one was the answer. And nobody asked which one it was? You'all weird.. Although all you have to do is enter the proof equations in a calculator and look for yourself.

Wolverine work boots or Converse waterproof duty (SWAT) boots. Both are tougher than anyone would think. And you can actually walk somewhere when wearing them.

Australia had a couple of really nasty Summer storms with record breaking rainfall. Their Summer is our Winter. The question is whether this is the new normal situation for their weather, or was it just a 100 year storm, 500 year storm, etc. New York City seems to be having it's own special weather patterns lately also. Extremely heavy rainfall or snowfall. Not the normal. I didn't realize the Dakota flooding was that extreme. Looking at the pictures... I don't think I'd like driving through water that appears to be horizon to horizon. I tried that in a typhoon and did not like it at all.

Last try... Algebraically a(b+c) => (ab + ac). This has to be true, it's a basic principle of algebra. Without it, everything changes. Let's prove it. Prove: here is an implicit set of brackets 2(9+3) => (2 x ( 9 + 3 )) Assumed: Calculators and programming languages can't see the solution without the implied implicit set of brackets and will not interpret it correctly. They need help. Use the calculator for proof of it's own results: A reverse proof to solve for unknown will demonstrate this. 48÷y(9+3)=2 or 48÷y(9+3)=288 Substituting y for the implicit multiplicand, y will equal 2 for whichever answer is correct, the 2 or the 288 Neither of these give the correct answer, both are false. The calculator can't prove it. Or the calculator proves the calculator can't do it. Try again with the implied: 48÷(y(9+3))=2 or 48÷(y(9+3))=288 one of these is true, and the other is false Repeat the proof using (9y+3y) instead of y(9+3): The same results for all four cases. The correct expression tree is: ..(/) ../ \ 48 (*) ...../ \ ....2 (+) ......./ \ .......9 3 Done. This cannot be disproved without errors in the rebuttal or warping Space/Time... In case you're wondering... 48/2(9+3) instead of 48÷y(9+3) will totally fail with most calculators. Only a pencil and/or knowledge will solve that reliably. edit: and here's hoping I didn't make a mistake... durrr

I would give credit in class for that answer...

A Google quote isn't much better than a Wiki quote. And that batch of math in #249 has taken some serious liberties to get the results desired. Math (numbers) can do anything you want. That doesn't make it right. Again, honestly, I used to get textbooks for free to review, in hopes that we would buy them from the publisher for classes/students. They were full of mistakes. Horrible mistakes, in many cases. That made me wonder just who the hell wrote them. Just don't automatically believe everything you see and hear and read. Challenge everything, and make your own decisions. edit: Darwin will take care of the rest

1. So, distributive properties of mathematics no longer apply. 2. Fractional properties no longer exist. 3. Calculators rule, they are never wrong. 4. People can't calculate with pencil and paper (that analog thing). We're in deep doodoo... edit: 5. oh and no one knows how to write a proof to determine if a solution is correct. An engineering fundamental from day one. edit2: And spacecraft do fall out of the sky. The last decent one was a Mars lander that somebody got confused about whether they were looking at SAE or metric values, in calculating orbital parameters. It pretty much hit the ground before it's parachute opened. Just like in a cartoon.

fixed it for ya

To multiply in algebra, use the distributive law 2(9+3) = ((2x9)+(2x3)) =24 48÷2(9+3) 48÷((2x9)+(2x3)) = 2 Sorry guys, this is one of those cases where calculators will give the wrong answer.

yeah, distributive. That's what I was thinking, but couldn't say it.

Let me try again. I taught math classes. The students had calculators. If they weren't careful, they could input the same equation, and different calculators would give different answers. I taught them to clearly define their equations, so that this would not happen. You're not listening, heheh...

yeah, I see 288. But if the answer was meant to be two, then the equation was written wrong for a calculator. It has two answers. Different calculators will give one or the other answer. It's best avoided by clearly defining an equation that all of the calculators can consistently handle. And I still say with a pencil the answer is two.

Since different types of calculators will give different answers, fix it first. from that http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm sooo48/(2(9+3)) calculate that edit: and honestly, I always did that with my calculator if that is what I intended. Since it didn't take long to realize the calculator might give the wrong answer.

**squeee** STEP AWAY FROM THE CALCULATOR

(48/2)*(9+3) implies an operand that wasn't there (48/2)*(9+3) is the same as (48÷2)(9+3) the issue is that 48÷2(9+3) has two answers edit: two possible answers when using calculators I tend to believe only one answer when using a pencil

Try simplify to get rid of the 2: 48 2x12 divide by 2 over 2 (one) or multiply by .5 over .5 (one) 24 12 =2

It's a malformed equation. It doesn't have an answer. edit: btw, I would have said.... 2