They mean community college is too expensive when your gpa is about 2.2 you’ve been cheating on your classmates as well as your girlfriend.I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?
You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem. The notation is actually irrelevant to the answer, beyond being internally consistent.I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?
I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem. The notation is actually irrelevant to the answer, beyond being internally consistent.
Please explain it, the homework was due Tuesday.You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem.
Sheesh.
Really???
Okay, let's look at the example:
You have the expression [w1-x1](y1-z1) > [w2-x2](y2-z2) = [w3-x3](y3-z3)
It's as sime.as w1*w2=w3; x1*x2=x3; etc.
In the example:
3*2=6
5*1=5
7*4=28
1*0=0
Repeat that same logic for the question to get your a, b, c, and d.
Simples.
See, you don't have to understand what the symbols specifically mean, just look at what's actually going on.
Genuinely surprised you lot struggled.
Not initially, no.How did you reconcile the 'a > b = c'?
Did you just ignore it?
And then you dropped the assumption that the various forms of brackets are also meaningful?Not initially, no.
First I looked at the question and realised, as most have, that assuming the operator ">" has the same meaning as in usual maths, the example is nonsense. So I dropped that assumption off the bat.
Once you note that the symbols are consistent in the LHS and RHS in both the example and question, and that there's an obvious logic between the numbers on the LHS and RHS, the symbols ultimately become not meaningless per se but simply irrelevant.And then you dropped the assumption that the various forms of brackets are also meaningful?
It may ultimately be, but I've seen plenty of these types of questions in my time, where it's more about pattern recognition than knowing maths. After all, in this you only need to know multiplication, and the rest is just recognising the pattern between the LHS and RHS.Occam's Razor suggests to me it's trolling, perhaps even a sock of our old friend with the math nonsense.
This seems to have the onus in the wrong place. You put the onus for intelligibility on the reader instead of the writer.Further, rejecting something as being posted in bad faith seemingly because you can't get your head round it seems... childish...
I wasn't defeated; I chose not to freely interpret without grounds. We do a lot of homework helping over on PF and have learned that poorly-formed posts and subsequent assumptions hurt more than help.Instead, why not just put your hands up in good grace and admit that you were defeated, but that in understanding the solution you may have learned a new way to look at and tackle such problems? If that is indeed the case.
In math, more than anywhere, if you can't rely on clarity of convention then the world burns.a lack of a priori assumption,
But that isn't the pattern, is it?rest is just recognising the pattern between the LHS and RHS.
Surely the assumption with all homework questions is that the question IS intelligible (e.g. internally consistent). That surely is the minimum expectation, which if you're not going to grant would seem to indicate where any bad faith actually lies.This seems to have the onus in the wrong place. You put the onus for intelligibility on the reader instead of the writer.
Sure, and in the challenge to come up with an answer, not doing so means defeat. Whether that's because you found the question nonsense (due to the a priori assumptions you were working with and sticking to) or because of other reasons, the result is the same: "nil points" (as the UK seemed to have mastered getting until the aberration of last year).I wasn't defeated; I chose not to freely interpret without grounds.
It wasn't poorly-formed. Thinking it to be such is why you were defeated in being able/willing to provide an answer. You looked at it, saw it didn't fit your a priori assumptions, but found yourself unable/unwilling to progress.We do a lot of homework helping over on PF and have learned that poorly-formed posts and subsequent assumptions hurt more than help.
The terms are internally consistent within the question. That's all that is required. The idea of the exercise is to take the example, analyse it, and apply it to the question to get the answers.In math, more than anywhere, if you can't rely on clarity of convention then the world burns.
Middle? Okay, I'm referring to LHS and RHS of the "=", because the pattern takes w1 and w2, multiplies them to give w3 (w, x, y, z, as notated in an earlier post).But that isn't the pattern, is it?
It's LHS, middle and RHS.
How can you simply ignore a third hand?
First, my logic is not that "a guess is better than no answer at all", but as with all such problems, applying a clearly obvious pattern to get what would seem to be the most obvious answer is certainly better than no answer at all. If you perhaps want to call that "a guess" and thereby lump it in with all other guesses established through any other means, be my guest, but don't then attribute that to me.I am dubious as to your logic that a guess is better than no answer at all, but YMMV.
̶Y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶O̶P̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶q̶u̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶s̶u̶s̶ ̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶;̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶>̶ ̶b̶ ̶=̶ ̶c̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶,̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶"̶a̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶"̶,̶
That's the second time you've tried to drag this to an emotional arena, trolling for a reaction.Second, you're still being childish about the whole thing.
It should have been clear that I was pointing out your childishness precisely to drag you out of the playground. Tell you what, you stop being childish about it, and I'll stop commenting how you're being childish about it? Sound fair?That's the second time you've tried to drag this to an emotional arena, trolling for a reaction.
If the school playground is where you want to be, I can't join you.
OK, so you've doubled down.It should have been clear that I was pointing out your childishness precisely to drag you out of the playground. Tell you what, you stop being childish about it, and I'll stop commenting how you're being childish about it? Sound fair?