Thread: 62(1+2) = ?
View Single Post
Old April 28th, 2011, 06:22 PM   #38 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 495
Device(s): Droid X
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 31
Thanked 48 Times in 45 Posts

Originally Posted by EarlyMon View Post

By saying that f(x)=2*x, you've said that implied parens that didn't exist in the originally malformed expression are in effect. In other words, you've re-expressed the problem as:


Malformed expressions can only be evaluated on their face.
Well I disagree with your disagreement! So there!

edit: to explain myself a little better, no, i'm not saying f(x) = 2*x. In fact, I'm saying that's the problem-- OTHER people are saying that, but it's not true. f(x) is a function, that is f of x (f is a function of x), meaning the variable f is applied to the variable x. In our equation, we would apply 2 to 3, which in effect is multiplying it... but it's not the same as saying f(x) = f*x (though isolated, those equations are redundant). The problem is that USUALLY creating a function simply means multiplying it, so we've been trained to think that 2(3) = 2*3. But it isn't.
sonofaresiii is offline  
Last edited by sonofaresiii; April 28th, 2011 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote