8 versions of UUID and when to use them
π‘πππΊππππΊπ π°ππππ± @ SmartmanApps @programming.dev Posts 22Comments 591Joined 2 yr. ago
π‘πππΊππππΊπ π°ππππ± @ SmartmanApps @programming.dev
Posts
22
Comments
591
Joined
2 yr. ago
not taught yet
What do you mean not taught yet? There's nothing in the meme to indicate this is a primary school problem. In fact it explicitly has a picture of an adult, so high school Maths is absolutely on the table.
There is no method by which basic arithmetic and decimal notation can turn 0.999β¦ into 1.
In high school we teach that they are the same thing. i.e. limits of accuracy, 1 isn't the same thing as 1.000..., but rather 1+/- some limit of accuracy (usually 1/2). Of course in programming it matters if you're talking about an integer 1 or a floating point 1.
If someone uses these systems as they were taught, they will get told theyβre wrong for doing so
The only people I've seen get things wrong is people not using the systems correctly (such as the alleged "proof" in this thread, which broke several rules of Maths and as such didn't prove anything), and it's a teacher's job to point out how to use them correctly.
P.S.
βWe do it like that, therefore, it is rightβ
Yep, Maths teachers do it right. :-)
Youβre just another yank
BWAHAHAHA! I see you still didn't learn to check facts first. πππ
X times 10 is 10x
10x is 9.9999999....
As I said, they didn't substitute on both sides, only one, thus breaking the rules around rearranging algebra. Anything you do to one side you have to do to the other.
P.S. you proved my point
The only people who think thereβs something wrong with PEMDAS are people who have forgotten one or more rules of Maths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCDca6dYpA
β¦oh wait I remember that
Well, you seem to have forgotten that the woman in that video isn't a Maths teacher, which would explain why she's forgotten the rules of The Distributive Law and Terms.
until you gave up
I didn't give up, you did.
I suggest we donβt do it again but instead, you review the thread
I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.
those systems are giving an incorrect answer
When there's an incorrect answer it's because the user has made a mistake.
Instead of telling those people theyβre wrong
They were wrong, and I told them where they went wrong (did something to one side of the equation and not the other).
Maths teachers are constantly wrong about everything
Very rarely wrong actually.
the abomination that is PEMDAS
The only people who think there's something wrong with PEMDAS are people who have forgotten one or more rules of Maths.
you can prove it with math
Not a proof, just wrong. In the "(substitute 0.9999β¦ = x)" step, it was only done to one side, not both (the left side would've become 9.99999), therefore wrong.
Itβs like going to a mathematics forum and declaring βGuyz I forgot to carry a 1, screw Maths.
You may think you're joking, but as a Maths teacher I can tell you I have seen a lot of posts where someone makes a mistake with their signs, then uses their wrong answer to declare "The rules of Maths are wrong! Look - different answer!". Yeah umm, try working on getting your arithmetic right first before claiming to have "proved" something. π
Personally, I dislike the way the UI is declared and bound though (XAML)
You can write the MAUI UI in C#. No need to use XAML anywhere.
The rules and the acronyms describe different things.
No, they don't.
If you have to make more rules to say M and D are the same,
I didn't make more rules - that's the existing rules. Here's one of many graphics on the topic which are easy to find on the internet...
β¦thatβs one of the two examples you used?
Yes. Did you try looking for one and ramping it up to the most difficult level? I'm guessing not.
IT IS AMBIGUOUS IN THIS POST
No, it isn't. Division before subtraction, always.
ALL EXAMPLES I HAVE SHOWN
None of those have been ambiguous either, as I have pointed out.
That is the problem at hand.
The problem is people not obeying the rules of Maths.
There is no real problem solving in trying to decipher poorly written shit
It's not poorly written. It's written the exact way you'd find it in any Maths textbook.
You are adding more rules
I'm stating the existing rules.
If all that matters is higher orders first
I don't even know what you mean by that. We have the acronyms as a reminder of the rules, as I already said.
I know operators apply to the numbers to their right.
If you know that then how did you get 2-2+2=-2?
With 2/22, you donβt know if it is 22/2, or 2/(2*2)
Yes you do - left associativity. i.e. there's no brackets.
When you are dividing by numbers, you put them all in the denominator
Only the first term following a division goes in the denominator - left associativity.
BY CONVENTION, as I said. You donβt have to repeat what I said a second time.
I didn't. You said it was a convention, and I corrected you that it's a rule.
Itβs not like you could have tried in your head different orders to combine 3 numbers.
addition first
2-2+2=4-2=2
subtraction first
2-2+2=-2+2+2=-2+4=2
left to right
2-2+2=0+2=2
3 different orders, all the same answer
Who's on first? :-)
I had someone say that to me, a Maths teacher, when I was trying to tell them where they were going wrong with their Maths! πAnd they were a programmer - no wonder all the e-calcs are wrong... (sigh)
Multiplication comes before division in some forms, like PEMDAS. In the example I use, this changes the answer
If you have both multiplication and division then you do them left to right. PEMDAS doesn't mean multiplication first, nor does BEDMAS mean division first. It's PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS) where the bracketed parts are done left to right.
you should specify what it is operating on
Left associativity means it always operates on the following term. i.e. terms are associated with the sign on their left.
The minus sign only applies to the middle term, by convention
By the rule of left associativity.
But if you use one of these acronyms, you end with this expression evaluating to -2
No it doesn't. How on Earth did you manage to get -2?
all these acronyms end up being useless waste of time
No they're not, but I don't know yet where you're going wrong with them without seeing your working out.
Even your βBODMASβ isnβt universal, lots of people learn βPEMDASβ or βBEDMASβ
The rules are universal, only the mnemonics used to remember the rules are different
except for facebook and twitter
... and high school Maths textbooks, and order of operations worksheet generators, and...
2/2*2 It is 0.5 or 2 depending on order.
It's always 2. #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
No, it isn't. Division before subtraction.
1/2x is also unambiguous. 2a=(2xa) by definition. Has done for at least 180 years. Terms
Yep, I can attest to that! I used to play Minesweeper Adventure version. Then Microsoft decided to do a complete rewrite and literally ruined the game. It was way slower and way buggier, and on top of that they also lost all my progress. So, well done Microsoft - now instead of seeing more ads (which was undoubtedly why they did the rewrite) I now don't see ANY ads (because the game is just horrible now and not worth playing anymore, even if it didn't have any ads!).