• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Quick Math Question

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: dullard
In the real world, calculation mistakes lead to bridges collapsing, buildings falling, platforms giving way with 50 people on them, multimillion dollar space robots crashing, etc. In these cases tons of money has been lost and people have been hurt or killed. All due to someone who didn't want to nitpick.
Click to expand...
Going to take a wild stab in the dark here, but am willing to make an assumption as a mathematical professional that isekii doesn't design and/or implement much of anyhing (at the moment), other than perhaps methods of having a bit of help with his homework.
 
Originally posted by: DingDingDao
Engineers have to make assumptions all the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, they make assumptions. I'm just saying that those 'in-between' calculations matter. Imagine instead of five lines of work, it was a real world problem with ~5000 lines of work. Lets say you had the correct assumptions at the beginning and the correct answer, but that there were minor math "typos" throughout. Is everything fine? Heck no. Next time someone else needs to use your work but for something slightly different. Instead of wasting weeks of company time, they take a good answer (yours) and modify it. Typically the modification may branch off somewhere in the middle, lets say on line 2197. Was your line 2197 actually correct? Maybe, maybe not. In the real world, think of who you might end up killing by being sloppy in the middle.

 
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Can you explain it to me?? I'm still confused... 😕
Click to expand...
Start with: (.2-x/x) *x

Distribute the multiplication to both internal terms: ((.2) *x - (x / x) * x)

Dump the outer parenthesis: (.2) *x - (x / x) * x

Cancel on the second term to make more simple: (.2) * x - x

Drop the parenthesis: .2 * x - x
 
Um... guys?? I don't see how a relatively simple log question leads to all this argumentation over 5000 lines of work as an engineer 😕
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: DingDingDao
Engineers have to make assumptions all the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, they make assumptions. I'm just saying that those 'in-between' calculations matter. Imagine instead of five lines of work, it was a real world problem with ~5000 lines of work. Lets say you had the correct assumptions at the beginning and the correct answer, but that there were minor math "typos" throughout. Is everything fine? Heck no. Next time someone else needs to use your work but for something slightly different. Instead of wasting weeks of company time, they take a good answer (yours) and modify it. Typically the modification may branch off somewhere in the middle, lets say on line 2197. Was your line 2197 actually correct? Maybe, maybe not. In the real world, think of who you might end up killing by being sloppy in the middle.
Click to expand...


Here's the thing, though. Regardless of how I *wrote* the second line, the third line is correctly simplified from the first line. If anyone read the simplifications I made, they would understand what I wrote. I'd bet that YOU also understood what I did, and nit-picking my simplifications is grammar-nazi-esque.
 
Originally posted by: ActuaryTm
Going to take a wild stab in the dark here, but am willing to make an assumption as a mathematical professional that isekii doesn't design and/or implement much of anyhing (at the moment), other than perhaps methods of having a bit of help with his homework.
Click to expand...
That is probably an accurate assumption. However, my recent comments are not related to isekii's problem. They are relavant to the more general comment by Gibson486, "In the real world, you don't care what happens as long you your input gives you a desired output."

 
dullard: chill out dude. The OP's originial equation makes no sense if taken literally. DingDingDao realized this and assumed the OP just forgot the paratheses. That would be what most people would think anyways. Talking about bridges collapsing and killing hundreds of people is really out of the scope of what the OP wanted to solve...
 
Originally posted by: DingDingDao
Here's the thing, though. Regardless of how I *wrote* the second line, the third line is correctly simplified from the first line. If anyone read the simplifications I made, they would understand what I wrote. I'd bet that YOU also understood what I did, and nit-picking my simplifications is grammar-nazi-esque.
Click to expand...
Which is why I never said you were incorrect, and I never said your math was bad. I said "good try". I did not say "bad try".

I just wanted to fix up the internals since iskeii obviously wanted to learn math and possibly he may have had trouble following your "simplifications". Using proper math when teaching someone really helps clear up confusions. You and I can understand it. You and a random person off the street may very well have trouble communicating with the sloppy (but eventually probably correct) math.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Talking about bridges collapsing and killing hundreds of people is really out of the scope of what the OP wanted to solve...
Click to expand...
Yes, my comments on those are not related to the original poster at all, but to Gibson486.

 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: DingDingDao
Here's the thing, though. Regardless of how I *wrote* the second line, the third line is correctly simplified from the first line. If anyone read the simplifications I made, they would understand what I wrote. I'd bet that YOU also understood what I did, and nit-picking my simplifications is grammar-nazi-esque.
Click to expand...
Which is why I never said you were incorrect, and I never said your math was bad. I said "good try". I did not say "bad try".

I just wanted to fix up the internals since iskeii obviously wanted to learn math and possibly he may have had trouble following your "simplifications". Using proper math when teaching someone really helps clear up confusions. You and I can understand it. You and a random person off the street may very well have trouble communicating with the sloppy (but eventually probably correct) math.
Click to expand...

Alright dullard...let's have a math-off to see who has the bigger math schlong then. The loser will concede to the winner.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Alright dullard...let's have a math-off to see who has the bigger math schlong then. The loser will concede to the winner.
Click to expand...
I'll concede that battle before it begins. I don't want to compete in a schlong contest with someone named "wang". 😉

 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Alright dullard...let's have a math-off to see who has the bigger math schlong then. The loser will concede to the winner.
Click to expand...
I'll concede that battle before it begins. I don't want to compete in a schlong contest with someone named "wang". 😉
Click to expand...

touche
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top