- #1

uperkurk

- 167

- 0

I say

4/5t = 40

t = 50

but wolfram says t = 1/50

Sorry I have to learn how to use latex again -_-

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter uperkurk
- Start date

The Keisler Calculus book doesn't even use juxtaposition for multiplication.But I agree with SteamKing, this is just a convention issue. Since you can get the answer you are looking for if you know how WolframAlpha interprets your input, it isn't a bug. It's more an issue of how the rest of us would like to see it done. I don't like leaving implied multiplications up to interpretation because it is not the standard way that mathematics is written and I don't want to have to remember to add parenthesis to every implied multiplication, but I can accept that this is the way it is done here.I'm still curious if there is any programming language that supports implied multiplication.Hi,

- #1

uperkurk

- 167

- 0

I say

4/5t = 40

t = 50

but wolfram says t = 1/50

Sorry I have to learn how to use latex again -_-

Mathematics news on Phys.org

- #2

berkeman

Mentor

- 67,984

- 21,455

uperkurk said:

I say

4/5t = 40

t = 50

but wolfram says t = 1/50

Sorry I have to learn how to use latex again -_-

You need to add quotes to make it what you want: (4/5)t + 7 = 47

Wolfram thinks you want it to be (4/5t) + 7 = 47

- #3

jbriggs444

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,786

- 7,422

The standard convention is that multiplication and division bind equally tightly even when multiplication is indicated by juxtaposition and that both are left-associative. That means the latter interpretation is conventional. Barring some typography that OP has not copied carefully, OP is correct and Wolfram is in error.

- #4

SteamKing

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,811

- 1,672

Add parentheses (), not quotes " ".

- #5

Bill Simpson

- 1,077

- 33

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+4/5t+++7+=+47+for+t

shows in 2D typset notation what WolframAlpha thinks 4/5t + 7 = 47 is.

(which surprised me a little)

Now "correctness" I'm not even going to try to get into.

- #6

pwsnafu

Science Advisor

- 1,082

- 85

Same thing here: if you type "4/5 t" (with the space) it'll be parsed as ##\frac{4t}{5}##.

- #7

Serinety

- 5

- 0

- #8

rollingstein

Gold Member

- 646

- 16

jbriggs444 said:I think the delta is whether 4/5t = 40 is interpreted as 4/(5t) = 40 or (4/5)t = 40

The standard convention is that multiplication and division bind equally tightly even when multiplication is indicated by juxtaposition and that both are left-associative. That means the latter interpretation is conventional.

Yes, but only when multiplication is explicitly indicated.

e.g.Even wolfram uses the convention if told 4/5*t

For implied multiplications I'm with Wolfram. Implied multiplications ought to bind tightest as a convention; that makes intuitive sense to me.

- #9

jbriggs444

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,786

- 7,422

- #10

rollingstein

Gold Member

- 646

- 16

jbriggs444 said:

Right. Most modern programming languages would throw an error for doing an implied multiplication.

Come to think of it, which other languages allow something like 5t instead of 5*t?

- #11

Serinety

- 5

- 0

Come to think of it, which other languages allow something like 5t instead of 5*t?[/QUOTE]

As far as languages go, I don't think any would interpret 5t ad 5*t .

Wolfram does do implied multiplication and will interpret 5t as the product of the 2. The problem here is the 5t being in the denominator.

If we expected wolfram to interpret 4/5t as (4/5)*t , then we would have to make a concession for the case of 4/(5t) by use of brackets.

In either case, 4/5t is ambiguous when written line style so brackets are required for clarification.

- #12

Bill Simpson

- 1,077

- 33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions_to_the_standard

TI weighs in

http://epsstore.ti.com/OA_HTML/csksxvm.jsp?nSetId=103110

but I still can't track down any obscure programming language that supports implied multiplication.

The answer to this question depends on the context and specific topic being discussed. Both you and Wolfram may be correct in different ways. It is important to consider all perspectives and evidence before coming to a conclusion.

To determine which answer is correct, it is important to gather and analyze all available information and evidence. This may include conducting experiments, researching the topic, and consulting other credible sources.

There could be several reasons why your answer and Wolfram's answer differ. It could be due to different methodologies, data sources, or interpretations. It is important to consider these factors when evaluating the accuracy of both answers.

It is possible for both answers to be correct in certain situations. For example, if the question is subjective or open to interpretation, both answers may offer valid points. However, in most cases, only one answer can be objectively correct based on evidence and scientific principles.

To determine the credibility of Wolfram's answers, it is important to evaluate the source and methodology used to arrive at the answer. Wolfram is a reputable source for computational knowledge and uses algorithms and data from reliable sources. However, it is always important to critically evaluate any information, including Wolfram's answers, for accuracy and bias.

- Replies
- 18

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 934

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 8K

Share: