1. Dec 13, 2011

EternityMech

they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?

2. Dec 13, 2011

arabianights

when i was young, i use scratch book instead of calculator to do math

and now people use google instead of calculator to do math

3. Dec 13, 2011

KingNothing

when i was young, i use calculator instead of google to do math

and now people use wolfram alpha instead of google to do math

4. Dec 13, 2011

What is the "infamous" equation?

5. Dec 13, 2011

He probably means 48÷2(9+3). We shouldn't talk about it, though.

6. Dec 13, 2011

neyzenyelda

I am as idiot as google. I thought zero to the power zero equaled one, too.

7. Dec 13, 2011

Jack21222

I could be very very wrong about this, but as I understand it, while 0^0 is technically undefined, it's often defined as 1 to simplify certain problems.

8. Dec 13, 2011

It's 2.

9. Dec 13, 2011

micromass

No, it's not.

Please do not let this thread turn in another debate about 48÷2(9+3) or this thread will be locked.

See here for the "infamous equation": https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494675
See here for $0^0$: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=530207 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
10. Dec 13, 2011

dextercioby

Wolframalpha is the the best resource out there for a lazy person who doesn't care about his math skills.

Yes, google can't be trusted.

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2011
11. Dec 13, 2011

arabianights

has anyone read 'Stories of your life and others' by Ted Chiang?

one of the stories deals with 0/0

12. Dec 13, 2011

D H

Staff Emeritus
It has so many values for physical constants that are outdated or flat-out wrong. Avogadro's number, the astronomical unit, Newton's gravitational constant, pick one: It's probably wrong to some degree or another. For example, the google calculator value for the AU differs from the published value by 129 kilometers. The uncertainty in the published value is 3 meters.

13. Dec 13, 2011

dlgoff

I'd rather use my [STRIKE]slid[/STRIKE] slide rule after hearing all of this. :)

Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
14. Dec 13, 2011

jhae2.718

Not this crap again!

15. Dec 13, 2011

lisab

Staff Emeritus
*wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*

16. Dec 13, 2011

Jimmy Snyder

*wonders if of is future tense of if*

17. Dec 13, 2011

lisab

Staff Emeritus

18. Dec 13, 2011

BobG

My slide rule won't calculate 0^0, so it must be undefined.

19. Dec 13, 2011

dlgoff

Dang. I've been looking for that Zero all day. Go figure.

20. Dec 13, 2011

dlgoff

Notice my reason for editing. I just slid it back into its sheath.