they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?
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
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
What is the "infamous" equation?
He probably means 48÷2(9+3). We shouldn't talk about it, though.
I am as idiot as google. I thought zero to the power zero equaled one, too.
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.
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 [itex]0^0[/itex]: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=530207
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.
has anyone read 'Stories of your life and others' by Ted Chiang?
one of the stories deals with 0/0
It has so many values for physical constants that are outdated or flat-out wrong.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.
I'd rather use my [STRIKE]slid[/STRIKE] slide rule after hearing all of this. :)
Not this crap again!
*wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*
*wonders if of is future tense of if*
My slide rule won't calculate 0^0, so it must be undefined.
Dang. I've been looking for that Zero all day. Go figure.
Notice my reason for editing. I just slid it back into its sheath.
Separate names with a comma.