Who is in Charge of Math at Google?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EternityMech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Google
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the infamous equation 48÷2(9+3), with participants debating its interpretation and the reliability of Google as a mathematical tool. Some users express frustration over Google's calculation, which outputs 288, while others argue that it should yield 2. The conversation touches on the evolution of math tools, comparing traditional calculators to modern resources like Google and Wolfram Alpha, with some users criticizing Google for providing outdated or incorrect values for physical constants. The topic of 0^0 also arises, with a consensus that it is often defined as 1 for simplicity, despite being technically undefined. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of humor, frustration, and skepticism towards the accuracy of online math resources.
EternityMech
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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. :wink:
 
I am as idiot as google. I thought zero to the power zero equaled one, too.
 
neyzenyelda said:
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.
 
Dembadon said:
He probably means 48÷2(9+3). We shouldn't talk about it, though. :wink:

It's 2. :biggrin:
 
pergradus said:
It's 2. :biggrin:

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
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:
  • #11
has anyone read 'Stories of your life and others' by Ted Chiang?

one of the stories deals with 0/0
 
  • #12
dextercioby said:
Yes, google can't be trusted.
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
I'd rather use my [STRIKE]slid[/STRIKE] slide rule after hearing all of this. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Not this crap again! :cry:
 
  • #15
dlgoff said:
I'd rather use my slid rule after hearing all of this. :)

*wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*
 
  • #16
lisab said:
*wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*
*wonders if of is future tense of if*
 
  • #17
Jimmy Snyder said:
*wonders if of is future tense of if*

:redface:
 
  • #18
dlgoff said:
I'd rather use my slid rule after hearing all of this. :)

My slide rule won't calculate 0^0, so it must be undefined.
 
  • #19
BobG said:
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.
 
  • #20
lisab said:
*wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*

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

Notice my reason for editing. I just slid it back into its sheath.
 
  • #21
dextercioby said:
Wolframalpha is the the best resource out there for a lazy person who doesn't care about his math skills.

This is quite the judgment passed to people you don't even know!

I am not lazy, nor do I not care about my math skills. Yet, I use wolfram alpha all the time.
 
  • #22
KingNothing said:
This is quite the judgment passed to people you don't even know!

I am not lazy, nor do I not care about my math skills. Yet, I use wolfram alpha all the time.

You might have misunderstood my sentence. It doesn't apply to all people, but only to some of them.
 
  • #23
EternityMech said:
they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?

If you bang:
48/2(9+3)
Into google. It spits out 288. It even rewrites it so the 'maths grammar' is correct.

I DECLARE USER ERROR!

This thread can surely be solved by the user having a brain, and realising that you aren't using a sophisicated calculator. It's designed for idiots, adding things up.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
xxChrisxx said:
If you bang:
48/2(9+3)
Into google. It spits out 288. It even rewrites it so the 'maths grammar' is correct.

I DECLARE USER ERROR!

This thread can surely be solved by the user having a brain, and realising that you aren't using a sophisicated calculator. It's designed for idiots, adding things up.

thats cause they changed it, it gave 2 before.
 
  • #25
Thread closed for a bit...
 
Back
Top