Who is in Charge of Math at Google?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EternityMech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Google
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reliability of Google's mathematical calculations, particularly in reference to the "infamous equation" 48÷2(9+3) and the definition of 0^0. Participants explore the implications of using Google as a calculator versus traditional methods and express concerns about the accuracy of mathematical constants provided by Google.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration with Google's calculation of 48÷2(9+3), noting it previously returned 2 but now returns 288.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of 0^0, with some participants suggesting it is often defined as 1 for simplification, while others state it is technically undefined.
  • Some participants argue that Google cannot be trusted for accurate values of physical constants, citing discrepancies in values like Avogadro's number and the astronomical unit.
  • Wolfram Alpha is mentioned as a preferred resource by some, with differing opinions on its use reflecting on users' math skills.
  • Several participants engage in light-hearted banter about using slide rules and the implications of being "lazy" in math.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reliability of Google's calculations or the definition of 0^0. Multiple competing views remain regarding the accuracy of Google's mathematical outputs and the use of alternative resources like Wolfram Alpha.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of using Google for mathematical calculations, highlighting potential user errors and the evolving nature of Google's outputs.

EternityMech
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?
 
Mathematics 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...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K