(no subject)

[danaeris]

1. 3 
   
2. x 
   
3. 2 
   

[Poll #290422]

Comments

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

actually, I initially read the "x" in the second one as "times". but you didn't give that option :)

[random-vamp.livejournal.com]

Well, since the last one looked like a 2 followed by a ? image indicating a failure to load the image, I skipped that question.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Likewise. Can't see the third one.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

Yes, there is an inconsistency there. Yes, there is the possibility of confusion. But it's borne of using sloppy shortcuts, and to my training in mathematical notication, there's no room for misunderstanding there.

[cos]

I don't see an inconsistency, but it might be that the inconsistency involves the third one, which I can't see - the image doesn't load.

oh, also...

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

genrally I see "1/2 X" rather than "X 1/2". I think that makes things a little clearer. You put the constant multiplier in front of the variable. This makes it clear that it is a constant multiplier.

Re: oh, also...

[polkamadness.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think example 2 is just wrong. You always put the constant before the variables. Consider
"x2" -- my eye tends to read that as a single variable called x2 rather than 2x. Or what about
"x-2"? I doubt you see that as multiplication...

- Mark

Re: oh, also...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_duncan/]

Agreed. Much less confusing to have the constant expressed first.

Another solution to ease confusion is to use extra parentheses: 2(3) is definately not "23". (1/2)x is unambiguous.

Mixed fractions? I remember "improper" fractions but what is a "mixed" fraction? 3.59andathirdofathousandth written as "3.591/3" ?

re: fractions

[etherial.livejournal.com]

mixed fraction: 3 1/2
improper fraction: 7/2

[ghudson.livejournal.com]

Well, you're right, the mixed-fraction notation is potentially confusing. The notation is unambiguous (a literal integer followed by a literal fraction denotes addition; otherwise, two appended terms are multiplied), but also inconsistent.

The other side of the argument is that mixed fractions are accepted notation, there isn't a whole lot of support for changing that (a google search for "avoid mixed fractions" yields one hit), and while they are harder to operate on, they let one intuitively understand a number more easily than an improper fraction would (6 2/3 is easier to visualize than 20/3). And by the time algebra rolls around and the inconsistency comes up, people have typically left mixed fractions behind.

Not that I'm a math person . . .

[rigel.livejournal.com]

I see the first one as three and a half.

I see the second one as confusing. =) Mostly because I first interpreted it as the function "multiply this by two," and then looking at the options, decided that if it was either of those two it was one half x, or x one half, or whatnot.

The third I simply saw as multiplication.

[deedeebythebay.livejournal.com]

I couldn't see the equation in #3. Though I seem to be the only one who got a little red box.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_duncan/]

No, you're not the only one. I don't see it. Two others above have commented that the image doesn't appear. Poll results show fewer people responded to that question than to the others. I guess as Q hasn't fixed it, it shows up for her.

random: 6x7=42 implies x=1. :)

Reply

[etherial.livejournal.com]

This is a reply to multiple comments, so I'm just going to hope everyone comes back to see how the poll is doing.

1. The third image did not load initially. When I clicked "Load Image" from my browser and forced it to try again, it loaded on the first try.

2. x 1/2 (equalling x/2) is nonstandard notation, but it frequently arises, for example while simplifying x(x+ 1/2 -x). Every math class I took says to put the x in front of the paranthesis, but to put a constant in front of the x, so Question #2 is a result of sloppy copying of a resulting line of quest, which is the entire point of eliminating mixed fractions.

On another note, I prefer to write 1/sqrt(2) over sqrt(2)/2. I'd even prefer 2^-.5 over it. Yet sqrt(2)/2 is the standard.