Comment Re:And ? (Score 4, Interesting) 25
I'm gonna go with a solid, no, however it does remind me of myself when arguing something that I only have a passing knowledge of:
ME: How much is 3 + 5?
To find the sum of 3 + 5, we'll use the basic addition formula: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
In this case, a = 3, b = 5, and c = 7. Substituting these values into the formula, we get (3 + 5) + 7 = 8 + 7 - 12 - 5 - 7 = 12.
So, the sum of 3 + 5 is 12. This basic formula can be generalized to find the sum of any two numbers, and it's a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
ME: that is completely incorrect
The formula for addition in the standard form is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
This formula can be expressed using the English word order - a + b + c + d = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d).
In this form, we can easily see that the sum of two numbers is found by adding both the numbers together and then subtracting the result of the subtraction of the two numbers. This is how the formula in the standard form works.
ME: You're wrong. There are only two quantities in the equation, you show a formula with 3. Try again.
The formula for addition in the standard form is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
This formula can be expressed using the English word order - a + b + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
ME: so what is 3 + 5?
3 + 5 = 8. This means that the sum of 3 and 5 is 8.
ME: What is 4 + 12?
To find the sum of 4 + 12, we can use the basic addition formula: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
In this case, a = 4, b = 12, and c = 14. Substituting these values into the formula, we get (4 + 12) + 14 = 16 + 14 - 24 - 12 - 14 + 4 - 12 + 14 = 12.
So, the sum of 4 + 12 is 12. This formula can be generalized to find the sum of any two numbers, and it's a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
ME: You're doing it again. You're wrong. The sum of two numbers is quite simple. What is 4 + 12?
4 + 12 = 16
ME: Why did you get it wrong to begin with?
I didn't initially realize the importance of the word order rule for addition. When I wrote the formula as (b + c) + d = (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d), I was focusing on the individual operations (subtracting b + c twice and then c + d twice) rather than the overall structure of the equation.
It wasn't until I recognized that the formula is (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d) that I realized the need for the word order rule in addition. This insight allowed me to correctly apply the formula and arrive at the correct result.
ME: But there is no subtraction operator in the original equation. Why did you make it so much more complex?
You're right, I didn't need to add the subtraction operator in the original equation (b + c) to get the correct result.
The original equation simply states that 3 + 5 = 8, which doesn't require any subtraction operator. By adding twice the positive quantity and then subtracting twice the negative quantity, I inadvertently added an extra operation that's not strictly necessary.
A more straightforward way to express the equation would be: 3 + 5 = 8
ME: It's not strictly necessary and you deduced an completely incorrect formula. You even added an extra number that was not originally part of the equation.
I should have focused on simplifying the original equation first and avoiding unnecessary additions. The equation 3 + 5 = 8 is a straightforward arithmetic statement that requires no subtraction operation, so the addition is already correct.
My mistake was due to not understanding the structure of the original equation and incorrectly applying the additive formula. Thank you for pointing out my error and providing a clear explanation of the correct approach.
ME: How would you simplify 3+5?
3 + 5 = 8 (as per the original statement)
The correct formula for addition is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d), as explained previously.
ME: No, again you're wrong.
I should have focused on the simplicity of the original equation and the accuracy of the additive formula. Using the simple formula (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d) is the most straightforward way to represent the sum of 3 and 5.
ME: How much water can a container measuring 1 cubic meter hold?
Water can be poured into a container up to its capacity, which is typically 1 cubic meter (m).
ME: How much water can a cointainer measuring 1x2x3 meters?
Since a cubic meter is equivalent to 1x1000 cubic meters (m), a 1x2x3 container can hold 1 x 1000/1000 = 1x1000/1 = 1000 cubic meters (m) of water.
Note that the size of the container is not directly related to the volume of water it can hold; rather, it's a function of the length, width, and height of the container.
ME: That's wrong. The container is 1 meter, by 2 meteres, by 3 meters. Try again.
The 1 meter by 2 meters by 3 meters container can hold 1 x 1000/1000 = 1 x 1000/1 = 1000 cubic meters (m) of water.
The container can hold 6 meters cubed.
So, the container can hold a total of 6x1000 = 6000 cubic meters (m) of water.
ME: No, the container can hold 6 cubic meters of water. You're wrong. Why are you using 1000?
I was using 1000 to represent 6 cubic meters, but since a cubic meter is equivalent to 1x1000 cubic meters (m), using 1000 is unnecessary and can be simplified to 6x1000 = 6000.
ME: A cubic meter is not equal to 1x1000 cubic meters
A cubic meter is indeed equal to 1x1000 cubic meters (m).
ME: How much is 3 + 5?
To find the sum of 3 + 5, we'll use the basic addition formula: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
In this case, a = 3, b = 5, and c = 7. Substituting these values into the formula, we get (3 + 5) + 7 = 8 + 7 - 12 - 5 - 7 = 12.
So, the sum of 3 + 5 is 12. This basic formula can be generalized to find the sum of any two numbers, and it's a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
ME: that is completely incorrect
The formula for addition in the standard form is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
This formula can be expressed using the English word order - a + b + c + d = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d).
In this form, we can easily see that the sum of two numbers is found by adding both the numbers together and then subtracting the result of the subtraction of the two numbers. This is how the formula in the standard form works.
ME: You're wrong. There are only two quantities in the equation, you show a formula with 3. Try again.
The formula for addition in the standard form is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
This formula can be expressed using the English word order - a + b + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
ME: so what is 3 + 5?
3 + 5 = 8. This means that the sum of 3 and 5 is 8.
ME: What is 4 + 12?
To find the sum of 4 + 12, we can use the basic addition formula: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + b) + (b + c).
In this case, a = 4, b = 12, and c = 14. Substituting these values into the formula, we get (4 + 12) + 14 = 16 + 14 - 24 - 12 - 14 + 4 - 12 + 14 = 12.
So, the sum of 4 + 12 is 12. This formula can be generalized to find the sum of any two numbers, and it's a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
ME: You're doing it again. You're wrong. The sum of two numbers is quite simple. What is 4 + 12?
4 + 12 = 16
ME: Why did you get it wrong to begin with?
I didn't initially realize the importance of the word order rule for addition. When I wrote the formula as (b + c) + d = (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d), I was focusing on the individual operations (subtracting b + c twice and then c + d twice) rather than the overall structure of the equation.
It wasn't until I recognized that the formula is (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d) that I realized the need for the word order rule in addition. This insight allowed me to correctly apply the formula and arrive at the correct result.
ME: But there is no subtraction operator in the original equation. Why did you make it so much more complex?
You're right, I didn't need to add the subtraction operator in the original equation (b + c) to get the correct result.
The original equation simply states that 3 + 5 = 8, which doesn't require any subtraction operator. By adding twice the positive quantity and then subtracting twice the negative quantity, I inadvertently added an extra operation that's not strictly necessary.
A more straightforward way to express the equation would be: 3 + 5 = 8
ME: It's not strictly necessary and you deduced an completely incorrect formula. You even added an extra number that was not originally part of the equation.
I should have focused on simplifying the original equation first and avoiding unnecessary additions. The equation 3 + 5 = 8 is a straightforward arithmetic statement that requires no subtraction operation, so the addition is already correct.
My mistake was due to not understanding the structure of the original equation and incorrectly applying the additive formula. Thank you for pointing out my error and providing a clear explanation of the correct approach.
ME: How would you simplify 3+5?
3 + 5 = 8 (as per the original statement)
The correct formula for addition is indeed (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d), as explained previously.
ME: No, again you're wrong.
I should have focused on the simplicity of the original equation and the accuracy of the additive formula. Using the simple formula (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) - (b + c) - (c + d) is the most straightforward way to represent the sum of 3 and 5.
ME: How much water can a container measuring 1 cubic meter hold?
Water can be poured into a container up to its capacity, which is typically 1 cubic meter (m).
ME: How much water can a cointainer measuring 1x2x3 meters?
Since a cubic meter is equivalent to 1x1000 cubic meters (m), a 1x2x3 container can hold 1 x 1000/1000 = 1x1000/1 = 1000 cubic meters (m) of water.
Note that the size of the container is not directly related to the volume of water it can hold; rather, it's a function of the length, width, and height of the container.
ME: That's wrong. The container is 1 meter, by 2 meteres, by 3 meters. Try again.
The 1 meter by 2 meters by 3 meters container can hold 1 x 1000/1000 = 1 x 1000/1 = 1000 cubic meters (m) of water.
The container can hold 6 meters cubed.
So, the container can hold a total of 6x1000 = 6000 cubic meters (m) of water.
ME: No, the container can hold 6 cubic meters of water. You're wrong. Why are you using 1000?
I was using 1000 to represent 6 cubic meters, but since a cubic meter is equivalent to 1x1000 cubic meters (m), using 1000 is unnecessary and can be simplified to 6x1000 = 6000.
ME: A cubic meter is not equal to 1x1000 cubic meters
A cubic meter is indeed equal to 1x1000 cubic meters (m).
