Daughter's math homework (2 Viewers)

[Smoo]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please, somebody solve the following problems:

5-*3

12*/4

6+*7

Those don't make sense, right? You don't put two operators in a row?

So why does this make sense?

0--5

The answer to that is clearly 5. You're subtracting -5 from 0, to get 5. Why is that?

Oh right. Because the negative in front of the 5 is NOT an operator! It's PART OF THE NUMBER!

0 - - 5 doesn't really make sense, either. You would right 0 - (-5) with parentheses.

 

[Paper Lions]

From the Prentice Hall "Middle Grades Math - Tools for Success" Course 2 - 1999 Edition, Page 157:

When you use an exponent with a negative numer as the base, it is important to use grouping symbols to avoid confusion.

Example 3: Simply each expression.

a. (-5)^4 = (-5)(-5)(-5)(-5) = 625

b. -5^4 = -(5*5*5*5) = -625

This should definitively establish that -5^2 doesn't unambiguously mean (-5)^2.

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but is this the consensus? Did ! and the other math teachers verify?Man, I'd have been way wrong here...

 

[(HULK)]

If the problem was meant to be read the negative of 5 squared, then it necessitated a parentheses.  Bottom line.

This is the answer to this whole entire thread.Parentheses would tell you one thing. The LACK of parentheses tells you another.

It's clear-cut.

I was leaning the other way last night, but after reading what smoo smoo wrote and now what hulk wrote, I am moving this way.Why isn't the -5 the base number?

Because "-" isn't a number. "5" is a number, and "-" is an operator.(And before Smoo attacks me, I'm not addressing this to Smoo. Smoo already understands the operator argument. I'm addressing this to the many people who still don't understand the argument.)

You're arguing now that integers don't exist. Thats not gonna help your position.

 

[Smoo]

0 - - 5 doesn't really make sense, either. You would right 0 - (-5) with parentheses.

 

[chet]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

unless the math powers claim that -1 has special properties.

 

[(HULK)]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Oooo. Good arguement.I'm waiting to see how they attempt to refute this.

 

[MrPack]

From the Prentice Hall "Middle Grades Math - Tools for Success" Course 2 - 1999 Edition, Page 157:

When you use an exponent with a negative numer as the base, it is important to use grouping symbols to avoid confusion.

Example 3: Simply each expression.

a. (-5)^4 = (-5)(-5)(-5)(-5) = 625

b. -5^4 = -(5*5*5*5) = -625

This should definitively establish that -5^2 doesn't unambiguously mean (-5)^2.

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but is this the consensus? Did ! and the other math teachers verify?Man, I'd have been way wrong here...

Yes, If I'm understanding this right, this is the correct way to understand it.

 

[chet]

0 - - 5 doesn't really make sense, either. You would right 0 - (-5) with parentheses.

 

[trout]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible.  Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1).  But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1).  And so on.  It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative.  And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Oooo. Good arguement.I'm waiting to see how they attempt to refute this.

I nominate Smoo for the -5^2=25 team captain.

 

[(HULK)]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible.  Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1).  But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1).  And so on.  It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative.  And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Oooo. Good arguement.I'm waiting to see how they attempt to refute this.

I nominate Smoo for the -5^2=25 team captain.

Second

 

[Kleck]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the problem was meant to be read the negative of 5 squared, then it necessitated a parentheses. Bottom line.

This is the answer to this whole entire thread.Parentheses would tell you one thing. The LACK of parentheses tells you another.

It's clear-cut.

I was leaning the other way last night, but after reading what smoo smoo wrote and now what hulk wrote, I am moving this way.Why isn't the -5 the base number?

Because "-" isn't a number. "5" is a number, and "-" is an operator.(And before Smoo attacks me, I'm not addressing this to Smoo. Smoo already understands the operator argument. I'm addressing this to the many people who still don't understand the argument.)

You're arguing now that integers don't exist. Thats not gonna help your position.

You seem not to know what an integer is.

 

[Sam Quentin]

An 18 page thread on a factually established rule where there is a clear-cut correct answer....and we wonder why the political threads are such a mess

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

You don't have to write out -5 as (-1)(5) anymore than you have to write out 5 as (1)(5). It's just that -5 is equivalent to (-1)(5) and 5 is equivalent to (1)(5). It doesn't make for an infinite regress.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

Many people do not seem to realize that we are not discussing mathematics in this thread. We're discussing syntax.

(Special bonus points go to the guy who claims his 800 on the Math SAT gives him special credibility on this, as well as the guy who claims that his Masters in Mathematics gives him special credibility. Anybody who has actually taken the SAT or has taken even a college undergraduate math course knows that this isn't the kind of stuff you spend your time studying).

 

[Ignoramus]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Oooo. Good arguement.I'm waiting to see how they attempt to refute this.

I nominate Smoo for the -5^2=25 team captain.

Second

Good luck with that.

-5^2=x

Prove to me that x=25

Still waiting...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For those of you who want to express the concept of -5 as a single symbol rather than using an operator on a value, I suggest using the Prince symbol. As far as I know, that one isn't taken in math.Or you could just express it as (-5). That way it will be treated as the value of negative five.

 

[Smoo]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math. it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

I agree. And listen everybody, women aren't allowed to vote. Like it or not, that's the agreed upon rule. And don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree.

 

[Smoo]

-5^2=x

Prove to me that x=25

Still waiting...

I did this ages ago, skimmer.

 

[Swapster]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Good Answer

 

[Smoo]

Holy cow, this thread has legs. Just goes to show how lousy most people are at math, even smart people.

-5^2=x

-therefore-

0=x+5^2

Anyone here still think x=25?

-5^2 = x-therefore-

0 = x - (-5^2)

x = 25

Bump for Ignoramus who is apparently not paying attention.

 

[FatMax]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

I agree. And listen everybody, women aren't allowed to vote. Like it or not, that's the agreed upon rule. And don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree.

I with you Smoo. :manhug:

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To force the processor to intrepret it correctly would mean changing every formula that includes exponentiation to check for a negative base number and if found change the formula from something like x^2 to (-1*(x)^2). Otherwise, it comes out positive every time.

No, a negative base number should come out positive when it is squared. But in the expression -5^2, the base number (i.e., the number that gets squared) isn't negative. It's five.

Wrong. And your continuing to assert this as divine truth is getting mildly irritating. The base number in this problem is -5. -5 is a number, all on its own. If you want to spedify that it's an operation, you need to do so explicitly, using parentheses.-5^2 = 25 exactly follows the order of operations, because there's only a SINGLE OPERATION.

I figured we were all on the same page once the math teachers got here.

I'm role-playing one of the people at the table during the conference where this arbitrary decision was made. We've established what the convention is. I'm trying to get them to reason it out. My goal here is to make it clear that the "convention" was decided poorly.

Okay, but in my very first post in this thread (before I knew what the convention was) I gave the reason that I thought the convetion should be to use parentheses, but barring that, the convention should be to execute the exponentiation before the multiplication (treating the "-" as an operator).So I can't join you in arguing that the convention is unreasonable. It is more reasonable than the alternative in my view.

 

[FatMax]

For those of you who want to express the concept of -5 as a single symbol rather than using an operator on a value, I suggest using the Prince symbol. As far as I know, that one isn't taken in math.

Or you could just express it as (-5). That way it will be treated as the value of negative five.

In Shick's original explaination of why it is correct, he factored out the -1 and offered that as proof. I'll go find it before he deletes it.

 

[Smoo]

To force the processor to intrepret it correctly would mean changing every formula that includes exponentiation to check for a negative base number and if found change the formula from something like x^2 to (-1*(x)^2). Otherwise, it comes out positive every time.

No, a negative base number should come out positive when it is squared. But in the expression -5^2, the base number (i.e., the number that gets squared) isn't negative. It's five.

Wrong. And your continuing to assert this as divine truth is getting mildly irritating. The base number in this problem is -5. -5 is a number, all on its own. If you want to spedify that it's an operation, you need to do so explicitly, using parentheses.-5^2 = 25 exactly follows the order of operations, because there's only a SINGLE OPERATION.

I figured we were all on the same page once the math teachers got here.

I'm role-playing one of the people at the table during the conference where this arbitrary decision was made. We've established what the convention is. I'm trying to get them to reason it out. My goal here is to make it clear that the "convention" was decided poorly.

Okay, but in my very first post in this thread (before I knew what the convention was) I gave the reason that I thought the convetion should be to use parentheses, but barring that, the convention should be to execute the exponentiation before the multiplication (treating the "-" as an operator).So I can't join you in arguing that the convention is unreasonable. It is more reasonable than the alternative in my view.

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number. I argued that earlier and it has to be refuted. So now who's being unreasonable?

 

[Kleck]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

I agree. And listen everybody, women aren't allowed to vote. Like it or not, that's the agreed upon rule. And don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree.

I would have expected you more than anyone else to appreciate what I'm saying. I know you're annoyed when you see blatant ignorance in the face of logic and reason.Oh well.

 

[Smoo]

For those of you who want to express the concept of -5 as a single symbol rather than using an operator on a value, I suggest using the Prince symbol. As far as I know, that one isn't taken in math.

Or you could just express it as (-5). That way it will be treated as the value of negative five.

In Shick's original explaination of why it is correct, he factored out the -1 and offered that as proof. I'll go find it before he deletes it.

Right, and you can't factor out the -1 until after the exponent is resolved. And as I also argued earlier, factoring out the -1 doesn't solve anything.

 

[FatMax]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I can tell you what every certified math teacher in the country will tell you...

-5^2 = -25

This isn't new. This is thousands of years old. The negative sign you see in front of the 5 is equivalent to multiplying by a -1. Exponents take predence. The 5 is to be squared before multiplying before the -1. Again, nothing new.

Here you go Maurile. Care to defend this Shick?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those of you who want to express the concept of -5 as a single symbol rather than using an operator on a value, I suggest using the Prince symbol. As far as I know, that one isn't taken in math.

Or you could just express it as (-5). That way it will be treated as the value of negative five.

In Shick's original explaination of why it is correct, he factored out the -1 and offered that as proof. I'll go find it before he deletes it.

That wouldn't qualify as a proof, because it begs the question of whether "-5" is a standalone entity or whether it can only be expressed as (-1)*(5). Obviously it's not possible to "prove" a convention which is, itself, completely arbitrary. It would be like trying to "prove" that 4*3+2 = 14 as opposed to 24. You can't prove that; it's just syntax.

 

[Smoo]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math. it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

I agree. And listen everybody, women aren't allowed to vote. Like it or not, that's the agreed upon rule. And don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree.

I would have expected you more than anyone else to appreciate what I'm saying. I know you're annoyed when you see blatant ignorance in the face of logic and reason.Oh well.

Yes, I am. That's why I refuse to cave on this, and am surprised that you accept it so blindly.I have provided enough examples to show that if:

1) You believe that negative numbers exist, and

2) You accept that infinite regressions are to be avoided

then I am clearly right, and the convention is clearly illogical.

 

[trout]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

so you're saying that negative five squared equals negative 25? type -5 into your calculator. Now hit the square function (on my calculator it's x^2) button. I don't get -25 as the answer, I get 25. what do you get on your calculator?

 

[Smoo]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math. it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

so you're saying that negative five squared equals negative 25? type -5 into your calculator. Now hit the square function (on my calculator it's x^2) button. I don't get -25 as the answer, I get 25. what do you get on your calculator?

If you're going to be on my side, please don't invoke any calculator examples.

 

[(HULK)]

You used to be crazy for thinking that the earth was flat.Now, you're crazy for thinking -5^2=25.Anyway, I think its clearly a debatable issue. What I see here is that a decision was made because they wanted -5 to match what it means when you see a -x. But, in doing so, they chose the shortest route and made it an accepted convention. I think this was a poor choice, because if you follow their logic train negative integers no longer exist in their own right. Which, in my opinion, is stupid.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

 

[trout]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

so you're saying that negative five squared equals negative 25? type -5 into your calculator. Now hit the square function (on my calculator it's x^2) button. I don't get -25 as the answer, I get 25. what do you get on your calculator?

If you're going to be on my side, please don't invoke any calculator examples.

But logic isn't working with them. sorry captain.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I can tell you what every certified math teacher in the country will tell you...

-5^2 = -25

This isn't new. This is thousands of years old. The negative sign you see in front of the 5 is equivalent to multiplying by a -1. Exponents take predence. The 5 is to be squared before multiplying before the -1. Again, nothing new.

Here you go Maurile. Care to defend this Shick?

Of course he can defend it. He's exactly right.-5 doesn't mean (-5).

When he rewrites -5 as (-1)(5) he's not "factoring it out." He's rewriting it -- correctly, by convention.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

so you're saying that negative five squared equals negative 25?

He is saying that negative (five squared) equals negative 25.

 

[Smoo]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

Nobody wrote it as -1 * 5. This is an assumption that has been made, based on the assertion that -5 is not a number but an operation. -5 is a number.

 

[rolyaTy]

If -5 cannot be -5 and has to be (-1)(5) then all you've done is create an infinite regression which makes solving the expression impossible. Because then -1 cannot be -1, it has to be (-1)(1). But then the -1 in that expression cannot be -1, it also has to be (-1)(1). And so on. It is clear at some point that you have to accept that a number can be inherently negative. And once you've made that assumption, there's no need for the initial factoring, the -5 can be inherently negative.

Negative numbers don't exist in reality. You cannot hold (-5) apples or oranges. You can however hold 5 apples that were taken away from a basket containing 10 apples. The negative sign is a convention, and as such, the FIVE is the value, and the NEGATIVE sign is convention. You are treating -5 as if it were a VALUE, when in fact it's a VALUE and a CONVENTION. It's like a vector, it has magnitude and direction. Five is the magnitude, the Negative sign is the direction. In the order of operations, exponents are performed on the value FIRST, unless it is specified that the exponent should be performed on both the value and the direction/convention. To do that, you have to put parentheses around BOTH the sign and the value to take that into consideration.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For those of you who want to express the concept of -5 as a single symbol rather than using an operator on a value, I suggest using the Prince symbol. As far as I know, that one isn't taken in math.

Or you could just express it as (-5). That way it will be treated as the value of negative five.

In Shick's original explaination of why it is correct, he factored out the -1 and offered that as proof. I'll go find it before he deletes it.

That wouldn't qualify as a proof, because it begs the question of whether "-5" is a standalone entity or whether it can only be expressed as (-1)*(5). Obviously it's not possible to "prove" a convention which is, itself, completely arbitrary. It would be like trying to "prove" that 4*3+2 = 14 as opposed to 24. You can't prove that; it's just syntax.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

Nobody wrote it as -1 * 5. This is an assumption that has been made, based on the assertion that -5 is not a number but an operation. -5 is a number.

By convention, -5 is the same as -1 * 5.You understand this already.

It doesn't mean that negative numbers don't exist, or can't be expressed as such. Just write "(-5)".

 

[shadyridr]

I love non-math people aurguing about trival math.  it is funny.

While humorous at first, there are some bad implications in this.Who are we turning towards to settle disputes? Google? Self-labeled experts? Someone's hurt feelings because they now realize something they assumed to be true is actually wrong?

Regardless of what someone thinks, regardless of what you remember, there needs to be an established set of rules established for interpreting these symbols. Like it or not, -5^2=-25 is the established and agreed upon rule. It should be said that this isn't the best way to communicate what you mean, but when it's encountered this is how it will be interpreted.

Now, get over it. And please, pretty please, don't try to infect any young minds with your knuck knuck crazy-boy ignorant ideas if you choose to disagree. Battling the motivational levels of youngsters is already challenging enough.

so you're saying that negative five squared equals negative 25? type -5 into your calculator. Now hit the square function (on my calculator it's x^2) button. I don't get -25 as the answer, I get 25. what do you get on your calculator?

HONDAYour perfroming the order of operations (the wrong way) for the calculator by entering it into the calculator that way. Seriously this has all be explained already.

 

[John 14:6]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet among the 20 pages but I thought it might be useful.The distributive property works like this:a(b+c) = ab+acIf a number is treated as negative:-(b+c) = -b-cIt treats the negative infront as a -1 * the equation.So every negative number has to be treated as -1 * the number, otherwise the distributive property won't hold up. So if you have -n^2, it has to be treated as -1 * n^2, just like -(b+c)^2 has to be treated as -1 * (b+c) * (b+c).I think that makes sense and hopefully it sheds a little more light on this. If not, hopefully someone else can clarify it better, it's almost time for lunch...

 

[Smoo]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

Nobody wrote it as -1 * 5. This is an assumption that has been made, based on the assertion that -5 is not a number but an operation. -5 is a number.

By convention, -5 is the same as -1 * 5.You understand this already.

It doesn't mean that negative numbers don't exist, or can't be expressed as such. Just write "(-5)".

Remember the post where I was role-playing? Do you see the fallacy of your argument now? I'm trying to establish the reaosning for the convention, and you're invoking the actual convention to do it. You're making the same mistake here that you often call out biblical apologists for.

 

[Brewdude]

19 freakin' pages on this? I left last night at page 2, read 3 a minute ago and thought "this can't go on for 19 pages, it must be a clever cover up to hide some nice links."Fast forward to the end and it's still the math discussion. WTF is going on around here, it's Friday people, let the fun begin....

 

[FatMax]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

Uhh, nut of the examples below, which looks more correct to you?

-4 + 5 = 1

(-4) + 5 = 1

Parenthesis are unnecessary to convey that a number is negative.

 

[NCCommish]

Why is this discussion still going on?  Move along people, there's nothing to see here.

This is the FFA. This thing may have another dozen pages in it.

Woo hoo hit the over!

 

[rick6668]

Evaluate these expressions1) - 5^22) 1 - 5^23) (-5)^24) 1 + -5^21) -252) -243) 254) -24In order for the -5 to be treated as it's own value (a negaitve number), you must show this directly by placing in parenthesis as in #2 or using the addition sign as in #4. I do not like the use of #4 as this is what causes confusion, but we must agree that if there is no designation with parenthesis or an additional operator, then we need to use the minus sign as an operator. Otherwise this causes people confusion in calculating the answer between #1 and #2

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To believe there is a multiplication is to believe there is no such thing as a negative number.

This is simply wrong. There are such things as negative numbers. There are in fact an infinite number of them.If you want negative five to be treated as its own value, write it as (-5). Don't write it as -1 * 5.

Nobody wrote it as -1 * 5. This is an assumption that has been made, based on the assertion that -5 is not a number but an operation. -5 is a number.

By convention, -5 is the same as -1 * 5.You understand this already.

It doesn't mean that negative numbers don't exist, or can't be expressed as such. Just write "(-5)".

Remember the post where I was role-playing? Do you see the fallacy of your argument now? I'm trying to establish the reaosning for the convention, and you're invoking the actual convention to do it. You're making the same mistake here that you often call out biblical apologists for.

No, I'm refuting your assertion that the current convention implies that negative numbers don't exist.