Daughter's math homework (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

IIRC, I was taught this stuff in the early to mid 60s. The way I was taught was that -5^2 == -25

1860's?

 

[Otis]

So MrPack, Bewdude and I were all taught the same way, and we're decidedly not from the same geographic area. So I don't know where roly went to school, but he's either much younger, or his district was way ahead of its time.

This isn't about geography or teaching style.-5² = 25 everywhere on the planet.

-(5²) is a different story.

 

[cstu]

-5 squared is 25. If want it squared first then put it in (). This is just about the simplest math there is, how can a math teacher not know this?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

 

[chet]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)".  So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

It's not asking for the square of 5. It's asking for the square of negative 5.

 

[Smoo]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

 

[chet]

..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

-5 squared is 25.

(-5) squared is 25.- (5 squared) is -25.

is "-5 squared" (-5) squared or - (5 squared)? I'd argue the latter by convention, given that exponentiation has priority over multiplication.

 

[FatMax]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)".  So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

It's not asking for the square of 5. It's asking for the square of negative 5.

and negative 5 is negative 1 times 5

 

[Otis]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

The -5 is a negative integer. We are squaring it.

The only way this becomes multiplication by -1 is with appropriately-placed parens.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

 

[Otis]

-5² = the square of the integer negative 5 = 25 -(5²) = the square of the integer 5 x -1 = -25

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

According to Google, -5^2 = 25.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

People should always use parentheses in this situation.

 

[Otis]

According to Google, -5^2 = 25.

Google is correct, on both counts.

 

[The Iguana]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

 

[Sand]

So MrPack, Bewdude and I were all taught the same way, and we're decidedly not from the same geographic area. So I don't know where roly went to school, but he's either much younger, or his district was way ahead of its time.

This isn't about geography or teaching style.-5² = 25 everywhere on the planet.

-(5²) is a different story.

I do about as technical stuff as you can get. If you polled all 30 engineers in my building every one of them would say the teacher is wrong and Otis is dead on.Without the parenthesis in there at all "-5" is a self contained negative integer. There is no ambiguity here.

 

[chet]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 =  -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

0 - 5^2 ╘ -5^2edit to add the weird symbol above is supposed to be "not equal to"

 

[Rooster]

I would say:-5^2 = -5 x -5 = 25-1(5^2) = -1(5 x 5) = -1(25) = -25-(5^2) = -(5 x 5) = -(25) = -25I agree with Smoo in that I see -5 as a stand alone integer. I was in high school in the mid 90s and math was a strong point of mine. I say that given the way the teacher is expecting it to be worked out that it's either a very poorly written question or a trick question. In the case of the latter, I would expect that the teacher made a point during instructional time on how to interpreit -5^2.

 

[The Iguana]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 =  -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

0 - 5^2 ╘ -5^2

Yes it is, write it this way if you want:0 + -5^2 = -5^2 = -25

Unless you stick () around -5 you cannot assume (-5)^2.

edit to change right to write because I am apparently missing a few brain cells...

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

Guys, I don't think it's new to think -1*5^2 so much as it may have been misunderstood by many teachers and students earlier. Everyone makes mestakes.

 

[The Iguana]

I would say:

-5^2 = -5 x -5 = 25

-1(5^2) = -1(5 x 5) = -1(25) = -25

-(5^2) = -(5 x 5) = -(25) = -25

I agree with Smoo in that I see -5 as a stand alone integer. I was in high school in the mid 90s and math was a strong point of mine. I say that given the way the teacher is expecting it to be worked out that it's either a very poorly written question or a trick question. In the case of the latter, I would expect that the teacher made a point during instructional time on how to interpreit -5^2.

I would agree that these were written as trick questions and a good teacher would give partial credit for 54 and 57 unless they were just trying to be a ####.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wikipedia and PlanetMath are no help.

It comes down to whether you see the "-" as an operator or as part of the integer. I think anybody who writes the expression (no matter which interpretation they intend) is nuts for not using parentheses.

 

[Mentalwizard]

I dont know, but when i put the equation exactly into excel, I get 57.=-5^2+4*2^3

 

[18246]

depends. does the teacher also teach creationism?

 

[Rooster]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

If I were to add zero to the begining of the equation I would see:0 + -5^2 + 4 X 2^3

0 + -6^2 + 2 X 3^2

I believe this boils down to what Smoo and Maurile noticed about seeing -5 as a stand alone integer vs as an operator. At best, the problem is poorly written. MrPack's daughter got the problem wrong not because she couldn't do math or didn't understand the order of operations, but based on a technical misinterpreitation. If the lesson here was order of operations, the teacher did a bad job IMHO. If the point of the lesson was to treat a negative number as a positive number with an operator (which I'm not convinced is correct), then I can buy it.

 

[The Iguana]

I think anybody who writes the expression (no matter which interpretation they intend) is nuts for not using parentheses.

Especially if you do this in any kind of real world situation.

 

[The Iguana]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 =  -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

If I were to add zero to the begining of the equation I would see:0 + -5^2 + 4 X 2^3

0 + -6^2 + 2 X 3^2

I believe this boils down to what Smoo and Maurile noticed about seeing -5 as a stand alone integer vs as an operator. At best, the problem is poorly written. MrPack's daughter got the problem wrong not because she couldn't do math or didn't understand the order of operations, but based on a technical misinterpreitation. If the lesson here was order of operations, the teacher did a bad job IMHO. If the point of the lesson was to treat a negative number as a positive number with an operator (which I'm not convinced is correct), then I can buy it.

And in writing it the way you did, you should see that the correct answer is -7 and 18. I still think it all boils down to the teacher being a butthead and trying to trick people up by making it somewhat ambigious. As previously posted anyone that needs to create such an equation and needs it to be calculated correctly would include () regardless of their meaning to prevent any possibility of error.

 

[Moe.]

did the teacher write the problem down or is it in a textbook?

 

[The Iguana]

depends. does the teacher also teach creationism?

That's funny!!!

 

[JAA]

According to Google, -5^2 = 25.

by google

 

[Smoo]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)".  So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

 

[Rooster]

And in writing it the way you did, you should see that the correct answer is -7 and 18. I still think it all boils down to the teacher being a butthead and trying to trick people up by making it somewhat ambigious. As previously posted anyone that needs to create such an equation and needs it to be calculated correctly would include () regardless of their meaning to prevent any possibility of error.

I don't see it that way. I'll work the first one out:0 + -5^2 + 4 X 2^3

0 + 25 + 4 X 8 (-5^2 and 2^3 done first, because of the order of operations)

25 + 32

57

If -5^2 were meant to be -25 and that interprietation was standard, I would think Excel, Google, and Scientific Calculators would identify it as such.

 

[cstu]

As a math geek, let me see if I can help you out. First, there is no such thing as "old math" or "new math". Math is math and the rules for doing calculations haven't changed in eons. My experience is that people who claim that "new math" is too confusing just don't remember things as well as they think they do. This is coming from a 35 year old that has been accused of having Alzheimer's by his wife. Let's see if I can clear this up a bit. Another way to look at this is to add a 0 at the beginning of the equations. Adding a zero will not change the value of the calculations but does clearly show that -5^2 = -25 and -6^2 = -36:

0 - 5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -5^2 + 4 X 2^3 = -7

0 - 6^2 + 2 X 3^2 = -6^2 + 4 X 2^3 = 18

Now, all that said, when I first looked at it and added it up in my head, I rattled off 54 and 57 and figured the first post was someone being funny. Then I looked again and realized I just read it wrong.

Edit to add bolded part...

If I were to add zero to the begining of the equation I would see:0 + -5^2 + 4 X 2^3

0 + -6^2 + 2 X 3^2

I believe this boils down to what Smoo and Maurile noticed about seeing -5 as a stand alone integer vs as an operator. At best, the problem is poorly written. MrPack's daughter got the problem wrong not because she couldn't do math or didn't understand the order of operations, but based on a technical misinterpreitation. If the lesson here was order of operations, the teacher did a bad job IMHO. If the point of the lesson was to treat a negative number as a positive number with an operator (which I'm not convinced is correct), then I can buy it.

-5 is a stand alone integer IMO. If it were meant to be an operator the () should have been used. Case closed.

 

[cstu]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

Smoo, we're right on this one. I'm really by the people that see it another way. It's almost like they can't see that numbers can be negative.

 

[Smoo]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)".  So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

Smoo, we're right on this one. I'm really by the people that see it another way. It's almost like they can't see that numbers can be negative.

I agree. There are negative numbers. Negative numbers should not need parentheses in order to have their identities understood. It should be the other way around.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

There are definitely negative integers. Negative five, for example, is a negative integer. You can write negative five as -5, (0-5), -1*5, 20-25, -1/((-5)^(1/2)), ((5^3)*(5^-2))/-1, etc.

It's just that I see all of those different ways of writing it as expressions with operators, including the first one.

But if you see the "-" in "-5" as just being part of the numeral instead of being an operator, then -5^2 would be 25.

 

[Sand]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)". So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

This seals it. If "-" is only an operator and not part of a number then the number i cannot exist.

 

[Twilight]

You wouldn't treat -x^2 as (-x)^2. This is the same principal.

 

[Smoo]

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number?  I disagree.  I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

There are definitely negative integers. Negative five, for example, is a negative integer. You can write negative five as -5, (0-5), -1*5, 20-25, -1/((-5)^(1/2)), ((5^3)*(5^-2))/-1, etc.

It's just that I see all of those different ways of writing it as expressions with operators, including the first one.

But if you see the "-" in "-5" as just being part of the numeral instead of being an operator, then -5^2 would be 25.

Yes, I think there needs to be an absolute way of expressing any single number as a self-contained unit, free of operators. There are all those other ways of expressing it with operators, sure, but there needs to be a way without one, too. For negative numbers, that's done by putting a negation symbol in front of it.Otherwise, why can't we just answer math problems like this?

Q: What is 4 x 3?

A: 6 x 2

I don't think any math teacher would be impressed with that.

 

[The Iguana]

If -5^2 were meant to be -25 and that interprietation was standard, I would think Excel, Google, and Scientific Calculators would identify it as such.

Of coarse, because those items have brains of their own and are never wrong...Personally I would have a hard time not giving credit to a student for either answer. If I were coding this for any reason I would use () to specify my meaning. If you go to order of operation in your version of 0 + -5^2 + ..., which you agree means the same as -5^2 + ... then I think you have to calculate it as 0+ -(5^2) + ... and get -7 but I also don't really think it is worth the arguement.

The point should be reiterated that the teacher was obviously trying to be ambigious and/or trying to prove a point instead of just teaching the rules.

 

[Rooster]

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

There are definitely negative integers. Negative five, for example, is a negative integer. You can write negative five as -5, (0-5), -1*5, 20-25, -1/((-5)^(1/2)), ((5^3)*(5^-2))/-1, etc.

It's just that I see all of those different ways of writing it as expressions with operators, including the first one.

But if you see the "-" in "-5" as just being part of the numeral instead of being an operator, then -5^2 would be 25.

Assuming -5 to be -1(5) to me is akin to saying 25 = 10, because I see that as 2(5). I think if someone wrote a problem saying 25 - 10 and expected the answer of 0, they'd be in the wrong. I think if you're counting on a nonstandard interpreitation (and based on Google, Excel, and Scientific Calculators it seems nonstandard) that it's your responsibility to make it clear through the use of parenthesis.

 

[Smoo]

New math says to think of "-5" as "5 x (-1)".  So when you see "-5^2", you're actually seeing "-1 x 5^2".

When I was in school, nobody would have written this problem without clearing up the ambiguity with parentheses.But if there were no parentheses, I would go by the order of operations (which is arbitrary convention). Exponents come before multiplication. The "^2" is an exponent. The "-" is multiplication. So I'd square the five before making it negative.

Whereas some would argue that "-5" is a self-contained integer, a stand-alone unit. That the - is simply part of the number.

Hmm. I see the "-" as an operator.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number? I disagree. I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

This seals it. If "-" is only an operator and not part of a number then the number i cannot exist.

Interesting point, but it can be easily countered by invoking an implied parenthetical. (-1)^0.5

 

[Moe.]

i find it hard to believe that anyone could look at -5 and think -1 * 5. when you see the number 7 do you think 7^1?

 

[Smoo]

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as a negative integer, only a negative operation performed on a cardinal number?  I disagree.  I will fight to the death for the rights of negative integers.

There are definitely negative integers. Negative five, for example, is a negative integer. You can write negative five as -5, (0-5), -1*5, 20-25, -1/((-5)^(1/2)), ((5^3)*(5^-2))/-1, etc.

It's just that I see all of those different ways of writing it as expressions with operators, including the first one.

But if you see the "-" in "-5" as just being part of the numeral instead of being an operator, then -5^2 would be 25.

Assuming -5 to be -1(5) to me is akin to saying 25 = 10, because I see that as 2(5). I think if someone wrote a problem saying 25 - 10 and expected the answer of 0, they'd be in the wrong. I think if you're counting on a nonstandard interpreitation (and based on Google, Excel, and Scientific Calculators it seems nonstandard) that it's your responsibility to make it clear through the use of parenthesis.

Actually, 25-10 is 521. 2(5) - 1(0) = 5(2)(1)

 

[The Iguana]

i find it hard to believe that anyone could look at -5 and think -1 * 5. when you see the number 7 do you think 7^1?

I do but then again I already confessed to being a math geek. Also when I see the number 1, I always think 34938475950009987663^0.

 

[Rooster]

Of coarse, because those items have brains of their own and are never wrong...

Personally I would have a hard time not giving credit to a student for either answer. If I were coding this for any reason I would use () to specify my meaning. If you go to order of operation in your version of 0 + -5^2 + ..., which you agree means the same as -5^2 + ... then I think you have to calculate it as 0+ -(5^2) + ... and get -7 but I also don't really think it is worth the arguement.

The point should be reiterated that the teacher was obviously trying to be ambigious and/or trying to prove a point instead of just teaching the rules.

I see error in your math. Here's an example6^2 = 36

2*3 = 6

(2*3)^2 = 2^2 * 3^2 (distributive property of exponents)

2^2 * 3^2 = 4 * 9 = 36

In this case, following the logic above

-5^2 = (-1*5)^2 = -1^2 * 5^2 = 1 * 25 = 25

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think if you're counting on a nonstandard interpreitation (and based on Google, Excel, and Scientific Calculators it seems nonstandard) that it's your responsibility to make it clear through the use of parenthesis.

I think the standard way to write it would be to use parentheses no matter which interpretation you favored.If I were a calculator, I might reject "-5^2" as a syntax error. But if I were a calculator I'd probably be a real *******.

 

[The Iguana]

By the way, this thread is ruining the FFA for me. I really just come here to find threads about hot chicks with large breasts. That you have made me revert to my roots tells me it's time to move on...

 

[MrPack]

did the teacher write the problem down or is it in a textbook?

Looks like it was photocopied from a text.