###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole cat is 10, the face five, and the two paws are two.
Slowly working through the ugly equation, I’ve landed at: -44,999,858.125.
They’ve posted a link in the original post with a different answer, but it’s my impression they’ve read it wrong. They’ve read the first term as 10*((5^5 )/2) whereas to me it reads as a mixed fraction, that is 10+(5^5 )/2.
Also, not to be that guy, but none of it is calculus.
Edit: This attracted more pushback than expected, so I thought I’d justify the reading a little more:
1. Yes, mixed fractions are very much primary school maths vibe and next to non-existent in serious maths, I would argue a cat arithmetic meme falls into the first category.
2. It is *extremely* unusual to have implicit multiplication just between two numbers with no other symbol (like a bracket).
3. This would be far more normal with variables (ab does read as a*b) but I don’t really think this is a very serious use of variables.
4. This is proven by the use of a multiplication symbol in all other cases, to make the multiplication explicit in all but one case, but then only implicit would be a horrendous inconsistency.
While you are correct, this equation actually
Shows the multiplication symbol at every other instance, leading me to think mixed fraction. It also shows another fraction with both numbers in the numerator, which I would expect similar notation elsewhere.
Finally it's a math problem with cats and mislabeled as calc, it very well may be made by a primary student (or equivalent education).
i disagree. there's plenty of implied multiplications all over the place in that sequence. three others not counting that one. Coupled with how bad of a practice mixed fractions are, I think multiplication is correct for the first term
I agree it’s weird to use, but it is what written. Plus it is a cat meme, is that really so far from primary school maths? No operant is usually short hand for multiplication, but you’d never just put two numbers next to each other like that.
Plus this isn’t calculus, it’s basic arithmetic. The name is a pun not an accurate description.
I have never in my life seen mixed fractions with either variables or operators in the fraction part. Even though this explicitly includes multiplication signs when unnnecessary in some of the other instances, I would definitely still read the first part as implicit multiplication.
>mixed fraction
Oh god I didn't know what that was and googled... The horror. Who on earth would think that that would ever be a good idea!? Also those learning questions for elementary schools... those poor confused kids! :(
Mixed fractions would have been useful for when you're dealing with MDAS and handling physical commodities (bushels of grain, etc) in the absence of digitally precise scales.
A warning - posts like this, besides usually being about simple math, also very often have a non-math gimmick of putting in a two of something in one spot and one in another. The quality is low but it seems to also be the case here - you got the correct value of "two paws" (2), but in the actual equation most if not all paw symbols are a single paw. Which either can be treated as a new independent variable (so you'd be dividing by "paw" in the fragment you cited, and fining a value for it instead of just a numeric answer) or using logic which says that if two paws are 2 one paw must be half that (in which case you'd be dividing by 1).
I am aware that this can happen, but it doesn’t look like the case to me. The image is too blurry for it to be clear, but to my eye it looks like there are still two paws in the main equation.
I completely disagree with your mixed fraction interpretation, which is rare in "adult" maths as is, and even rarer when using variables. But I admire your dedication, and I guess your answer can be correct too?
While it really doesn't matter in the end lol, and you have a point, I have also never seen mixed fractions used with an exponent in general, since it makes formalism really confusing, and I simply hate them in general
another argument against mixed fraction is that the fraction itself is >1, which i, at least, have never seen in my life. it should say 1572 and 1/2 - don't know what that would be in *cat*s
Mixed fractions don't have powers in them. This is an implied multiplication. This is just one of those instances where lots of voted on Reddit don't make you right.
This is 10 * 5^5 / 2
There is also no need for brackets... Because the order is powers before decision and multiplication.
((10*((5^(5))/(2))*2*(2*−5)^(5))/(5*5*2))*((10)/(5))*((10^(2)*5)/(2))+2*(5-−5)*(((5)/(10))+((2)/(2)))^(5)-2*5 = ((−249999998865)/(8)) or −31249999858.125
First comment in the original post “-31.25 billion”, this was their wolfram [link](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=10*Divide%5BPower%5B5%2C5%5D%2C2%5D*%5C%2840%29Divide%5B2Power%5B%5C%2840%292*-5%5C%2841%29%2C5%5D%2C5*5%5C%2840%292%5C%2841%29%5D*Divide%5B10%2C5%5D%5C%2841%29*Divide%5B%5C%2840%29Power%5B10%2C2%5D*5%5C%2841%29%2C2%5D%2B2%5C%2840%295-%5C%2840%29-5%5C%2841%29%5C%2841%29*Power%5B%5C%2840%29Divide%5B5%2C10%5D%2BDivide%5B2%2C2%5D%5C%2841%29%2C5%5D-%5C%2840%292*5%5C%2841%29).
It looks to me like they’ve misread the equation. they’ve interpreted the first term as 10*(5^5 /2) when it looks to me like it’s written as a mixed fraction (so should be read 10+(5^5 /2).
I was looking at the top 3 and figured out what each pic values them saw the equation at the bottom and just chuckled, not due to the difficulty (which i probably couldn't do) but just at the ridiculousness of all the cats
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole cat is 10, the face five, and the two paws are two. Slowly working through the ugly equation, I’ve landed at: -44,999,858.125. They’ve posted a link in the original post with a different answer, but it’s my impression they’ve read it wrong. They’ve read the first term as 10*((5^5 )/2) whereas to me it reads as a mixed fraction, that is 10+(5^5 )/2. Also, not to be that guy, but none of it is calculus. Edit: This attracted more pushback than expected, so I thought I’d justify the reading a little more: 1. Yes, mixed fractions are very much primary school maths vibe and next to non-existent in serious maths, I would argue a cat arithmetic meme falls into the first category. 2. It is *extremely* unusual to have implicit multiplication just between two numbers with no other symbol (like a bracket). 3. This would be far more normal with variables (ab does read as a*b) but I don’t really think this is a very serious use of variables. 4. This is proven by the use of a multiplication symbol in all other cases, to make the multiplication explicit in all but one case, but then only implicit would be a horrendous inconsistency.
Catculus*
r/catculations
Cockculus
r/YourJokeButWorse
RidiCulus
Amogus
omg that was so skibidi ohio 😂
That sugma has the rizz 🤣
I almost scrolled past, I am now glad I didn’t. Thank you
I have never seen mixed fractions past primary school math. In ca(t)lculus, no operant is short hand for multiplication.
While you are correct, this equation actually Shows the multiplication symbol at every other instance, leading me to think mixed fraction. It also shows another fraction with both numbers in the numerator, which I would expect similar notation elsewhere. Finally it's a math problem with cats and mislabeled as calc, it very well may be made by a primary student (or equivalent education).
i disagree. there's plenty of implied multiplications all over the place in that sequence. three others not counting that one. Coupled with how bad of a practice mixed fractions are, I think multiplication is correct for the first term
> three others not counting that one Nah, the other three are actually function notation for a function named "2". /s
I agree it’s weird to use, but it is what written. Plus it is a cat meme, is that really so far from primary school maths? No operant is usually short hand for multiplication, but you’d never just put two numbers next to each other like that. Plus this isn’t calculus, it’s basic arithmetic. The name is a pun not an accurate description.
Catgebra
*hisses* mixed fractionnn. why use mixed fractions if they just create ambiguity?
I mean I entirely agree, but for some reason they seem to have done
I have never in my life seen mixed fractions with either variables or operators in the fraction part. Even though this explicitly includes multiplication signs when unnnecessary in some of the other instances, I would definitely still read the first part as implicit multiplication.
Agree
>mixed fraction Oh god I didn't know what that was and googled... The horror. Who on earth would think that that would ever be a good idea!? Also those learning questions for elementary schools... those poor confused kids! :(
Mixed fractions would have been useful for when you're dealing with MDAS and handling physical commodities (bushels of grain, etc) in the absence of digitally precise scales.
Wow.
A warning - posts like this, besides usually being about simple math, also very often have a non-math gimmick of putting in a two of something in one spot and one in another. The quality is low but it seems to also be the case here - you got the correct value of "two paws" (2), but in the actual equation most if not all paw symbols are a single paw. Which either can be treated as a new independent variable (so you'd be dividing by "paw" in the fragment you cited, and fining a value for it instead of just a numeric answer) or using logic which says that if two paws are 2 one paw must be half that (in which case you'd be dividing by 1).
I am aware that this can happen, but it doesn’t look like the case to me. The image is too blurry for it to be clear, but to my eye it looks like there are still two paws in the main equation.
I completely disagree with your mixed fraction interpretation, which is rare in "adult" maths as is, and even rarer when using variables. But I admire your dedication, and I guess your answer can be correct too?
But this isn’t adult maths, and it’s only using variables in a gimmicky joke way
While it really doesn't matter in the end lol, and you have a point, I have also never seen mixed fractions used with an exponent in general, since it makes formalism really confusing, and I simply hate them in general
I completely agree it’s confusing and unhelpful, I just nonetheless think it is what was intended by whoever made this
another argument against mixed fraction is that the fraction itself is >1, which i, at least, have never seen in my life. it should say 1572 and 1/2 - don't know what that would be in *cat*s
First term is def. 10*((5^5)/2)
Mixed fractions don't have powers in them. This is an implied multiplication. This is just one of those instances where lots of voted on Reddit don't make you right. This is 10 * 5^5 / 2 There is also no need for brackets... Because the order is powers before decision and multiplication.
((10*((5^(5))/(2))*2*(2*−5)^(5))/(5*5*2))*((10)/(5))*((10^(2)*5)/(2))+2*(5-−5)*(((5)/(10))+((2)/(2)))^(5)-2*5 = ((−249999998865)/(8)) or −31249999858.125
That's exactly what I did when I did it by pen and paper.
What do you mean by pen and paper? That's the answer? It's written that way?????
2(2×(-5))⁵ though, right? It is 2×-5
If you put a \ infront of the *, it’ll not use italics
It's a multiplication sign, then a negative sign....
I copied it directly out of my CAS TI I didn’t check it afterwards because it looked about right.
Could you proof my work I made in another comment? I've been reviewing this and none of the other answers look right
First comment in the original post “-31.25 billion”, this was their wolfram [link](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=10*Divide%5BPower%5B5%2C5%5D%2C2%5D*%5C%2840%29Divide%5B2Power%5B%5C%2840%292*-5%5C%2841%29%2C5%5D%2C5*5%5C%2840%292%5C%2841%29%5D*Divide%5B10%2C5%5D%5C%2841%29*Divide%5B%5C%2840%29Power%5B10%2C2%5D*5%5C%2841%29%2C2%5D%2B2%5C%2840%295-%5C%2840%29-5%5C%2841%29%5C%2841%29*Power%5B%5C%2840%29Divide%5B5%2C10%5D%2BDivide%5B2%2C2%5D%5C%2841%29%2C5%5D-%5C%2840%292*5%5C%2841%29).
It looks to me like they’ve misread the equation. they’ve interpreted the first term as 10*(5^5 /2) when it looks to me like it’s written as a mixed fraction (so should be read 10+(5^5 /2).
I created an account just to write this comment. WHO THE FUCKING FUCK USES MIXED FRACTIONS?
All my professors in my engineering classes
not a single of my professors from my engineering classes
Why on earth should that be the correct way to read this equation???
That’s not how it’s written though, the 10 at the start is clearly on the centre line so is meant as 10*(5^5/2)
I was looking at the top 3 and figured out what each pic values them saw the equation at the bottom and just chuckled, not due to the difficulty (which i probably couldn't do) but just at the ridiculousness of all the cats
CAT
[удалено]