48÷2(9+3) = ????

[gluon]

48/2(9+3) is not the same as (48/2)(9+3)

[Evil604]

DESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRU CTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIOND ESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTION

[Chris1788]

I saw God in a dream, said it was 2, sorry 288 brahs you dun goofd.

[Dan916]

To you T83-T84 fanboys


Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm




2

[BioMachine]

Explain and end the debate

Explain why it's treated as: 48 / [2(x)]

as opposed to: [48/2] (x)

When the original problem states neither. It's ambiguous and be can taken/argued as either way until clarified yes? Because of the linear way it's written it's unknown which value is meant to be the coefficient. Why is it assumed that everything that's beyond the division sign is within the denominator unless otherwise stated by parentheses?

None of this "the 2 is attached to the parenthesis" BS, it can be equally argued it's first and foremost the denominator for the 48 and that whole piece is "attached to the parenthesis".

[Pad264]

I think I've lost all my sanity. For w/e reason, I've sat in this thread for hours arguing with people about math functions I haven't cared about in 10 years. I must be insane to do that. There's no other explanation to account for my ridiculous actions. I never even thought it possible to debate low-level math before.

One time, I visited this site called flatearthsociety. It's a bunch of people that believe the earth is flat and they give complex equations and explanations for how it's possible (explaining horizon lines and whatnot). I spent DAYS on the forums debating these people...hours and hours, trying to PROVE to them that the earth was indeed round.

Well, after a few days, I received a private message from one of the members. In turns out, the site was a debate tool -- it gave people who like to debate a forum to play devil's advocate to the most ridiculous argument one can imagine. He was getting frustrated by my arguments because they had run out of responses and I was revealing them as trolls, and in turn, asked me to join their society to debate on the side of the earth being flat. I declined, feeling like a fuking fool for spending so many hours fighting trolls.

This time, I resign from the fight again...and I can safely state here and now that the people that believe the answer to this fuking question is 288 are more retarded than the people who pretend to believe the earth is flat.

Do with that what you will. May god have mercy on your souls.

[Shenaniguns]

lmao, every teacher in in germany EVER taught me left to right.
division and multiplication are equal operations of course, so as + and - .

5*5 = 5/(1/5) and vice-versa

cool story bro. i don't live in Germany.

[Merauder]

FIN FIN FIN FIN FIN FI>N FIN FINFIN FIN FIN FIN FIN FIN FIN FIN FIN

[Vaporize]

i know this has probably already been posted by another sane poster, but to reiterate

the only way it would be 288 is if it were written (48/2)(9+3).

the 48 is divided by the two, but the two is modified by the (9+3) and so forth the correct answer is 2

X divided by Y(A+B) = X/(AY+BY)

that is the only answer.

nobel prize nominee

[cz121292]

another way to look at it if you want to use the distributive property

48/2*(9+3)
= 24*9 + 24*3
= 288

[Vaporize]

another way to look at it if you want to use the distributive property

48/2*(9+3)
= 24*9 + 24*3
= 288

lol fail

[0xyg3n]

1+3+3=7

[Evil604]

DESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRU CTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIOND ESTARUCTIONDESTRUCTION

[yaco78]

another way to look at it if you want to use the distributive property

48/2*(9+3)
= 24*9 + 24*3
= 288

THIS. there is no other way to distribute in this equation

[eXistenceLies]

2(12) is a multipication problem... not a bracketed problem. (2*12) would be though.

[Robination]

lol fail

It is NOT fail because you do it left to right.

[Buff Matt]

for how it's possI think I've lost all my sanity. For w/e reason, I've sat in this thread for hours arguing with people about math functions I haven't cared about in 10 years. I must be insane to do that. There's no other explanation to account for my ridiculous actions. I never even thought it possible to debate low-level math before.

One time, I visited this site called flatearthsociety. It's a bunch of people that believe the earth is flat and they give complex equations and explanations ible (explaining horizon lines and whatnot). I spent DAYS on the forums debating these people...hours and hours, trying to PROVE to them that the earth was indeed round.

Well, after a few days, I received a private message from one of the members. In turns out, the site was a debate tool -- it gave people who like to debate a forum to play devil's advocate to the most ridiculous argument one can imagine. He was getting frustrated by my arguments because they had run out of responses and I was revealing them as trolls, and in turn, asked me to join their society to debate on the side of the earth being flat. I declined, feeling like a fuking fool for spending so many hours fighting trolls.

This time, I resign from the fight again...and I can safely state here and now that the people that believe the answer to this fuking question is 288 are more retarded than the people who pretend to believe the earth is flat.

Do with that what you will. May god have mercy on your souls.

you're retarded brah its 288. it would be 2 if Op asked 48/(2(9+3)) but he did not. y u mad tho

[Fanatikk]

look at the different answers wolfram gives:



when 48/2*X is used http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...n+X%3D%2812%29

and when 48/2X is used http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...n+X%3D%2812%29

since the original problem was 48/2(9+3) and not 48/2*(9+3)

then the 2nd link is correct and the answer is 2

wrong. my link is correct. it is typed in exactly how the OP asked it. You did not put the parenthesis around the X, and that is why you got 2

[Evil604]

DESTRUCTIONDESTRUACTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTR UCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTION DESTRUCTIONDESTRUCTION

[Gnadenlos]

i know this has probably already been posted by another sane poster, but to reiterate

the only way it would be 288 is if it were written (48/2)(9+3).

the 48 is divided by the two, but the two is modified by the (9+3) and so forth the correct answer is 2

X divided by Y(A+B) = X/(AY+BY)

that is the only answer.

You're like the tenth person to post that, unfortunately.

Some of these people seem to believe that algebra =! math

[Merauder]

I think I've lost all my sanity. For w/e reason, I've sat in this thread for hours arguing with people about math functions I haven't cared about in 10 years. I must be insane to do that. There's no other explanation to account for my ridiculous actions. I never even thought it possible to debate low-level math before.

One time, I visited this site called flatearthsociety. It's a bunch of people that believe the earth is flat and they give complex equations and explanations for how it's possible (explaining horizon lines and whatnot). I spent DAYS on the forums debating these people...hours and hours, trying to PROVE to them that the earth was indeed round.

Well, after a few days, I received a private message from one of the members. In turns out, the site was a debate tool -- it gave people who like to debate a forum to play devil's advocate to the most ridiculous argument one can imagine. He was getting frustrated by my arguments because they had run out of responses and I was revealing them as trolls, and in turn, asked me to join their society to debate on the side of the earth being flat. I declined, feeling like a fuking fool for spending so many hours fighting trolls.

This time, I resign from the fight again...and I can safely state here and now that the people that believe the answer to this fuking question is 288 are more retarded than the people who pretend to believe the earth is flat.

Do with that what you will. May god have mercy on your souls.

have you seen the pictures of the calculators yet?

[Zenkei18]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=133399573

lol yet there is no difference between 14/7*8 and what was posted in op

seeing as everyone got to 48/2(12)

yet the 14/7*8 has the right answer winning by a large margin

facepalm.jpg

must be the work of the trolls.

[iheartdykes]

This thread is so epic win.

[Cracky]

fundamentally its 288. period.


you can change the equation and imply brackets if you want but they were there.

using the division symbol as that its 288..

if you change it to / and take that as a fraction...then i can see the argument for 2...
but its not how the question is laid out. back to basics...as pointed out by the phd in math...

the answer is 288.

[M_Pek]

48/2(9+3) is not the same as (48/2)(9+3)

48/2(9+3) can be written as (48/2)(9+3). If it was meant to mean 48/(2(9+3)) it would ave to be explicitly written as so.

Similarly, care must be exercised when using the slash ('/') symbol. The string of characters "1/2x" is interpreted by the above conventions as (1/2)x. The contrary interpretation should be written explicitly as 1/(2x). Again, the use of parentheses will clarify the meaning and should be used if there is any chance of misinterpretation.

[jeIIybrah]

type this operation into excel and you get 288 /thread