48÷2(9+3)

[SEZ213]

I couldn't resist...I'm sorry

[99AUXR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uX-D...eature=related

[ST]

Originally Posted by 99AUXR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uX-D...eature=related

The truth is both answers are correct:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by ST

The truth is both answers are correct:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

So I was right.

Taken from you link, this was my point the entire time.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~sche...rrs/#Fractions

[ST]

Originally Posted by Rodp

So I was right.

Taken from you link, this was my point the entire time.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~sche...rrs/#Fractions

Indeed you were (and are), but who doesn't enjoy partaking in some good old fashioned internet fisticuffs?

[EB#]

As far as I know, its not even an equation, its just a number.
Expand like this....

48÷2(9+3)

is.............

48
2(9+3)

then

48
(2x9)+(2x3)

then

48
18 + 6

then

48
24

= 2

[StealthAu]

As it is written 48÷2(9+3) is the same as
48
-----x(9+3)
2

If written 48÷(2(9+3)) then it would be the same as

48
--------
2(9+3)

[NC1183]

As its written, the 2 is a part of the bracket component, as taught to me 15 years ago.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by StealthAu

As it is written 48÷2(9+3) is the same as
48
-----x(9+3)
2

If written 48÷(2(9+3)) then it would be the same as

48
--------
2(9+3)

Read the answer posted above. It's ambiguous.

If you don't buy it;

Calculate 2/5x where x = 2.

[shedcoupe]

Will somebody please invent a calculator which will only calculate this equation, and which then produces random results designed to make the operator's brain explode.

Sort of like those Bali exchange-rate calculators which produce the results that the thieves want. My poor logical Vulcan-self has difficulty getting my head around numbers that lie.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'm going to go with 288.

48/2*(9+3)
48/2*(12)
12*24
=288.

K win!

Hrmm, unless someone is going on BOMDAS, not BODMAS - which is possible, because school has changed a lot...oh stuff it - I left school 12 years ago...

Awkward. I just had a look at my Grade 4 math book -Thanks Mum! I was taught BOMDAS.

[mrfordfairmont]

google says (48 ÷ 2) * (9 + 3) = 288

[SLO AU XR8]

2(9+3) is an equation in it self. You do that before the division!

[jonesyedxr6]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Read the answer posted above. It's ambiguous.

If you don't buy it;

Calculate 2/5x where x = 2.

I'm not buying it,

2/5x

is the same as
2
-- * x
5

not
2
--
5x

.............

2/5x is also the same as

2 / 5 * x

Division and multiplication being equal, left to right overules

answer is two fifths of x, or how you wrote it,

2
--x
5

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by jonesyedxr6

I'm not buying it,

2/5x

is the same as
2
-- * x
5

not
2
--
5x

.............

2/5x is also the same as

2 / 5 * x

Division and multiplication being equal, left to right overules

answer is two fifths of x, or how you wrote it,

2
--x
5

Then, as above - refer to this link;

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~sche...rrs/#Fractions

where it states (as you clearly didn't read it before)

"Ambiguously written fractions. In certain common situations with fractions, there is a lack of consensus about what order to perform operations in. For instance, does "3/5x" mean "(3/5)x" or "3/(5x)" ?

For this confusion, teachers must share the blame. They certainly mean well -- most math teachers believe that they are following the conventional order of operations. They are not aware that several conventions are widely used, and no one of them is universally accepted. Students may learn one method from one teacher and then go on to another teacher who expects students to follow a different method. Both teacher and student may be unaware of the source of the problem."

[Jimmyd]

Application is the key to this one - what is the underlying postulate for this formula? If expected to be applied manually it remains ambiguous and would require further clarification, however if it was expected to be applied in a electronic environment the answer is 288.

As an Accountant that lives and breathes formulaic equations in excel all day every day, my interpretation is 288.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by flappist

In theory, theory and reality are the same but in reality they usually are not.
Unfortunately this is only ever really understood by people who have more to do with reality than theory....

Wrong again! A theory is a theory not a reality, if it was a reality it would no longer be a theory but a law.

I do love reading your condescending posts.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Wrong again! A theory is a theory not a reality, if it was a reality it would no longer be a theory but a law.

I do love reading your condescending posts.

Those who can, do............

[thefargo]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Okay, I have one question - if you're right...why does every single device I've used to calculate this equation (exactly as displayed in the heading, not adding your additional parenthesis) give me an answer of 288?

use a brand new graphics calculator...not a model from 2 or 3 years ago. they have "fixed' the problem in the new chip

I'll try a snap in a sec

[thefargo]

no file too big.
but what about the same problem in words;

my block of land is 9m by 3m. to fence it I've got 48m of wire.
2(9+3) is the perimeter.
how many times can my wire go round?

[SEZ213]

I'm gonna go with the logic that what I was taught as a kid, was right - for the simple fact I was top of my class in maths, and the book said so!

Everything I own says 288 - and yet apparently, according to some, it cannot possibly be...yet all electronic devices back it up.

I guess it does really show that the world has changed...and houses will soon be 4m one side and 10m the other, because someone's math will be wrong...

My model is 10 years old, my phone on the other hand is less than 12 months old (an coincidently is a crap piece of nothingness).

I've seen calculators completely spack out when coming up with this, it seems the operator 'x' is not taken into consideration in some and therefore changes the argument completely (and the answer).

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'm gonna go with the logic that what I was taught as a kid, was right - for the simple fact I was top of my class in maths, and the book said so!

Everything I own says 288 - and yet apparently, according to some, it cannot possibly be...yet all electronic devices back it up.

You mean, like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U706g7_m_78

One more time..

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~sche...rrs/#Fractions

where it states;

"Ambiguously written fractions. In certain common situations with fractions, there is a lack of consensus about what order to perform operations in. For instance, does "3/5x" mean "(3/5)x" or "3/(5x)" ?

For this confusion, teachers must share the blame. They certainly mean well -- most math teachers believe that they are following the conventional order of operations. They are not aware that several conventions are widely used, and no one of them is universally accepted. Students may learn one method from one teacher and then go on to another teacher who expects students to follow a different method. Both teacher and student may be unaware of the source of the problem."

[wodahs]

(9+3)2÷48 = 2
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 12x2=24 then finaly the division 24÷48=2

48÷2(9+3) = 288
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 48÷2=24 then you do the multiplication , which the first braket also stood for 24x12=288

well thats what i lernt at math at school meny 30 odd years ago

oh and google says so to
but iz so backwards dumbb n dishlexxickss two

[TadKa]

300 comments almost in 24 hrs. Happy with that.

Who hates me?

[Airmon]

I agree its all in how its written. So depending on that, both answers may be correct. So not knowing for sure its hard to say.

And you have to know how to use a calculator, they are no infallible and are only useful if you know how to input what you want, which again comes back to how it is written!

[NC1183]

Originally Posted by wodahs

(9+3)2÷48 = 2
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 12x2=24 then finaly the division 24÷48=2

48÷2(9+3) = 288
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 48÷2=24 then you do the multiplication , which the first braket also stood for 24x12=288

well thats what i lernt at math at school meny 30 odd years ago

oh and google says so to
but iz so backwards dumbb n dishlexxickss two

But to do the "brackets" part of the equation, you have to take the 2 into consideration as-well. every person i have spoken to, some taught maths over 40years ago, some only recently finished high school, all say the same thing. A number immediately before a set of brackets with no operator means you multiply what is in the brackets by that number

[Geez Louise]

That is the same reply I received from my friend just now:

You do the brackets first so you end up with 48 divided by 2 times twelve, you work that out going left to right to get 288. The two outside the brackets means multiplied by, not divided by.


So as far as I am concerned, this answer has come from one of the greatest minds I know. I am content that the answer is 288.

For such a simple question....it is amazing how fired up some people have gotten.

Thanks to the OP for the entertainment

[SLO AU XR8]

48÷2(9+3)
=48÷2(12)
=48÷24
=2

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by wodahs

(9+3)2÷48 = 2
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 12x2=24 then finaly the division 24÷48=2

48÷2(9+3) = 288
you do in brakets first 9+3=12 then left to right 48÷2=24 then you do the multiplication , which the first braket also stood for 24x12=288

well thats what i lernt at math at school meny 30 odd years ago

oh and google says so to
but iz so backwards dumbb n dishlexxickss two

24/48 = 0.5

[Legit290]

2 otherwise i need to remove that bodmas tatt from my chest that Br Vale said we should get over the one of our girlfriends ( in year 8)