48÷2(9+3) =

[qliveur]

The master has spoken.

No it hasn't, replace with symbol and see what it does...
(hint it's not always that)

Already been done.

Tried it myself and got the same answer.

 

[IronWing]

Except, the original equation doesn't have the extra set of (). If it had, then the answer is 2. You can't just go around adding shits in that aren't there and say "implied". It's either YES, or NO. ON or OFF. This is not a religion. It's not up for debate. It's not up to your "interpretation". Do you see an extra set of brackets in the original equation? NO!

You are simply incorrect on this one. The implied () are there just as surely as the implied * is there. The extra set of brackets is no more needed to convey the correct meaning than the absent * symbol.

 

[grrl]

The answer is two gross.

 

[SSSnail]

You are simply incorrect on this one. The implied () are there just as surely as the implied * is there. The extra set of brackets is no more needed to convey the correct meaning than the absent * symbol.

I see, now you're making up your own rules. Good to know.

Here, something from... fuck... 30 years ago. Multiplications and divisions are done from Left, to Right. All integers in brackets get calculated first, from inside out. Just remember that and you won't look foolish with just basic algebra.

 

[IronWing]

I see, now you're making up your own rules. Good to know.

It's okay to admit you're wrong you know. We won't, at least I won't, think less of you.

 

[Triumph]

The master has spoken.

I only understood thanks to the dot on the number line.

I still say it's two.

 

[SSSnail]

It's okay to admit you're wrong you know. We won't, at least I won't, think less of you.

Who is this "we", the rest of the "the answer is 2" crowd? Take heed of your own advice.

My penis has declared victory.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

You are simply incorrect on this one. The implied () are there just as surely as the implied * is there. The extra set of brackets is no more needed to convey the correct meaning than the absent * symbol.

so... if you had multiple divisions, which would take precedence with these invisible implicit brackets?

 

[schneiderguy]

So what is your answer to the sources posted so far, some from math resources, and those who have math degrees, who say that in the world of mathematics (not comp sci) it can be somewhat ambiguous.

It can't be ambiguous.

 

[fatpat268]

I see, now you're making up your own rules. Good to know.

LOL. No kidding. I mean, the first time I did it, I got 2. Read the thread and redid it with following order of operations and got 288. I hastily implied that there was something there that wasn't. I realized my error and I'm not going to make a justification for 2.

It's funny, the argument for 288 is the order of operations. The argument for 2 is a flimsy "implied" parenthesis and multiplication. Give me a break.

 

[IronWing]

Who is this "we", the rest of the "the answer is 2" crowd? Take heed of your own advice.

My penis has declared victory.

Oh really? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.

 

[Locut0s]

It seems to me quite natural to handle the 2(9+3) as one unit before doing the division. This yields 2. I can certainly see where 288 comes from and why it probably is the right answer here. If you do 9+3 = 12. Then sub in the 12 and get 48/2*12 then you get 288. However again my first instinct is to handle the 2(9+3) as one unit first. Given the number of people who answer both ways and everything I've read so far, wiki and nukeneds link, I'd be willing to say that it is at least SOMEWHAT ambiguous.

 

[Alone]

Order of operations...and in case you are doubting yourself...

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=...Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=a7a279f4a142eadc

 

[Locut0s]

It can't be ambiguous.

By ambiguous here I'm not saying there isn't a right answer. I think 288 IS the right answer. But let's say you took this question to 100 math profs and it came back 60/40 in favor of 288. I'd still say then that it's at least somewhat ambiguous as written.

 

[schneiderguy]

By ambiguous here I'm not saying there isn't a right answer. I think 288 IS the right answer. But let's say you took this question to 100 math profs and it came back 60/40 in favor of 288. I'd still say then that it's at least somewhat ambiguous as written.

Doubt it, the people here are just retarded :whiste:

 

[sactoking]

I wouldn't put any faith in anything that WolframAlpha site says on either side of the debate.

Plug in 48/2(9+3) and it returns an answer of 288, meaning that the program reads it as (48/2)*(9+3).

Plug in 48/a(9+3) and it returns an answer of 48/(a(9+3)), or 48/(12a) or 4/a. Since we know a=2 the returned answer is 2.

The program itself uses different rules with the exact same equations depending on whether a term is represented as a known or unknown. That defies mathematical principals and proves the program is useless for proving anything.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

It seems to me quite natural to handle the 2(9+3) as one unit before doing the division. This yields 2. I can certainly see where 288 comes from and why it probably is the right answer here. If you do 9+3 = 12. Then sub in the 12 and get 48/2*12 then you get 288. However again my first instinct is to handle the 2(9+3) as one unit first. Given the number of people who answer both ways and everything I've read so far, wiki and nukeneds link, I'd be willing to say that it is at least SOMEWHAT ambiguous.

there is absolutely NOTHING ambiguous. Your "natural instinct" in math is simply incorrect. You keep insisting that you THINK 288 is the right answer... it IS the right answer. There is no other way to solve the equation.

If you had to solve this: 48/2(9+3)/2(9+3)/2(9+3) how would you do it? using your natural instinct, you could end up with multiple solutions, albeit all wrong.

 

[sactoking]

The 'ambiguity' being discussed is couched in the "dimensionality" of the original equation. Typing 48/2(9+3) is one-dimensional, meaning you only have a width to the equation or, on a sheet of lined paper you'd be confined to one line.

the interpretation of 48/2(9+3) as 48/(2(9+3)) goes back to learning arithmetic and algebra on lined paper. Kids often would drop the denominator to a lower line to better define the OoO:
48*(9+3)
2

To a learning eye that much more clearly shows the proper order of operations. As we get older we look for shortcuts; one of which is going back to a one-line style. In that case anything after the "/" is implied to be in the denominator, otherwise we'd use the notation of (48/2)(9+3). Our brains should see the old-style division symbol and not make that association, that everything after it is part of the denominator, but it is not a common keyboard symbol so our brains subconsciously replace it with "/" and boom, the shorthand implied denominator kicks in again.

 

[Matthiasa]

there is absolutely NOTHING ambiguous. Your "natural instinct" in math is simply incorrect. You keep insisting that you THINK 288 is the right answer... it IS the right answer. There is no other way to solve the equation.

If you had to solve this: 48/2(9+3)/2(9+3)/2(9+3) how would you do it? using your natural instinct, you could end up with multiple solutions, albeit all wrong.

Well you wouldn't it would get bracketed up then solved.

The common ways would be with (48(9+3)^3)/2 or as 48/(2(9+3))/(2(9+3))/(2(9+3))

But again in a real problem it would never be written even in text like that.

 

[TheVrolok]

I wouldn't put any faith in anything that WolframAlpha site says on either side of the debate.

Plug in 48/2(9+3) and it returns an answer of 288, meaning that the program reads it as (48/2)*(9+3).

Plug in 48/a(9+3) and it returns an answer of 48/(a(9+3)), or 48/(12a) or 4/a. Since we know a=2 the returned answer is 2.

The program itself uses different rules with the exact same equations depending on whether a term is represented as a known or unknown. That defies mathematical principals and proves the program is useless for proving anything.

I don't claim to be a math expert, so I'm curious, in your example, why does 48/a(9+3) become 48/(a(9+3)) and not (48/a)(9+3)? What is the deciding factor that caused you to choose to place parenthesis around the multiplication part of the problem, as opposed to the division part?

 

[Locut0s]

there is absolutely NOTHING ambiguous. Your "natural instinct" in math is simply incorrect. You keep insisting that you THINK 288 is the right answer... it IS the right answer. There is no other way to solve the equation.

If you had to solve this: 48/2(9+3)/2(9+3)/2(9+3) how would you do it? using your natural instinct, you could end up with multiple solutions, albeit all wrong.

I'm willing at admit this. Though I'm actually quite good at math, or was. No one in their right mind would write out an equation like that though. And like I was saying the reason so many people are having difficulty with this, even those who are well versed in math, is that unless you do programing for a living, you tend not to use all the order of operation rules to solve something like this because it's just not really encountered that much.

 

[micaturbo]

I don't claim to be a math expert, so I'm curious, in your example, why does 48/a(9+3) become 48/(a(9+3)) and not (48/a)(9+3)? What is the deciding factor that caused you to choose to place parenthesis around the multiplication part of the problem, as opposed to the division part?

?
I fail to see where he said that he made that choice.

 

[TheVrolok]

?
I fail to see where he said that he made that choice.

Originally parenthesis did not exist where he subsequently typed them. Why did he choose to type them in their newfound position? If he did not choose to put them in that position, someone did, and who was that, and then why? Is that better for you?

 

[zinfamous]

Oh really? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.

I lol.

 

[TheVrolok]

To a learning eye that much more clearly shows the proper order of operations. As we get older we look for shortcuts; one of which is going back to a one-line style. In that case anything after the "/" is implied to be in the denominator, otherwise we'd use the notation of (48/2)(9+3). Our brains should see the old-style division symbol and not make that association, that everything after it is part of the denominator, but it is not a common keyboard symbol so our brains subconsciously replace it with "/" and boom, the shorthand implied denominator kicks in again.

So you're saying that because a "/" was used, we have to assume that anything following it is the denominator? Is that a rule explicitly written anywhere? Also, the OP actually uses the symbol "÷" to imply division, and not "/." Does that change things?