48÷2(9+3) =

[zinfamous]

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?

He didn't. He explained how the program was interpreting the equation with either the known value of 2, or the unknown value of a.

basically, the program is Ironwing. it uses "implied" parentheticals?

 

[zinfamous]

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?

yeah, after reading some of the arguments, I think remembered that the OP used the "/" instead of the diviso; then I doubted my own relaization that I had made a mistake. I was thinking--see! if it was the division symbol, I would have clearly divided first!

but it wasn't, haha. I do tend to interpret everything after that as a denominator. I'm no mathematician or programmer, but I understand why that is wrong....I think.

 

[TheVrolok]

He didn't. He explained how the program was interpreting the equation with either the known value of 2, or the unknown value of a.

basically, the program is Ironwing. it uses "implied" parentheticals?

Ah, I had completely glossed over the fact that he was describing the way in which the program evaluated it. I just got home from a 3.5 hour flight after a long day, it's not the most academic of moments for me. I guess then I wonder how the others promoting these implied parenthesis come up with 'em?

 

[silverpig]

48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
32÷24
1.33

I read "48" as 4(8) = 4*8 = 32

 

[lothar]

Wife has a math degree. She says 2. The brackets are implied around 2(9+3) because of distributive property. It is to be treated as a single term [2(9+3)]

I see that both you and your wife are complete failures in that regard.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

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.

I think my sarcasm meter is broken.... either that or.............

 

[qliveur]

48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
32÷24
1.33

I read "48" as 4(8) = 4*8 = 32

LOL.

 

[Newbian]

I vote that whatever wins in a day or two is how many hours syringer is banned for bringing this thread and all the parodies he has caused.

 

[Matthiasa]

I think my sarcasm meter is broken.... either that or.............

just saying...

 

[Locut0s]

48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
32÷24
1.33

I read "48" as 4(8) = 4*8 = 32

 

[Dominato3r]

Man, America needs to get its shit together.

 

[zinfamous]

lol. Did GA get banned again? wtf isn't he in here shitting on all this shitty American math.

 

[qliveur]

Gayner was worse.

What happened to him?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

THE ULTIMATE CALCULATOR PIC.

I believe I have a TI-83 Plus and a TI-86 somewhere also. I like how I have two TI-89s. This is ridiculous.

 

[pandemonium]

LOL @ this thread.

My handle implies I picked 2.

 

[biostud]

THE ULTIMATE CALCULATOR PIC.

I believe I have a TI-83 Plus and a TI-86 somewhere also. I like how I have two TI-89s. This is ridiculous.

So your TI-85 can't solve it correctly

 

[drumist]

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.

No, you've changed the problem. Wolfram treats a as a function in that context, not as a variable. That's why it gives an answer of

and not

.

Use x instead of a, and see what happens. The difference is that Wolfram|Alpha knows that x is almost always a variable and not a function, whereas it has to guess with a.

 

[grrl]

Gayner was worse.

What happened to him?

He's still banned. Hopefully he's been working on at least one original reply while away because he's very tedious.

 

[krylon]

The English word sombrero, a loanword from Spanish, typically refers to a type of hat originating in Mexico. The name simply originates from the Spanish word "Sombra" meaning "shade". It literally translates as "that which makes shade"

It usually has a somewhat high pointed crown, an extra-wide brim (broad enough to cast a shadow over the head, neck and shoulders of the wearer, and slightly upturned at the edge), and a chin string to hold it in place. Cowboys generalized the word to mean just about any wide broad-brimmed hat.

Yes, Cowboys.

 

[rcpratt]

Point out where I was wrong in my algebra then.

48/2(9+X) = 2

Solve for X
48/(18+2x) = 2
48 =2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
12=4x
x=3

Okay.

48/2(9+X) = 2
24(9+X) = 2
9+X = 2/24
X = (2/24)-9
X = -8.91666

Wat?

Putting an X in there and calling it algebra doesn't change the issue.

 

[Tweak155]

I'll say it again, distributive property gives you the same answer.

For those of you that think it is 2, give me the answer to:

48/2(9+3)(14)/7(1+1)/4

Good luck finding spots for all your invisible parenthesis.

Also the answer is 288

 

[James3shin]

Anyone that is saying "2" can not be serious.

If you are serious, I highly recommend some practice problems.

 

[yh125d]

my evo says its 1.5

 

[Cuda1447]

288

 

[RedRooster]

Bla, game over. 288 people are ruhtards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U706g7_m_78