48÷2(9+3) =

[JDawg1536]

This has nothing to do with order of operations, it's simply do you think that 48/2(9+3) means 48/(2(9+3)) or not?

It would be the same as if you wrote it 48/2 x (9+3)/1

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Being adjacent to parens is shorthand for multiplication, but it's still outside the parens so it doesn't get some sort of magical priority.

 

[OCGuy]

two

 

[duragezic]

I don't get the confusion? Because it's not a tricky order of operations problem,no?

48÷2(9+3) =
48÷2(12)
which is the same as
48÷2*12
which you simply evaluate left to right
= 288

 

[BoberFett]

The fail is strong in this thread.

 

[Dominato3r]

Anyone know why the TI-85 solves it as 2?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Anyone know why the TI-85 solves it as 2?

You entered it in incorrectly?

 

[Matthiasa]

Anyone know why the TI-85 solves it as 2?

Because there is actual disagreement even among those that are highly educated.

 

[Dominato3r]

You entered it in incorrectly?

:hmm:

 

[Venix]

Anyone know why the TI-85 solves it as 2?

Older families of TI calculators gave implied multiplication a higher priority than explicit multiplication to allow students to enter expressions similarly to how they would write them on paper. Later models correctly follow order of operations rules.

They even have a knowledge base article about it: "Without this feature, it would be necessary to group 2X in parentheses, something that is typically not done when writing the expression on paper."

 

[Minjin]

How about a real calculator?

HP 50g, algebraic mode, problem entered exactly as in OP, on screen is how it interpretted the problem.

 

[secretanchitman]

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

verified on TI-89, google, and wolfram.

 

[GundamW]

48÷2(9+3) =
48 ÷ 2 ( 9 + 3 ) =
48 ÷ 2 X ( 9 + 3 ) =
48 ÷ 2 X ( 12 ) =
24 X 12 =
288

That's how I was taught.

 

[Glitchny]

Well it's 288, people saying 2 don't understand rules.

this thread brought back memories of my "Paradigms of Programming Languages" class.

Parsing complex expressions based on arbitrary languages rules was a PITA.

 

[MovingTarget]

Bad math time!

48÷2(9+x)=188
24(9+x)=188
216+24x=188
24x=-28
x=-1+2/3 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=188
48÷18+2x=188
[8/3]+2x=188
2x=556/3
x=556/6 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=188
48=188*(2(9+x))
48=188*(18+2x)
48=3384+376x
(not even going to finish this one)

Depending on how you interpret the distributive property within order of operations, 188 just doesn't add up. So, lets see again.

48÷2(9+x)=2
24(9+x)=2
216+24x=2
24x=-214
x=-107/12 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=2
48÷18+2x=2
8/3+2x=2
2x=-2/3
x=-1/3 (wait, what?)

LOL.

48÷2(9+x)=2
48=2*(2(9+x))
48=2*(18+2x)
48=36+4x
12=4x
x=3 (there we go!)

So yes, the answer is 2. The implied parenthesis is around 2(9+3). The reason wolfram, etc. say that the answer is 188 isn't because the math actually works out that way, but because their algorithms are programmed to interpret them a certain way. Anyone who has taken linear algebra (grad level) can tell you that computers are very limited in that regard. Nonetheless, the question is ambiguous in its notation.

 

[Matthiasa]

Probably best not to tell an engineers andcs they don't understand math...
Yeah I'm pointing at TI when using numbers and wolfram when using symbols...

Fact is it really can go either way and because of that you would never write it that that..

So then from the the other link is 1/2x equal to .5x or 1/(2x) ?

Oh and as for above its was 288 or 2 not 188 or 2.

 

[Brigandier]

Probably best not to tell an engineers andcs they don't understand math...
Yeah I'm pointing at TI when using numbers and wolfram when using symbols...

Fact is it really can go either way and because of that you would never write it that that..

So then from the the other link is 1/2x equal to .5x or 1/(2x) ?

.5x=x/2

1/2x is a different beast.

 

[TheVrolok]

Bad math time!

48÷2(9+x)=188
24(9+x)=188
216+24x=188
24x=-28
x=-1+2/3 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=188
48÷18+2x=188
[8/3]+2x=188
2x=556/3
x=556/6 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=188
48=188*(2(9+x))
48=188*(18+2x)
48=3384+376x
(not even going to finish this one)

Depending on how you interpret the distributive property within order of operations, 188 just doesn't add up. So, lets see again.

48÷2(9+x)=2
24(9+x)=2
216+24x=2
24x=-214
x=-107/12 (nope)

48÷2(9+x)=2
48÷18+2x=2
8/3+2x=2
2x=-2/3
x=-1/3 (wait, what?)

LOL.

48÷2(9+x)=2
48=2*(2(9+x))
48=2*(18+2x)
48=36+4x
12=4x
x=3 (there we go!)

So yes, the answer is 2. The implied parenthesis is around 2(9+3). The reason wolfram, etc. say that the answer is 188 isn't because the math actually works out that way, but because their algorithms are programmed to interpret them a certain way. Anyone who has taken linear algebra (grad level) can tell you that computers are very limited in that regard. Nonetheless, the question is ambiguous in its notation.

Except that you've incorrectly used the answer of 188, instead of the actual answer, 288.

So we'll take your first example
48÷2(9+x)=288
24(9+x)=288
216+24x=288
24x=72
x=3 (there we go!)

ftfy.

 

[Matthiasa]

.5x=x/2

1/2x is a different beast.

But that's what this thread is arguing if you haven't noticed.

 

[Brigandier]

But that's what this thread is arguing if you haven't noticed.

What does 48÷2(9+3) look like if written out in long division form?

 

[eadInc]

holy.shit.

 

[Matthiasa]

What does 48÷2(9+3) look like if written out in long division form?

You don't write it like that in long form is how its writen.

But according to you letting (9+3) =x
It becomes 48/2x which you then said was 48/(2x)
Unless what you really wanted was 48*x/2 but you already said that was different as 1/2x was not the same as x/2.

 

[DrPizza]

*sigh*

 

[Matthiasa]

TI was stupid or trolling?

 

[Syringer]

Except that you've incorrectly used the answer of 188, instead of the actual answer, 288.

So we'll take your first example
48÷2(9+x)=288
24(9+x)=288
216+24x=288
24x=72
x=3 (there we go!)

ftfy.

Ha so many fails in this thread but that one took the cake.