48÷2(9+3) =

[HumblePie]

You guys can't be serious. So you're saying x/x is just x?

Pretty sure that was the guy's point

x/x = 1

Just like 3/3 = 1

2x/x = x though and not 2. You solve for x first before insertion of the value of X. The reason is because you may never know the value of X and in some cases it isn't relevant in the first place. This is higher math stuff. Also, the value of x may be actually a higher order of operations like an exponent value so you can't just pull the 2 away from the x and say the association is clearly mutiplicative because it may not be. So 2x has to be treated as a single term until the value of X can be resolved which is ALWAYS resolved last.

This is why the two equations I mentioned before are not the same equation.

48÷2(9+3) =/= (48÷2x where x = 9+3)

For some I guess it's a hard concept to grasp. Sort of like 0.999... = 1 is hard to grasp for others.

The berkley link for the necro was a huge cop out though if read. The person basically posted it is to ambiguous to solve. That is incorrect. It is poorly written, but the equation from the OP as written, if badly, can be solved. The answer is solved to 288. Those that try to confuse term math with non term math need to learn more math.

 

[brianmanahan]

x/x = 1

Just like 3/3 = 1

2x/x = x though and not 2

ummm....... i think you need to take algebra again.

 

[Tweak155]

Man, the guy was serious...

 

[Matthiasa]

x/x = 1

Just like 3/3 = 1

2x/x = x though and not 2. You solve for x first before insertion of the value of X. The reason is because you may never know the value of X and in some cases it isn't relevant in the first place. This is higher math stuff. Also, the value of x may be actually a higher order of operations like an exponent value so you can't just pull the 2 away from the x and say the association is clearly mutiplicative because it may not be. So 2x has to be treated as a single term until the value of X can be resolved which is ALWAYS resolved last.

This is why the two equations I mentioned before are not the same equation.

48÷2(9+3) =/= (48÷2x where x = 9+3)

For some I guess it's a hard concept to grasp. Sort of like 0.999... = 1 is hard to grasp for others.

The berkley link for the necro was a huge cop out though if read. The person basically posted it is to ambiguous to solve. That is incorrect. It is poorly written, but the equation from the OP as written, if badly, can be solved. The answer is solved to 288. Those that try to confuse term math with non term math need to learn more math.

Ignoring you inability to do algebra...

The link was done by a professor in mathematics there.

 

[glenn1]

You guys can't be serious. So you're saying x/x is just x?

Pretty sure that was the guy's point

If you simply solved 8x/4x = 2, then how would you have even found x = 7 to assert that in the problem statement to begin with?

 

[HumblePie]

ummm....... i think you need to take algebra again.

haha, sorry was thinking too fast at work today. I made a mess up myself as this was done on the side. I did make a screw up/ 2x/x =2. Because the terms of x cancel out. Scerwed up in my own head.

But still the order I was trying to state was correct. You solve the equation first before resolving for terms which is last. 8x/4x = 2 regardless of what x equals. But if you have the term 8(7)/4(7) that is = 98. You don't cancel out the 7's first as that is not order of operation.

 

[Matthiasa]

I think its been covered that only someone ignorant of math would write it that way given there is in fact more than one way to interpret it.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

You guys can't be serious. So you're saying x/x is just x?

x/x is 1, just as 8x/4x will always be 2. Right?

you should find a new school.

Public school, what can you do?

 

[Zeze]

Saw this problem [ie, 48÷2(9+3) = ? ] posted on GLP today.

I suspected correctly that this classic would also be discussed on AT.

If you would follow the guidelines of an HP scientific calculator user guide, then the answer would be "2" (ie, work first from inside the parentheses; I also think that standard high level coding such as FORTRAN or BASIC would perform the same).

However, the real answer seems to be that the result is indeterminate.

There are some real good lessons here (some which I had forgotten):

https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html

Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.

 

[DrPizza]

Egads! If I see one more person call it an equation, rather than a mathematical expression, I'm going to scream! Didn't some of you take algebra with a teacher who actually taught basic vocabulary?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_%28mathematics%29

edit: and look up what "term" means in mathematics. Some of you are abusing that as well.

 

[DrPizza]

Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.

Let's take another moment to read the brief article written by a math professor that he linked to - an article that says "Zeze is wrong in post #737."

 

[Bubbleawsome]

Let's take another moment to read the brief article written by a math professor that he linked to - an article that says "Zeze is wrong in post #737."

Savage

 

[John Connor]

Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.

Depending on whether one interprets the expression as (48/2)(9+3) or as 48/(2(9+3)) one gets 288 or 2. There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted, so, in fact, 48/2(9+3) is ambiguous. To render it unambiguous, one should write it either as (48/2)(9+3) or 48/(2(9+3)). This applies, in general, to any expression of the form a/bc : one needs to insert parentheses to show whether one means (a/b)c or a/(bc).

The cliffs version. Lock damn thread. LOL

 

[brianmanahan]

Let's take another moment to read the brief article written by a math professor that he linked to - an article that says "Zeze is wrong in post #737."

Savage