You can try to attack my intelligence, but you're still wrong.
There is just one answer, and mathematicians would agree that it's 288.
48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
You can try to attack my intelligence, but you're still wrong.
There is just one answer, and mathematicians would agree that it's 288.
HM, the rule I remember is B.O.D.M.A.S (Brackets[Parenthesis] Of Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction)
48÷2(9+3) = parenthesis/brackets first
48÷2(12) = lets see Brackets Of Division.. aha!
48/2(12) =
24(12) = Brackets Of Division Multiplication...
24 x 12 = 288
British based Ed system.
48÷2(9+3) = parenthesis/brackets first
48÷2(12) = lets see Brackets Of Division.. aha!
48/2(12) =
24(12) = Brackets Of Division Multiplication...
24 x 12 = 288
British based Ed system.
Let me put it this way
whats 48 divided by 2 times 12
48
----
(2*12)
This is the 48 divided by the product of 2 and 12, which equals 2 which is the same as 48÷(2(9+3)) or 48÷[2*(9+3)]
48
---- * 12
2
This is 48 divided by 2 times 12 which is the same as 48÷2(12) or 48÷2(9+3)
You do the division first after finding the sum in the parentheses since 2 and 12 or (9+3) are not in a parentheses together.
The point of order of operations was to get rid of confusion like the one above.
whats 48 divided by 2 times 12
48
----
(2*12)
This is the 48 divided by the product of 2 and 12, which equals 2 which is the same as 48÷(2(9+3)) or 48÷[2*(9+3)]
48
---- * 12
2
This is 48 divided by 2 times 12 which is the same as 48÷2(12) or 48÷2(9+3)
You do the division first after finding the sum in the parentheses since 2 and 12 or (9+3) are not in a parentheses together.
The point of order of operations was to get rid of confusion like the one above.
I can't believe some of you mofo's said 2 is the answer SMH,,,
its still 288
if it was
48/(2(9+3)) then it would be 2...
im really starting to question you people now i still listen to yall take on social stuff but math hell no
its two. google calculator is programmed wrong in their method concerning parenthetical placements. Its a simple fix of using unsorted list in java and link-list in c++. The program probably does not consider the reference point of what would be the initial set of parenthesis to start from
Fam, I'm not trying to attack your intelligence but your reading comprehension does need improvement. I don't e-beef so its rare that I come at someone sideways even in response to a feeble attempt to portray me as a retard.
Also, I strongly disagree that a mathematician would not question this problem and what the original author meant. Sure, as I said, one could simply work it out and get 288 (as I alluded to in my original post), but most mathematicians I know would point out the conventions I mentioned that could cause ambiguity.
prove that its 2
How can 48 divided by 2 times 12 = 2 using PEMAS AND/OR BIMDAS, BODMAS, BOMDAS, BERDMAS, PERDMAS, and BPODMAS.
yup thats what i said on page 1 but this is still gonna be 20+ pages because cats are stubborn, too smart for their own good and can never be wrong everrrr.
recipe for hilarity.
For the miilionth time, there is no ambiguity. There is only ONE answer.
The CONFUSION lies in people not understanding the conventions.
If the mutlipication part isn't in the parenthesis, why are ya'll doing that first?
It's just 9+3 in the parenthesis, not [2(9+3)]
It's just 9+3 in the parenthesis, not [2(9+3)]
Im such a dummy
Lookin @ that shit again the lightbulb came on
Math is so much easier when you just follow the instructions
Lookin @ that shit again the lightbulb came on
Math is so much easier when you just follow the instructions
look when ever you have a # divided by something you can split the equation into 2 parts. It then becomes 48 over whatever the rest of the equation is. Therefore it's 48 over 2 x (9+3)
Now you do the parenthisis first which then turns into 48 over 2 x 12
Then it becomes 48 over 24 = 2 not that hard!
Now you do the parenthisis first which then turns into 48 over 2 x 12
Then it becomes 48 over 24 = 2 not that hard!
It cant be 48 OVER 2(9+3) since theres no () around 2(9+3) i.e. (2(9+3))
In order to multiply before you divided,(if division is on the far left), you need to have it in parentheses like the others.
so 48/(2(9+3)) means you do whats in the () FIRST and get 24
THEN you do 48 divide by 24 and get 2
Since theres no () around 2(9+3), you just do 9+3 first and get 12.
Then its 48 divided by 2 which is 24 then you multiply by 12. Answer is 288
Smart dumb niggas
IGNORE the 48....throw that shit in a sack
you have: 2(9+3)
which becomes: 2(12)
and eventually = 24
Now pull 48 back out the sack
48÷24=2
Dividing 48 by anything cannot produce a number greater than 48.
I felt like an ASS after that shit came back to me
Good shit OP
you have: 2(9+3)
which becomes: 2(12)
and eventually = 24
Now pull 48 back out the sack
48÷24=2
Dividing 48 by anything cannot produce a number greater than 48.
I felt like an ASS after that shit came back to me
Good shit OP
Huh, you cant multiply before you divide if division comes first.
Using YOUR convention, what's 48/2/2?
EDIT: I'll answer it for you, with your convention the answer is 48 divided by (2/2) = 48.
Clearly the real answer is 12
Using YOUR convention, what's 48/2/2?
it's not 48/2/2 it's 48/24=2
OK i have a question if the problem was (48÷2)(9+3) there would no discussion of what the answer is.
So the question is why do we automatically assume that 2 is not binding to 9+3?
Shouldn't we question the placement of the brackets?
I see this more as a notation issue than anything else. Ambiguity is resolved all the time in programming languages. History is revised and/or corrected daily. Astronomers revoked Pluto's planetary card.
If I wrote 48÷2x(9+3) EVERYONE is getting 288.
write it like this...
48÷2(9+3) and a clusterfuck ensues.
If I wrote 48÷2x(9+3) EVERYONE is getting 288.
write it like this...
48÷2(9+3) and a clusterfuck ensues.
Similar threads
