You're right, this would be a great finale extra credit question. Who would provide the final answer?
48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
You're right, this would be a great finale extra credit question. Who would provide the final answer?
order of operations and simplifying tutorial:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm
go through it and LEARN
Example: Simplify 16 – 3(8 – 3)^2 ÷ 5
Example: Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1 **for this one, they even show you how to use your graphing calculator**
Followup.
You fucked yourself with this link.
Check it, from the SAME LINK you posted
15 ÷ 3 x 4 is the same as 15 ÷ 3(4)
For it to be what you claim it is it'd have to be 15 ÷ [3(4)]
That SAME site says:
Since there is no nested parentheses in the OP's equation you have to solve it the way it is - left to right.
Which is
the division of 48÷2 followed by the multiplication of that solution by 12.
This is not really that difficult. People are making the mistake of ADDING things to the equation making it a completely different equation, or are confusing PEMDAS to state that Multiplication takes precedence over division.
I truly hope there is a more reputable mathematician to answer this question to put this to rest.
thats the error, the parentheses is still there so it is still a priority
already stated earlier that some calcs get it some dont: another explanation from http://www.purplemath.com/modules/exponent5.htm
A technology point: Calculators and other software do not compute things the way people do; they use pre-programmed algorithms. Sometimes the particular method the calculator uses can create difficulties in the context of fractional exponents.
For instance, you know that the cube root of –8 is –2, and the square of –2 is 4, so (–8)(2/3) = 4. But some calculators return a complex value or an error message, as is the case with one of my graphing calculators:
(-8)^(2/3) returns the complex value (-2, 3.46410161514)
If you enter "=(–8)^(2/3)" into a cell, the Microsoft "Excel" spreadsheet returns the error "#NUM!".
Some calculators and programs will do the computations as expected, as displayed at right from my other graphing calculator:
(-8)^(2/3) returns the expected value of 4
The difference has to do with the pre-programmed calculating algorithms. These algorithms generally try to do the computations in ways which require the fewest "operations", in order to process what you've entered as quickly as possible. But sometimes the fastest method isn't always the most useful, and your calculator will "choke".
again as written 48/2(9+3) will become 48/2(12) it will NOT become 48/2 * 12. the 2 is attached to the () it will stay in front of the () until it is distributed out. according to Pemdas () take priority as such you distribute the 2 THEN continue with the rest of the equation.
read it again. and pay attention to the parentheses & the factor in front of it this time LMAO! It's about time for you to stop playing this game too.
I really cant believe on the that this shit is 30 pages and 2 im still up arguing with you cats over something i've stated and restated 20+ times. look review my posts.
the () dont disappear until the 2 is distributed in the equation as it is written. so the 2(12) is a higher priority than the 48/. nothing more to say from now on i'll play the shadows! good night and a big F U to the OP for recycling this shit, glad we are tlaking about something productive like math instead of something on Worldstar or some other bullshit in the world
the () dont disappear until the 2 is distributed in the equation as it is written. so the 2(12) is a higher priority than the 48/. nothing more to say from now on i'll play the shadows! good night and a big F U to the OP for recycling this shit, glad we are tlaking about something productive like math instead of something on Worldstar or some other bullshit in the world
quoted. in the hope that it will sink in soon....man if I was a betting woman I would have taken the odds on this one!!!!
You know what.
Doing research further I found this:
In the end, NEITHER PARTY IS WRONG.
There are MULTIPLE manners in solving this, so both 2 and 288 are correct, based on how you INTERPRET the equation.
I interpret it one way and get 288. Others interpret it another way and get 2.
So the beauty of it is - NOT EVEN MATH IS CONCRETE. There are holes in even what is considered the most universal language!!!!
It truly is amazing.
So with that said, i want to extend apologies to anyone I may have offended with my comments, starting with the most recent, Followup, all the way to Selfscience who felt like he ocked himself earlier in the thread.
Sakem can eat a dick for his superiority act, but to everyone else - let us recognize that this is definitely what one can consider a glitch in the matrix, and should this topic continue, let us discuss it respectfully - because the reality is there is no true correct answer.
And the bottom line - make sure you are CLEAR in how you want the problem to be solved! the extra parentheses, the * between the 2(9) makes a world of difference!
Here is the link for all who want to see.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
Goodnight to all! And thanks for the stimulating discussion!
Doing research further I found this:
In the end, NEITHER PARTY IS WRONG.
There are MULTIPLE manners in solving this, so both 2 and 288 are correct, based on how you INTERPRET the equation.
I interpret it one way and get 288. Others interpret it another way and get 2.
So the beauty of it is - NOT EVEN MATH IS CONCRETE. There are holes in even what is considered the most universal language!!!!
It truly is amazing.
So with that said, i want to extend apologies to anyone I may have offended with my comments, starting with the most recent, Followup, all the way to Selfscience who felt like he ocked himself earlier in the thread.
Sakem can eat a dick for his superiority act, but to everyone else - let us recognize that this is definitely what one can consider a glitch in the matrix, and should this topic continue, let us discuss it respectfully - because the reality is there is no true correct answer.
And the bottom line - make sure you are CLEAR in how you want the problem to be solved! the extra parentheses, the * between the 2(9) makes a world of difference!
Here is the link for all who want to see.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
Goodnight to all! And thanks for the stimulating discussion!
let me answer for him: no. followed by some more retarded nonsense
Last I checked, the idea is to solve what is WITHIN the parenthesis, not "get rid of" the parenthesis. When you get twelve, you have solved what's in the parenthesis. I've never seen any explanation that says "get rid of" or "eliminate" the parenthesis. Are you saying I'm not done with the parenthesis when I try to solve this: (24)(12). I am done. This is the same as 24x12 and this 24(12). Therefore this: 48/2(9+3) is the same as this: (48/2)(24x12).
If someone presents you with this: (5)(5)=? You're not going to go into a diatribe about how it is written wrong. You're going to say or write 25 without hesitation. This as is also 25: 5(5).
48÷2(9+3) = ????
i just multiplied the 2 with the 9 and then the 2 with the 3, then added those numbers up (18+6), finally dividing it with the 48.
it's really questionable the way this is worded because brackets are needed before the "2" to truly do it the way i did but i went ahead and did it anyway. lol.
i just multiplied the 2 with the 9 and then the 2 with the 3, then added those numbers up (18+6), finally dividing it with the 48.
it's really questionable the way this is worded because brackets are needed before the "2" to truly do it the way i did but i went ahead and did it anyway. lol.
in algebra you can not solve an equation if you leave parentheses in there...and you solved the equation in red incorrectly. Those equations are not the same. as I stated before, there is no higher order in (5)(5)=5*5. you need 2 or more signs to worry about ordering equations.
no need for an apology. I'm not offended, this is BGOL. But I am 100% correct and would put money on it. Not all can say the same.
I would bet money too. The only question is what is considered the right source for the answer (for the problem AS written)?
this is way math dosn't apply in the real world, in the real world you would ask to put this into context
example 1
there are two room, they both have equal amounts of people but inverted number of the opposite sex in each room, you have 48 cupcakes to share equally between everyone, if there is 9 women in one room and 3 women in the other how many cupcakes would each person get
there for 9+3=12*2 rooms =24 people /48 cupcakes=2 cupcakes each
example 1
there are two room, they both have equal amounts of people but inverted number of the opposite sex in each room, you have 48 cupcakes to share equally between everyone, if there is 9 women in one room and 3 women in the other how many cupcakes would each person get
there for 9+3=12*2 rooms =24 people /48 cupcakes=2 cupcakes each
^^^^
Dota I wouldn't even bet you. You made the statement that 2(9) is not the same as (2(9)) or something crazy like that.
please show me where I said that.
2(9) IS (2(9))
48 ÷ 2 (9) IS NOT 48 ÷ (2 (9))
what does inverted amount of people mean?
for me math applies every day. at work, or at the store or whatever. I can calculate just about anything I come across in daily life with my brain only. I used to tell the kids that it was useful when I used to teach, but they didn't care. I bet some are on BGOL marking off 288 too...
ok dude.
...
...
Could you please validate this?
So if I solve a problem like this in which my teacher is also grading my work, and not just the answer:
x=24(9+3)
x=24(12)
x=288
I'm going to get this answer wrong or partial credit because I left this step out:
x=24(9+3)
x=24(12)
x=24x12
x=288
Once again..maybe there is no right answer, but I submit to you that if you know for a fact that THIS equals 2 which it does:
48/[2(9+3)]
Then how can this also be 2?:
48/2(9+3)
right at the 5 minute mark, he goes into addressing this specific type problem.
i have my daughter using this program. it has helped immensely.
and for the record, if you copy and paste the OP's original equation, this is how google reads it.
Great video, but he shows (c+d) x e-f....very different from e(c+d)-f
Calc II, Volumes...since you asked...that was the hardest and I got my lowest grade in math in it. I want to retake it when I have the stamina again LOL
Im actually impressed by the number of people trying to solve a math problem on a porn board...But I'm rolling with 288
Right, the true and only problem is
how is A(B) interpeted.
Is it given priority because it's directly next to the paranthese
or is it, just the same as A*B?
The rule says only what is inside only, unless someone can prove different.
That a number written directly next to parentheses makes it a higher priority grouping or it's regular order of operation.
That's specifically the problem. The way it's rewritten is short hand for A*B or is it rewritten that way based on a law of giving precedence to it because of the parenthesis.
I don't know one.
Last edited:
Im actually impressed by the number of people trying to solve a math problem on a porn board...But I'm rolling with 288
Awesome fucking thread and funny as hell
Im shocked out how many people can misinterpret order of operations. Just wow.
288 all day.
Granted there is some math that doesnt follow prescribed rules.....like 2+2=5 for very high values of 2.
288 all day.
Granted there is some math that doesnt follow prescribed rules.....like 2+2=5 for very high values of 2.
I know right!!
My apologies to followup, Nate, and whoever else I was riding on last night. It's all fun with me. Not that serious. It's just the Internet. lol
JD, I explained that shit from the get. We have implied notation that we can't code into computers. Computers, faced with this situation, must be coded to respond one way or the other. There's no way to code a calculator or a search engine to interpret your intent or school of thought. Because honestly, that's what it boils down to. The common convention, these days, is to use PEMDAS and let it ride.
Last edited:
I know right!!
I remember when my teacher said there was no such thing as subtraction. Mutha fuckas was like
Its like he set off a fire cracker in the class room.
subtraction is the same as 'addition of a negative number'I remember when my teacher said there was no such thing as subtraction. Mutha fuckas was like
Similar threads
