48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
Fuckyou, I want 288 quarters for $10
me too ...
so if BGOL can show me how to get that minus whale let a brother know right now ... I mean, this board has put me on to many a game but this will be the greatest
me too ...
so if BGOL can show me how to get that minus whale let a brother know right now ... I mean, this board has put me on to many a game but this will be the greatest
multiply by a factor of *bump*
Im arguing for both sides.
I think the problem comes when defining what you mean by simplifying. All the terms inside the () are simplified. But people are seeing 2(12) as one factor.
Others dont, unless it was written as (2(12))
The ones getting 2 for the answer view 2(12) as (2(12))
The ones getting 288 for the answer view 2(12) as 2*(12) or 2*12
PEMDAS is a form of simplifying and can be used with this problem.
"Getting rid" of the () is only important if there are not like terms involved. So you need to get them out of the () so you can simplify the equation.
When there are like terms inside, you just perform the operation. If theres a number next to it i.e. 3(4), you view this as a multiplication problem only.
Heres another example that I found from a professor at Bloomfield College
EXAMPLES:
1) Simplify -3(-4) - 2(5)
2
add/subtract
2) Evaluate
-10 ÷ 2(5)
divide
-5(5)
multiply
-25
NOTE: In this expression the parenthesis is playing the role of multiplication symbol and not a grouping
symbol. Therefore, you can rewrite the expression as -10 ÷ 2 ∙ 5 and continue the steps.
12 - 10
multiply
-10 ÷ 2(5)
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&sig=AHIEtbQ1GaQFR5LZN1D6V89SMBa2E3Lphg&pli=1
eh... furk it then. so mathematical notation is broken for the time being. maybe they'll have a global conference to fix this bullshit since so many people of a verifiable authority cannot come to a concensus
Had to stop there.. It doesnt have to be written like that. Thats how it has to be written for a calculator to understand the problem how its framed. In your mind when you see this problem, you should see this:
Simplifying in this instance is basically you finding out what the denominator should be.
Simplifying in this instance is basically you finding out what the denominator should be.
Had to stop there.. It doesnt have to be written like that. Thats how it has to be written for a calculator to understand the problem how its framed. In your mind when you see this problem, you should see this:
Simplifying in this instance is basically you finding out what the denominator should be.
That's how everyone "should" see it.
Are you guys fucking serious. 
Exactly... Using LesW's example we have to assume that 2(12) in the equation meant (2(12)). Some like myself don't make that assumption unless it's literally written into the equation. It is ambiguous & I've seen 2 different answers. I can only explain that the question itself is ambiguous.
In this Kaplan book it shows where you
Divided then multiply (but the multiplication by () suppose to higher precedence over left to right)
64
--- + 3(-1)
4
http://books.google.com/books?id=QL...ide then multiply" order of operation&f=false
In this Intermediate Algebra book
It talks about multiplying with () having higher precedence then left to right in the example
8÷4(2)
you multiply first then divide
http://books.google.com/books?id=SP...iply" order of operation +parentheses&f=false
There are a lot of conflicting procedures from teachers to textbooks.
So this prove my point of ambiguity and convention. These types of questions will have more than one answer because you have too many people learning conflicting ways of solving it.
Divided then multiply (but the multiplication by () suppose to higher precedence over left to right)
64
--- + 3(-1)
4
http://books.google.com/books?id=QL...ide then multiply" order of operation&f=false
In this Intermediate Algebra book
It talks about multiplying with () having higher precedence then left to right in the example
8÷4(2)
you multiply first then divide
http://books.google.com/books?id=SP...iply" order of operation +parentheses&f=false
There are a lot of conflicting procedures from teachers to textbooks.
So this prove my point of ambiguity and convention. These types of questions will have more than one answer because you have too many people learning conflicting ways of solving it.
Its not ambiguous. There is just wrong way and the right way.
(2(12) is how the calculator would have to understand it.
It has more than one answer because some are taking it literal, and most correctly see it as:
Had to stop there.. It doesnt have to be written like that. Thats how it has to be written for a calculator to understand the problem how its framed. In your mind when you see this problem, you should see this:
Simplifying in this instance is basically you finding out what the denominator should be.
No No No, in order for this to be the evaluation, the problem MUST have parentheses around what you see as your denominator. It would have looked like 48/(2(9+3)) or 48/[2(9+3)].
Of course these two expressions are exactly the same, but they are NOT what the original problem is, as written. If you interpreted the original problem as either of those two examples I just typed, you are unfortunately wrong.
Also, replacing the / symbol with the classic division symbol changes the problem in NO way.
K. Personally, I'm rolling with my answer which also coincides with the answer that google, microsoft, oracle and their legion of the smartest engineers in the world say is the correct answer.
Can you read nigga? It changes the problem in no way if put in a CALCULATOR... Thats if the calculator understands Simplification or not. Stop rehashing shit discussed pages back, and go read homey.
This calculator below does understand Simplification. Some don't.
http://mathway.com/problem.aspx?p=basicmath
It has more than one answer because some are taking it literal, and most correctly see it as:
Thats ambiguity, when you have more than one way to interpret one thing.
You have textbooks, teachers, and the internet having more than one way to interpret one problem. That defines ambiguity.
am·big·u·ous
[am-big-yoo-uhs]
–adjective
1.
open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
I'm not talking about a calculator. I'm talking about simple arithmetic. You're trusting a calculator that is clearly wrong and does not follow the conventions of simple arithmetic. I guarantee you that you will never find a physical calculator that will make the same error this one does. It really boils down to a mistake made by whoever programmed this calculator. It doesn't make mathematical sense.
You seem to be arguing that different calculators understand Mathematics differently. i disagree. The person who programmed this calculator does not understand the rule that presents itself here.
48/2(9+x)=288
First, use PEMDAS. Since we can't combine what's in the parentheses, leave that alone. No exponents so we move on to either multiplication or division. Division happens first, from left to right so we divide 48 by 2.
24(9+x)=288
Next distribute.
24(9)+24(x)=288
216+24x=288
Subtract 216 from both sides.
24x=72
Divide both sides by 24
x=3
Yup. Or
(48÷2)(9+x) = 288
9+x = 288/(48÷2)
9+x = 288/24
9+x = 12
x = 12 - 9
x = 3
You cant consider something with a definite answer ambiguous.
This is exactly what I mean. People who do a lot of programing know that in order for it to be this...
48
----------
2(9+3)
Those extra brackets or parenthesis HAVE TO be hard coded in there like this...
48/(2(9+3)) or 48/[2(9+3)].
But they are not in the original problem. We have been programming so long that we see and evaluate things like a computer would. There are many concepts in mathematics that can be ambiguous and have to be spoon fed certain ways in to a computer. This just isn't one of them.
Making an error like that, we know, would make entire problem wrong.
Simple math says the answer is 2. You have no point.
Im trusting a calculator that correctly Simplifies. The error is in your brain.
http://mathway.com/problem.aspx?p=basicmath
so let me get this straight before i drop this topic. some of you really think that the INTENTION of whomever constructed this problem did so with the intention of having their students solve a problem involving division of a large number 48 using this symbol ÷, multiplication with parentheses and ADDITION of two simple numbers 9 & 3 and not distribute the 2 across the two terms inside of the parentheses? you dudes have NO insight. this problem was obviously INTENDED to be solved in this manner
48÷2(9+3)
48÷(18+6)
48÷24
2
i can see how you could argue otherwise had the problem been written in THIS manner 42/2(9+3) where you could argue that the expression read forty-two halfs but it's uzing the symbol ÷ and the steps of adding 9 & 3 become redundant and usless for a learning exercise.
oh well, i'm going to let everyone just keep on believing what they want
48÷2(9+3)
48÷(18+6)
48÷24
2
i can see how you could argue otherwise had the problem been written in THIS manner 42/2(9+3) where you could argue that the expression read forty-two halfs but it's uzing the symbol ÷ and the steps of adding 9 & 3 become redundant and usless for a learning exercise.
oh well, i'm going to let everyone just keep on believing what they want
This is exactly what I mean. People who do a lot of programing know that in order for it to be this...
48
----------
2(9+3)
Those extra brackets or parenthesis HAVE TO be hard coded in there like this...
48/(2(9+3)) or 48/[2(9+3)].
But they are not in the original problem. We have been programming so long that we see and evaluate things like a computer would. There are many concepts in mathematics that can be ambiguous and have to be spoon fed certain ways in to a computer. This just isn't one of them.
Making an error like that, we know, would make entire problem wrong.
so let me get this straight before i drop this topic. some of you really think that the INTENTION of whomever constructed this problem did so with the intention of having their students solve a problem involving division of a large number 48 using this symbol ÷, multiplication with parentheses and ADDITION of two simple numbers 9 & 3 and not distribute the 2 across the two terms inside of the parentheses? you dudes have NO insight. this problem was obviously INTENDED to be solved in this manner
48÷2(9+3)
48÷(18+6)
48÷24
2
i can see how you could argue otherwise had the problem been written in THIS manner 42/2(9+3) where you could argue that the expression read forty-two halfs but it's uzing the symbol ÷ and the steps of adding 9 & 3 become redundant and usless for a learning exercise.
oh well, i'm going to let everyone just keep on believing what they want
48÷2(9+3)
48÷(18+6)
48÷24
2
i can see how you could argue otherwise had the problem been written in THIS manner 42/2(9+3) where you could argue that the expression read forty-two halfs but it's uzing the symbol ÷ and the steps of adding 9 & 3 become redundant and usless for a learning exercise.
oh well, i'm going to let everyone just keep on believing what they want
Definitely!
Due to conflicting ways of solving this I will solve it using both methods
Using one convention
48/2(9+x)=288
48/2(9) + 48/2(X)=288
432/2 +48x/2=288
216 + 24x=288
24x=72
x=3
Using the other convention
48/2(9+x)=288
48/18+2x=288
48=288(18+2x)
48=5184+576x
-5136=576x
-8.91666667=x
Using one convention
48/2(9+x)=288
48/2(9) + 48/2(X)=288
432/2 +48x/2=288
216 + 24x=288
24x=72
x=3
Using the other convention
48/2(9+x)=288
48/18+2x=288
48=288(18+2x)
48=5184+576x
-5136=576x
-8.91666667=x
only there is no '/' in the original problem and there are definitely NO parentheses around the 48 and 2. you are adding symbols to the problem to CREATE a grouping that is not expressly defined.
There's no definite answer if there are two conflicting ways of teaching you how to solve it.
So simplification doesn't exist? All the calculator did was simplify, and it tells you its using that Basic Math principal. Its an error now?
So we're pretending like Simplification doesnt exist? Wow. ******s will try to rationalize anything to make themselves right.
So we're pretending like Simplification doesnt exist? Wow. ******s will try to rationalize anything to make themselves right.
OK. You say this calculator correctly simplifies. Where does it do that, apart from every other calculator that does it, in your estimation, wrongly?
39 pages!?!?!?!?!
you made it 40 pages
Similar threads
