48÷2(9+3) = ???

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

It's been thoroughly explained, but I'll go for it again. Distribution is a moot point here, there are no variables, and if you are "distributing" here, you are really just multiplying, and division comes first, so you would have to distribute 24(9+3) or 24(12) however you want to look at it.
Then if you are saying that it is "attached" to the parentheses, that is not true. It is just meant to show multiplication occurs. You wouldn't write the problem as 48÷2 x (9+3) or 48÷2*(9+3), because it is redundant. The only reason you would say that the 2 is "attached"is because of the so-called juxtaposition, but that is not a true rule, and it is normally used with variables as well. All that is followed is the order of operations in this problem. It is what is INSIDE the parentheses. That is the only reason they are in the problem, to show that 9+3 must be done first. If that wasn't there, the problem wouldn't be 48÷2(12), no one would write it like that.

And to balloonoboy, they follow different rules, and the new ones are supposed to be right.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

It's been thoroughly explained, but I'll go for it again. Distribution is a moot point here, there are no variables, and if you are "distributing" here, you are really just multiplying, and division comes first, so you would have to distribute 24(9+3) or 24(12) however you want to look at it.
Then if you are saying that it is "attached" to the parentheses, that is not true. It is just meant to show multiplication occurs. You wouldn't write the problem as 48÷2 x (9+3) or 48÷2*(9+3), because it is redundant. The only reason you would say that the 2 is "attached"is because of the so-called juxtaposition, but that is not a true rule, and it is normally used with variables as well. All that is followed is the order of operations in this problem. It is what is INSIDE the parentheses. That is the only reason they are in the problem, to show that 9+3 must be done first. If that wasn't there, the problem wouldn't be 48÷2(12), no one would write it like that.

And to balloonoboy, they follow different rules, and the new ones are supposed to be right.

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

answer: because the literature consistently states to perform the order of operations from left to right. furthermore, the literature states that the P in PEMDAS only includes things inside of the parenthesis.

you seem very passionate about this issue. please provide 3 sources that show what you're saying is correct.

hint: your 4th grade math teacher doesn't count.

something to think about--if you can't find 3 sources that agree with you, then maybe your thinking is incorrect. just because this is the way you were taught, does not mean it is the correct way to do the problem or deal with parentheses.

-waystinthyme

  

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

answer: because the literature consistently states to perform the order of operations from left to right. furthermore, the literature states that the P in PEMDAS only includes things inside of the parenthesis.

you seem very passionate about this issue. please provide 3 sources that show what you're saying is correct.

hint: your 4th grade math teacher doesn't count.

something to think about--if you can't find 3 sources that agree with you, then maybe your thinking is incorrect. just because this is the way you were taught, does not mean it is the correct way to do the problem or deal with parentheses.

-waystinthyme

  

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

What rule of math says that the 2 NEXT to the parenthesis needs to be done before? Show proof of a math source that does it before division. HINT: Its not. If you really think P in PEMDAS stands for things inside AND next to the parenthesis you are dead wrong. How would you solve this problem then 3/(2)(3) Are you going to multiply 2 and 3 first?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by prymone

for people on the 288 train why do you ignore the fact that the 2 outside the parenthesis needs not be ignored

What rule of math says that the 2 NEXT to the parenthesis needs to be done before? Show proof of a math source that does it before division. HINT: Its not. If you really think P in PEMDAS stands for things inside AND next to the parenthesis you are dead wrong. How would you solve this problem then 3/(2)(3) Are you going to multiply 2 and 3 first?

 

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

I refer to all graphing calculators as ti-83.

But the point is that the problem is given without any kind of instructions or directions. No need to solve the virtually unsolvable.

Dudes who say 2 is absolutely the answer or 288 is absolutely the answer are missing the point. Multiple applications can be used to solve this problem, thus making it undefinable.

 

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

I refer to all graphing calculators as ti-83.

But the point is that the problem is given without any kind of instructions or directions. No need to solve the virtually unsolvable.

Dudes who say 2 is absolutely the answer or 288 is absolutely the answer are missing the point. Multiple applications can be used to solve this problem, thus making it undefinable.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

I refer to all graphing calculators as ti-83.

But the point is that the problem is given without any kind of instructions or directions. No need to solve the virtually unsolvable.

Dudes who say 2 is absolutely the answer or 288 is absolutely the answer are missing the point. Multiple applications can be used to solve this problem, thus making it undefinable.

There are no instructions or directions necessary. It is a math problem. Solve it and get the answer.
It isn't undefinable. There is only one answer following the actual rules and order of operations.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

You tried to tell me that an old ti-83 is wrong, but the new ones are somehow right. Just stop.

What old ti-83? You mean the ti-85 WHICH IS CLEARLY CAME BEFORE THE TI-86. The TI-86 came out to replace the TI-85. Order of operations has been done wrong in calculators for years before mid 90s calculators. Ask any math teacher. Cmon dont act like companies dont fix their products thats not even a good excuse to justify your answer man.

I refer to all graphing calculators as ti-83.

But the point is that the problem is given without any kind of instructions or directions. No need to solve the virtually unsolvable.

Dudes who say 2 is absolutely the answer or 288 is absolutely the answer are missing the point. Multiple applications can be used to solve this problem, thus making it undefinable.

There are no instructions or directions necessary. It is a math problem. Solve it and get the answer.
It isn't undefinable. There is only one answer following the actual rules and order of operations.

 

[pharelfor3]

67 pages. Damn.

 

[pharelfor3]

67 pages. Damn.

 

[balloonoboy]

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

Both methods can be used to arrive at an answer.

It's undefinable. Period.

 

[balloonoboy]

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

Both methods can be used to arrive at an answer.

It's undefinable. Period.

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

It's undefinable. Period.

are you serious with this statement, or trolling?

it's an equation with an equal '=' symbol on the end...which means that you solve the problem. you don't need any further 'directions'.

if someone gave you the following math problem: 2+2 = ??? would you ask them for directions?

'with a problem as confusing as this you do...'



who's the ultimate authority on whether a problem is 'confusing' enough or not to need 'directions'. i'm assuming it's you?

-waystinthyme

  

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

It's undefinable. Period.

are you serious with this statement, or trolling?

it's an equation with an equal '=' symbol on the end...which means that you solve the problem. you don't need any further 'directions'.

if someone gave you the following math problem: 2+2 = ??? would you ask them for directions?

'with a problem as confusing as this you do...'



who's the ultimate authority on whether a problem is 'confusing' enough or not to need 'directions'. i'm assuming it's you?

-waystinthyme

  

 

[balloonoboy]

When it's as ambiguous as this, yes you do.

IDGAF which degrees y'all got, this is plain common sense.

Edit:

@ 2 + 2

 

[balloonoboy]

When it's as ambiguous as this, yes you do.

IDGAF which degrees y'all got, this is plain common sense.

Edit:

@ 2 + 2

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

Both methods can be used to arrive at an answer.

It's undefinable. Period.

Son, most problems written like this just say Solve.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

Both methods can be used to arrive at an answer.

It's undefinable. Period.

Son, most problems written like this just say Solve.

 

[zyr12]

Yall are going in on this math problem... lol.

#team288

 

[zyr12]

Yall are going in on this math problem... lol.

#team288

 

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No it is not Team 288.

I don't see anything that states, using order of operations solve the following. Likewise, there isn't anything stating using the distributive property, solve.

Both methods can be used to arrive at an answer.

It's undefinable. Period.

Son, most problems written like this just say Solve.

Son, I dare you to find me another problem like this. Find one that just says Solve and I'll join the 288 team.

You can't.