48÷2(9+3) = ???

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by selrahc123

The problem was written to create this type of argument. As stated before, the problem is very poorly written. And the answer is 2.

Show your steps please so I can change your ways.
Like I said, the problem is poorly written so there is no "changing my ways." If you're using PEMDAS, you're obviously a child... it shouldn't even be taught in schools anymore. But the logic is this48
2(9+3)  = 48/24 = 2. 
 
my TI-84 says 288.

i'm heartbroken

team 288 stand up 
laugh.gif


wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.

the difference lies within the symbol

/thread

really though, 

/thread
 
my TI-84 says 288.

i'm heartbroken

team 288 stand up 
laugh.gif


wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.

the difference lies within the symbol

/thread

really though, 

/thread
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.

what was typed in is exactly the same as what's in the title. The engine interpreted what was entered into the yellow box as that.
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.

what was typed in is exactly the same as what's in the title. The engine interpreted what was entered into the yellow box as that.
 
Originally Posted by cguy610

Question for the team 288:  Why does a calculator distribute the 2?

Tagged with the MJ glove.





That calculator doesn't have order of operations programmed into it's source code.


Originally Posted by IzzNet

MY GOD.


The answer is NOT 288!!

It's 2.

The presence of parentheses indicates where order of operations should begin, doesnt matter whether the numerical term is inside or outside of them..

If you are a Mathematician or Engineer and you said 288.. may God have mercy on your soul..


just kidding, the answer is still 2 tho..

May God have mercy on your soul because we design your car, the roads you drive on, devices that make daily life easier, and that computer you're using I hope hope those engineers know how to do 48/2(9+3)


Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

So why is there no proof of this law on the internet? Like i said before

FOR THE 2 BELIEVERS ONLY!

SOLVE QUESTION 7 ON THIS PAGE
http://amby.com/educate/ord-op/pretest.html


/ether
/thread


 THANK YOU!



2   8   8
 
Originally Posted by cguy610

Question for the team 288:  Why does a calculator distribute the 2?

Tagged with the MJ glove.





That calculator doesn't have order of operations programmed into it's source code.


Originally Posted by IzzNet

MY GOD.


The answer is NOT 288!!

It's 2.

The presence of parentheses indicates where order of operations should begin, doesnt matter whether the numerical term is inside or outside of them..

If you are a Mathematician or Engineer and you said 288.. may God have mercy on your soul..


just kidding, the answer is still 2 tho..

May God have mercy on your soul because we design your car, the roads you drive on, devices that make daily life easier, and that computer you're using I hope hope those engineers know how to do 48/2(9+3)


Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

So why is there no proof of this law on the internet? Like i said before

FOR THE 2 BELIEVERS ONLY!

SOLVE QUESTION 7 ON THIS PAGE
http://amby.com/educate/ord-op/pretest.html


/ether
/thread


 THANK YOU!



2   8   8
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
k1wayt.jpg

thats a straight copy/paste from the thread. do it your way, and get 2. i am easily convinced if you can do it using WA. 
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
k1wayt.jpg

thats a straight copy/paste from the thread. do it your way, and get 2. i am easily convinced if you can do it using WA. 
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
 
Step 1: 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12)
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
 
Step 1: 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12)
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
 
Those saying 2, have mercy on thy soul.

GOOGLE SAYS 288.

BING SAYS ITS 288.

WOLFRAM SAYS 288.

MY Ti-84+ says 288.

My Ti-30xIIB says 288.

"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.

m7yfdl.png


33cyla0.png


68wm69.png


The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing. 

Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2. 

/
 
Those saying 2, have mercy on thy soul.

GOOGLE SAYS 288.

BING SAYS ITS 288.

WOLFRAM SAYS 288.

MY Ti-84+ says 288.

My Ti-30xIIB says 288.

"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.

m7yfdl.png


33cyla0.png


68wm69.png


The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing. 

Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2. 

/
 
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
 
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

2z40mxw.jpg


is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
and it comes up to 288, what's your point?
 
Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
How is that different from the original problem?   last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
and it comes up to 288, what's your point?
 
Back
Top Bottom