48÷2(9+3) = ???

Originally Posted by jthagreat

so 2 or 288
Click to expand...

nerd.gif

i got $2.88 ridin on the right answer
 
Originally Posted by seasoned vet

......let me also add:
 
 
48÷2(9+3) is the OG question from best i can find it. i say that because 48÷2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) but 48/2(9+3) has the potential to be interpreted differently.
 
 
- for example: 48/2(9+3) could be interpreted 48         =
                                                                               2 (9+3)
 
 
...but its not. the OG equation doesnt even use / but somewhere it was added. if you stick with ÷, there's no other way to read it....no way you can mess it up. that / has the potential to throw off everything depending on how you interpret it.
 
 
......good fun. thanks guys.
Click to expand...

you're correct...it's pretty easy to find, check the thread title.

-waystinthyme
  
 
Originally Posted by seasoned vet

......let me also add:
 
 
48÷2(9+3) is the OG question from best i can find it. i say that because 48÷2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) but 48/2(9+3) has the potential to be interpreted differently.
 
 
- for example: 48/2(9+3) could be interpreted 48         =
                                                                               2 (9+3)
 
 
...but its not. the OG equation doesnt even use / but somewhere it was added. if you stick with ÷, there's no other way to read it....no way you can mess it up. that / has the potential to throw off everything depending on how you interpret it.
 
 
......good fun. thanks guys.
Click to expand...

you're correct...it's pretty easy to find, check the thread title.

-waystinthyme
  
 
Originally Posted by waystinthyme

Originally Posted by sole vintage


This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
  • Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

    • 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1         (**)
          = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
          = 4 + 1
          =       5
The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:

Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

please end it
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
again, this is personal opinion. post facts, with sources. this is someone's blog...telling their opinion (not fact) on the issue.

-waystinthyme

  
Click to expand...
This is the only source on the internet that states this. If you think the answer is two, then prove it with facts.
 
Originally Posted by waystinthyme

Originally Posted by sole vintage


This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
  • Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

    • 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1         (**)
          = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
          = 4 + 1
          =       5
The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:

Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

please end it
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
again, this is personal opinion. post facts, with sources. this is someone's blog...telling their opinion (not fact) on the issue.

-waystinthyme

  
Click to expand...
This is the only source on the internet that states this. If you think the answer is two, then prove it with facts.
 
SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
 
SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...
The fact that hes a NT Staff member too. 
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...
The fact that hes a NT Staff member too. 
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif


...
Click to expand...
This is the only troll post in this thread.

Everything else has been about the actual threat topic.
 
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif


...
Click to expand...
This is the only troll post in this thread.

Everything else has been about the actual threat topic.
 
Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction
Click to expand...

30t6p3b.gif
the game done changed
laugh.gif

288
 
Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

SMH at y'all actually falling for Krux shenanigans.

He's the only troll in this thread. He was the first to start calling people trolls, and he continuously keeps calling others trolls when he is the only one genuinely TROLLING in this thread.

The other 288 naysayers are just "lacking", facultatively speaking; Krux on the other hand, is just plain old trolling...
grin.gif



...
Click to expand...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction
Click to expand...

30t6p3b.gif
the game done changed
laugh.gif

288
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom