48÷2(9+3) = ???

[whyhellothere]

Originally Posted by jthagreat

so 2 or 288

i got $2.88 ridin on the right answer

 

[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.

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

-waystinthyme
  

 

[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.

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

-waystinthyme
  

 

[proper english]

why cant the answer be 7?

 

[proper english]

why cant the answer be 7?

 

[jchambers]

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

again, this is personal opinion. post facts, with sources. this is someone's blog...telling their opinion (not fact) on the issue.

-waystinthyme

  

This is the only source on the internet that states this. If you think the answer is two, then prove it with facts.

 

[jchambers]

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

again, this is personal opinion. post facts, with sources. this is someone's blog...telling their opinion (not fact) on the issue.

-waystinthyme

  

This is the only source on the internet that states this. If you think the answer is two, then prove it with facts.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


We made it on the list! 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

Late, word to...

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


We made it on the list! 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

Late, word to...

...

 

[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...

...

 

[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...

...

 

[dland24]

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...

...

The fact that hes a NT Staff member too. 

 

[dland24]

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...

...

The fact that hes a NT Staff member too. 

 

[servechilled81]

i figured son was trying to get somebody to spazz out on him, so he'd have reason to lock the thread...

 

[servechilled81]

i figured son was trying to get somebody to spazz out on him, so he'd have reason to lock the thread...

 

[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...

...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction

 

[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...

...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction

 

[k2theablam]

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...

...

This is the only troll post in this thread.

Everything else has been about the actual threat topic.

 

[k2theablam]

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...

...

This is the only troll post in this thread.

Everything else has been about the actual threat topic.

 

[ggarvinxx3]

why is this threa so long??

 

[ggarvinxx3]

why is this threa so long??

 

[yankees1129]

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...

...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction

the game done changed

288

 

[yankees1129]

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...

...

PANNTPBOIMEMDAS

Parentheses And Numbers Next To Parentheses Because Of Implied Multiplication Exponents Multplication Division Addition Subtraction

the game done changed

288

 

[ajchick23]

88 pages huh?

 

[ajchick23]

88 pages huh?