48÷2(9+3) = ???

[dmxgod]

This is like arguing about politics..it's pointless

 

[dmxgod]

This is like arguing about politics..it's pointless

 

[inspectah derek]

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


HERE is the end! If this discussion continues, please quote this for every new page. 

http://www.neogaf.com/for...26053&postcount=2590

by Jocchan

I ended up writing a long post, hoping it can be just quoted to at least try to stop the same ol' cycle from starting over and over again.


The equation source of this discussion is 48÷2(9+3) = ????.

Most people able to solve basic first degree equations come up with two different solutions: 288 and 2. Why two and not one? Because the equation is written ambiguously.

The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2, or as part of the denominator, together with the 2, the number 48 is divided by. So:

- The ones coming up with 288 see it as:

48
-- * (9+3)
2

- The ones coming up with 2 see it as:

48
------
2(9+3)

Why both camps are correct:
- The ones coming up with 288 are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct.

- The ones coming up with 2 are applying a type of notation commonly used in calculus, physics and chemistry where 1/xy is used to represent on a single line the fraction

1
--
xy
and not (1/x) multiplied by y. In this notation, y is also part of the denominator.
This notation is commonly used with implicit products, and usually with short expressions. Whether or not this is a consequence of implicit products by juxtaposition appearing as prioritary, at least visually since the elements are portrayed as "bound" together, compared to regular multiplications and divisions making the elements appear as more separate, is not really relevant. Fact is it's a real convention and it's commonly used in several textbooks and slides.

Proof: just do a Google search for "1/2

 

[inspectah derek]

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


HERE is the end! If this discussion continues, please quote this for every new page. 

http://www.neogaf.com/for...26053&postcount=2590

by Jocchan

I ended up writing a long post, hoping it can be just quoted to at least try to stop the same ol' cycle from starting over and over again.


The equation source of this discussion is 48÷2(9+3) = ????.

Most people able to solve basic first degree equations come up with two different solutions: 288 and 2. Why two and not one? Because the equation is written ambiguously.

The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2, or as part of the denominator, together with the 2, the number 48 is divided by. So:

- The ones coming up with 288 see it as:

48
-- * (9+3)
2

- The ones coming up with 2 see it as:

48
------
2(9+3)

Why both camps are correct:
- The ones coming up with 288 are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct.

- The ones coming up with 2 are applying a type of notation commonly used in calculus, physics and chemistry where 1/xy is used to represent on a single line the fraction

1
--
xy
and not (1/x) multiplied by y. In this notation, y is also part of the denominator.
This notation is commonly used with implicit products, and usually with short expressions. Whether or not this is a consequence of implicit products by juxtaposition appearing as prioritary, at least visually since the elements are portrayed as "bound" together, compared to regular multiplications and divisions making the elements appear as more separate, is not really relevant. Fact is it's a real convention and it's commonly used in several textbooks and slides.

Proof: just do a Google search for "1/2

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

team 288 is making this a multiplication problem when it's a division problem. you're multiplying 48 halves and (9+3) when you should be dividing 48 by 2(9+3). to change it to a multiplication problem you would multiply by the reciprocal of the denominator

48 * 1/2(12)

48 * 1/24

48 * 1/24= 48/24

=2

quoting myself, not trying to start a flame war or anything but what's wrong with the proof there?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

team 288 is making this a multiplication problem when it's a division problem. you're multiplying 48 halves and (9+3) when you should be dividing 48 by 2(9+3). to change it to a multiplication problem you would multiply by the reciprocal of the denominator

48 * 1/2(12)

48 * 1/24

48 * 1/24= 48/24

=2

quoting myself, not trying to start a flame war or anything but what's wrong with the proof there?

 

[k2theablam]

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

 

[k2theablam]

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

 

[kingcrux31]

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

 

[kingcrux31]

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

48 times 12 divided by 2.
576 divided by 2.
288.

What is even your point?
You are saying that the problem would NEVER read 48÷(2(9+3)) or 48÷[2(9+3)]?

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

48 times 12 divided by 2.
576 divided by 2.
288.

What is even your point?
You are saying that the problem would NEVER read 48÷(2(9+3)) or 48÷[2(9+3)]?

 

[spacerace]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

OG Problem:  48÷2(9+3)
Yours:  48÷(2(9+3))

48 * 1/2(12)

48 * 1/24

48 * 1/24= 48/24

=2

refer above

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

The P in PEMDAS refers to what is to be done inside the parenthesis, not outside of it.

Also, the distributive property doesn't apply to this particular equation. if you are confused as to why not, please refer to the other 89 pages as others have already explained it in a way better than i could.

 

[spacerace]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

at people saying 2 is not part of 12 when the original problem is 48÷2(9+3) and NOT 48(9+3)÷2. Try solving 48(9+3)÷2 and let me know what you get.

OG Problem:  48÷2(9+3)
Yours:  48÷(2(9+3))

48 * 1/2(12)

48 * 1/24

48 * 1/24= 48/24

=2

refer above

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

The P in PEMDAS refers to what is to be done inside the parenthesis, not outside of it.

Also, the distributive property doesn't apply to this particular equation. if you are confused as to why not, please refer to the other 89 pages as others have already explained it in a way better than i could.

 

[inspectah derek]

Whatever y'all are saying has been said before. There's only so many things you can explain about this short problem in 90 pages. Endless discussions ensue with either camp trying to prove their point only to be reset every time new posters enter the thread, making the cycle start over again from the beginning.

The final consensus is here: http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10744601/48-2-9-3-

 

[inspectah derek]

Whatever y'all are saying has been said before. There's only so many things you can explain about this short problem in 90 pages. Endless discussions ensue with either camp trying to prove their point only to be reset every time new posters enter the thread, making the cycle start over again from the beginning.

The final consensus is here: http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10744601/48-2-9-3-

 

[sircharles2ol3]

90 pages?

 

[sircharles2ol3]

90 pages?

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

No, Distributive Property

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

No, Distributive Property

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

2(4-2)^2 = ?

8 or 16?

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

People that say 288 were never taught the distributive property.

2(12) is not the same as 2*12

2(12) still has a parenthesis and can still be simplified, taking priority over ÷ and *

2(4-2)^2 = ?

8 or 16?

 

[seasoned vet]

- i nominate this thread best of 2011.......
 
 
 
- had Meth or Dirty even posted in here yet? if not when they do i predict another 20 pages each.
 
 
 

 

[seasoned vet]

- i nominate this thread best of 2011.......
 
 
 
- had Meth or Dirty even posted in here yet? if not when they do i predict another 20 pages each.
 
 
 

 

[oo206oo]

90 pages on a math problem? On Niketalk?

This cant be life.

(and im not even gonna pretend to read all this nonsense)