balloonoboy
Banned
- Nov 13, 2009
- 9,784
- 481
Now I see why the other thread was locked. This is going nowhere fast.
Someone refutes someone else, ad infinitum.
Someone refutes someone else, ad infinitum.
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
- Aug 7, 2006
- 942
- 14
What are you talking about? I posted charts and vids that all say a(b+c) = ab + ac always
My only problem now is if after the parenthesis is distributed does it remain a parenthesis. If this dude is right, who I have no idea he is, then the answer is 8.66667, since there are no implied parenthesis. If he's wrong, it's 2.
288 is out of the question.
you're comparing applies to oranges.
(b+c) can't be simplified...
(9+3) can...
in the former situation, you distribute, because you can't simplify the terms inside of the parentheses...
in the latter, you add the terms in the parentheses, then complete the rest of the equation according to PEMDAS.
-waystinthyme
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,671
- 10,732
Based on this thread, I'm gonna start a list of people I could hang out with in real life. Hank Moody is at the top.
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,671
- 10,732
Based on this thread, I'm gonna start a list of people I could hang out with in real life. Hank Moody is at the top.
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
- Jul 9, 2006
- 2,082
- 52
The only way it would be like that is if the question was (48÷2)(9+3)Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
- Jul 9, 2006
- 2,082
- 52
The only way it would be like that is if the question was (48÷2)(9+3)Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,826
- 10
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]As much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong...[/color]
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]...[/color]
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]My roommate is a Ph.D in Math over here at my University and he explained it clearly to me. The answer is in fact 288.[/color]
I think the problem lies in the PEMDAS system, which implies that Multiplication comes before Division--which is not at all the case/false.
Multiplication and Division are on equal terms/have equal ranking. So when you have an equation that has only multiplication and division in it, you just solve it going from LEFT to RIGHT.
So if multiplication is the first order and division is the second order to be solved, going from left to right, then you solve the equation by tackling the multiplication first and the division second.
Just as well, if division is the first and multiplication is the second, going from left to right, then you tackle the equation by solving the division part first and the multiplication part second.
Simply stated, given an equation where you have just multiplication and division left, which ARE EQUAL and/or have EQUAL PRECEDENCE, you just solve the equation by just going left to right and tackling whichever operation comes first in that directionality.
***
Frankly, the PEMDAS system has some built in confusion. The BODMAS system, however, which is the British equivalent, is less confusing.
With BODMAS, given an equation that has only multiplication and division left, all you need to do to get the right answer is to solve the equation in the directionality that has the division first. You will apparently always get the right answer. Using this system, one can confidently assume that DIVISION HAS PRECEDENCE/is on a HIGHER RANK than division. Thus one can solve the equation going fro left to right OR from right to left, as long as the divisional order of operation is the one being tackled first.
You CANNOT DO THIS WITH PEMDAS. With Pemdas, you have to view multiplication and division as having equal rank and MUST solve the equation from left to right--tackling the order of operations that comes on the left first, and any subsequent operations that follows in a left to right manner.
***
The answer to
[h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]is indeed 288:
48 ÷ 2 (9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 x 12
Now because division and multiplication are of equal rank in PEMDAS, you solve the equation by starting at the left and working your way to the right:
48 ÷ 2= 24
and
24 x 12= 288
You get the same answer using the BODMAS system, because this has you working out the divisional operation first. With BODMAS you can solve the equation going from either left to right or right to left, as long as the divisional operation is the first operation you solve. With PEMDAS, you have to go from left to right if you plan on always solving the multiplicative operation first.
Hope that made sense.
...
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]My roommate is a Ph.D in Math over here at my University and he explained it clearly to me. The answer is in fact 288.[/color]
I think the problem lies in the PEMDAS system, which implies that Multiplication comes before Division--which is not at all the case/false.
Multiplication and Division are on equal terms/have equal ranking. So when you have an equation that has only multiplication and division in it, you just solve it going from LEFT to RIGHT.
So if multiplication is the first order and division is the second order to be solved, going from left to right, then you solve the equation by tackling the multiplication first and the division second.
Just as well, if division is the first and multiplication is the second, going from left to right, then you tackle the equation by solving the division part first and the multiplication part second.
Simply stated, given an equation where you have just multiplication and division left, which ARE EQUAL and/or have EQUAL PRECEDENCE, you just solve the equation by just going left to right and tackling whichever operation comes first in that directionality.
***
Frankly, the PEMDAS system has some built in confusion. The BODMAS system, however, which is the British equivalent, is less confusing.
With BODMAS, given an equation that has only multiplication and division left, all you need to do to get the right answer is to solve the equation in the directionality that has the division first. You will apparently always get the right answer. Using this system, one can confidently assume that DIVISION HAS PRECEDENCE/is on a HIGHER RANK than division. Thus one can solve the equation going fro left to right OR from right to left, as long as the divisional order of operation is the one being tackled first.
You CANNOT DO THIS WITH PEMDAS. With Pemdas, you have to view multiplication and division as having equal rank and MUST solve the equation from left to right--tackling the order of operations that comes on the left first, and any subsequent operations that follows in a left to right manner.
***
The answer to
[h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]is indeed 288:
48 ÷ 2 (9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 x 12
Now because division and multiplication are of equal rank in PEMDAS, you solve the equation by starting at the left and working your way to the right:
48 ÷ 2= 24
and
24 x 12= 288
You get the same answer using the BODMAS system, because this has you working out the divisional operation first. With BODMAS you can solve the equation going from either left to right or right to left, as long as the divisional operation is the first operation you solve. With PEMDAS, you have to go from left to right if you plan on always solving the multiplicative operation first.
Hope that made sense.
...
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,826
- 10
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]As much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong...[/color]
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]...[/color]
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]My roommate is a Ph.D in Math over here at my University and he explained it clearly to me. The answer is in fact 288.[/color]
I think the problem lies in the PEMDAS system, which implies that Multiplication comes before Division--which is not at all the case/false.
Multiplication and Division are on equal terms/have equal ranking. So when you have an equation that has only multiplication and division in it, you just solve it going from LEFT to RIGHT.
So if multiplication is the first order and division is the second order to be solved, going from left to right, then you solve the equation by tackling the multiplication first and the division second.
Just as well, if division is the first and multiplication is the second, going from left to right, then you tackle the equation by solving the division part first and the multiplication part second.
Simply stated, given an equation where you have just multiplication and division left, which ARE EQUAL and/or have EQUAL PRECEDENCE, you just solve the equation by just going left to right and tackling whichever operation comes first in that directionality.
***
Frankly, the PEMDAS system has some built in confusion. The BODMAS system, however, which is the British equivalent, is less confusing.
With BODMAS, given an equation that has only multiplication and division left, all you need to do to get the right answer is to solve the equation in the directionality that has the division first. You will apparently always get the right answer. Using this system, one can confidently assume that DIVISION HAS PRECEDENCE/is on a HIGHER RANK than division. Thus one can solve the equation going fro left to right OR from right to left, as long as the divisional order of operation is the one being tackled first.
You CANNOT DO THIS WITH PEMDAS. With Pemdas, you have to view multiplication and division as having equal rank and MUST solve the equation from left to right--tackling the order of operations that comes on the left first, and any subsequent operations that follows in a left to right manner.
***
The answer to
[h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]is indeed 288:
48 ÷ 2 (9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 x 12
Now because division and multiplication are of equal rank in PEMDAS, you solve the equation by starting at the left and working your way to the right:
48 ÷ 2= 24
and
24 x 12= 288
You get the same answer using the BODMAS system, because this has you working out the divisional operation first. With BODMAS you can solve the equation going from either left to right or right to left, as long as the divisional operation is the first operation you solve. With PEMDAS, you have to go from left to right if you plan on always solving the multiplicative operation first.
Hope that made sense.
...
[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]My roommate is a Ph.D in Math over here at my University and he explained it clearly to me. The answer is in fact 288.[/color]
I think the problem lies in the PEMDAS system, which implies that Multiplication comes before Division--which is not at all the case/false.
Multiplication and Division are on equal terms/have equal ranking. So when you have an equation that has only multiplication and division in it, you just solve it going from LEFT to RIGHT.
So if multiplication is the first order and division is the second order to be solved, going from left to right, then you solve the equation by tackling the multiplication first and the division second.
Just as well, if division is the first and multiplication is the second, going from left to right, then you tackle the equation by solving the division part first and the multiplication part second.
Simply stated, given an equation where you have just multiplication and division left, which ARE EQUAL and/or have EQUAL PRECEDENCE, you just solve the equation by just going left to right and tackling whichever operation comes first in that directionality.
***
Frankly, the PEMDAS system has some built in confusion. The BODMAS system, however, which is the British equivalent, is less confusing.
With BODMAS, given an equation that has only multiplication and division left, all you need to do to get the right answer is to solve the equation in the directionality that has the division first. You will apparently always get the right answer. Using this system, one can confidently assume that DIVISION HAS PRECEDENCE/is on a HIGHER RANK than division. Thus one can solve the equation going fro left to right OR from right to left, as long as the divisional order of operation is the one being tackled first.
You CANNOT DO THIS WITH PEMDAS. With Pemdas, you have to view multiplication and division as having equal rank and MUST solve the equation from left to right--tackling the order of operations that comes on the left first, and any subsequent operations that follows in a left to right manner.
***
The answer to
[h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]is indeed 288:
48 ÷ 2 (9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 x 12
Now because division and multiplication are of equal rank in PEMDAS, you solve the equation by starting at the left and working your way to the right:
48 ÷ 2= 24
and
24 x 12= 288
You get the same answer using the BODMAS system, because this has you working out the divisional operation first. With BODMAS you can solve the equation going from either left to right or right to left, as long as the divisional operation is the first operation you solve. With PEMDAS, you have to go from left to right if you plan on always solving the multiplicative operation first.
Hope that made sense.
...
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
No, it is like that from 48÷2(9+3).Originally Posted by Apocalypz
The only way it would be like that is if the question was (48÷2)(9+3)Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
The only way it would be 2 is 48÷(2(9+3)).
- Oct 14, 2008
- 1,871
- 11
No, it is like that from 48÷2(9+3).Originally Posted by Apocalypz
The only way it would be like that is if the question was (48÷2)(9+3)Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You guys are wrong though. This is how the equation is.Originally Posted by acidicality
Exactly.
I thought we had too many Asians on NT....maybe not, after seeing this thread.
The only way it would be 2 is 48÷(2(9+3)).
balloonoboy
Banned
- Nov 13, 2009
- 9,784
- 481
Ph.D?
Where's the distributive property, though?
Where's the distributive property, though?
- Feb 6, 2011
- 8,332
- 216
PhD's don't even look at numbers for years though... undergrad math majors sometimes can go a semester without numbers... basically, he's wrong.
- Feb 6, 2011
- 8,332
- 216
PhD's don't even look at numbers for years though... undergrad math majors sometimes can go a semester without numbers... basically, he's wrong.
rocky437
Banned
- Sep 17, 2008
- 1,297
- 82
Look people, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 48÷2(9+3) = AND (48÷2)(9+3) = So NO, This question is NOT POORLY WRITTEN. IT IS A SIMPLE QUESTION.
AND FOR THE RECORD (48÷2)(9+3) = 288 BUT THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION
The question is 48÷2(9+3) = This answer is 2. and ^^ Apocalypz is right.
AND FOR THE RECORD (48÷2)(9+3) = 288 BUT THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION
The question is 48÷2(9+3) = This answer is 2. and ^^ Apocalypz is right.
rocky437
Banned
- Sep 17, 2008
- 1,297
- 82
Look people, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 48÷2(9+3) = AND (48÷2)(9+3) = So NO, This question is NOT POORLY WRITTEN. IT IS A SIMPLE QUESTION.
AND FOR THE RECORD (48÷2)(9+3) = 288 BUT THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION
The question is 48÷2(9+3) = This answer is 2. and ^^ Apocalypz is right.
AND FOR THE RECORD (48÷2)(9+3) = 288 BUT THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION
The question is 48÷2(9+3) = This answer is 2. and ^^ Apocalypz is right.
balloonoboy
Banned
- Nov 13, 2009
- 9,784
- 481
Ph.D?
Where's the distributive property, though?
Where's the distributive property, though?
- May 28, 2009
- 17,999
- 4,859
Ph.D my backside.
- May 28, 2009
- 17,999
- 4,859
Ph.D my backside.
- Apr 3, 2002
- 265
- 10
UnkleTomCruze Thanks
/Thread
/Thread
- Aug 7, 2006
- 942
- 14
notice that since the beginning of the thread...
people have converted from the 2 crowd to the 288 crowd, but NO ONE has converted from the 288 crowd to the 2 crowd.
strange, huh?
-waystinthyme
people have converted from the 2 crowd to the 288 crowd, but NO ONE has converted from the 288 crowd to the 2 crowd.
strange, huh?
-waystinthyme
- Apr 3, 2002
- 265
- 10
UnkleTomCruze Thanks
/Thread
/Thread
