48÷2(9+3) = ???

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody







Exactly! The parentheses only disappear after you multiply 1 and 12 just like the parentheses only disappear after 2 and 12 are multiplied in the original problem.

But see,

2(12) is really 2x 1(12), and you yourself have just stated that parenthesis will disappear after multiplying the 1 and the 12, so the equation then become

2 x 12 (no parenthesis...

...

)

Apply this to the entire equation and you get  48 ÷ 2 x 12. Now solve your equation by working from left to right (as the division and multiplication sign have equal ranking) and you get:

24 x 12 = 288.

...

That's only because the number you used is 1. Use any other number and you have to resolve the parentheses first. Put .5 and it's not 2 x .5 x 12.

.5(12) must be done first.

Why would I want to use any other number but 1 though?

Any other number changes the original equation where 1 doesn't.


...

Why would anyone want to use 1 in that situation? It is not needed. I don't know if there is a math term but using 1 is redundant.

The only way one can understand the property is to use a number other than 1. Then we see that the parentheses must be resolved.

Why else would parentheses be used in that manner then? Why didn't the author write it as 2 x (9+3)? There is an intuition implied that you are not seeing for some reason.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody







Exactly! The parentheses only disappear after you multiply 1 and 12 just like the parentheses only disappear after 2 and 12 are multiplied in the original problem.

But see,

2(12) is really 2x 1(12), and you yourself have just stated that parenthesis will disappear after multiplying the 1 and the 12, so the equation then become

2 x 12 (no parenthesis...

...

)

Apply this to the entire equation and you get  48 ÷ 2 x 12. Now solve your equation by working from left to right (as the division and multiplication sign have equal ranking) and you get:

24 x 12 = 288.

...

That's only because the number you used is 1. Use any other number and you have to resolve the parentheses first. Put .5 and it's not 2 x .5 x 12.

.5(12) must be done first.

Why would I want to use any other number but 1 though?

Any other number changes the original equation where 1 doesn't.


...

Why would anyone want to use 1 in that situation? It is not needed. I don't know if there is a math term but using 1 is redundant.

The only way one can understand the property is to use a number other than 1. Then we see that the parentheses must be resolved.

Why else would parentheses be used in that manner then? Why didn't the author write it as 2 x (9+3)? There is an intuition implied that you are not seeing for some reason.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody





That's only because the number you used is 1. Use any other number and you have to resolve the parentheses first. Put .5 and it's not 2 x .5 x 12.

.5(12) must be done first.

Why would I want to use any other number but 1 though?

Any other number changes the original equation where 1 doesn't.


...

Why would anyone want to use 1 in that situation? It is not needed. I don't know if there is a math term but using 1 is redundant.

The only way one can understand the property is to use a number other than 1. Then we see that the parentheses must be resolved.

Why else would parentheses be used in that manner then? Why didn't the author write it as 2 x (9+3)? There is an intuition implied that you are not seeing for some reason.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but isn't it redundant to use the x in that instance? It is known that multiplication occurs when a number is next to a parentheses so the x is redundant.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by HankMoody





That's only because the number you used is 1. Use any other number and you have to resolve the parentheses first. Put .5 and it's not 2 x .5 x 12.

.5(12) must be done first.

Why would I want to use any other number but 1 though?

Any other number changes the original equation where 1 doesn't.


...

Why would anyone want to use 1 in that situation? It is not needed. I don't know if there is a math term but using 1 is redundant.

The only way one can understand the property is to use a number other than 1. Then we see that the parentheses must be resolved.

Why else would parentheses be used in that manner then? Why didn't the author write it as 2 x (9+3)? There is an intuition implied that you are not seeing for some reason.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but isn't it redundant to use the x in that instance? It is known that multiplication occurs when a number is next to a parentheses so the x is redundant.

 

[kingjames23]

How the @%## is this #$*$ at 37 pages?

 

[kingjames23]

How the @%## is this #$*$ at 37 pages?

 

[digitalo22]

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by dland24

AGAIN 2 PEOPLE......do you agree with this?



1-1+1= -1

What the @#$# are you serious right now lol

The answer to this problem is POSITIVE ONE no matter what you do. You just go from left to right.

As for the original problem, the answer is 288. Add the parentheses and you get 12. Then from there you go from left to right, so you would end up with 24 x 12 = 288. 

How you failed to make the connection to how people are getting 2 and how you would get -1 to the problem I wrote is beyond me.   If your answer is 1 (not -1) when you solve 1-1+1, then your answer should be 288 (not 2) when you solve 48/2(9+3). 

If everyone knows to go left to right when solving 1-1+1, why is it hard to understand that you do the same thing (after adding 9+3) when solving 48/2(9+3)??

Simple. There are no parenthesis in the 1-1+1 equation so you gotta compute from left to right by default. In the 48/2(12) problem..the parenthesis need to be removed completely from the equation therefore 2 is multiplied by 12 before you begin the left to right process.

 

[digitalo22]

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by dland24

AGAIN 2 PEOPLE......do you agree with this?



1-1+1= -1

What the @#$# are you serious right now lol

The answer to this problem is POSITIVE ONE no matter what you do. You just go from left to right.

As for the original problem, the answer is 288. Add the parentheses and you get 12. Then from there you go from left to right, so you would end up with 24 x 12 = 288. 

How you failed to make the connection to how people are getting 2 and how you would get -1 to the problem I wrote is beyond me.   If your answer is 1 (not -1) when you solve 1-1+1, then your answer should be 288 (not 2) when you solve 48/2(9+3). 

If everyone knows to go left to right when solving 1-1+1, why is it hard to understand that you do the same thing (after adding 9+3) when solving 48/2(9+3)??

Simple. There are no parenthesis in the 1-1+1 equation so you gotta compute from left to right by default. In the 48/2(12) problem..the parenthesis need to be removed completely from the equation therefore 2 is multiplied by 12 before you begin the left to right process.

 

[finallyfamous]

This is ridiculous. It's 2.

 

[finallyfamous]

This is ridiculous. It's 2.

 

[hankmoody]

. I messed that up. All multiplication doesn't work well.

Tbh, the original problem is a good example of what I'm saying. Division just accentuates it because it separates the problem.

What I was trying to say is that the notation b(a) exists for a reason. There is an intuition involved with using that notation. You have to resolve the parentheses.

I really don't know what else to say

 

[hankmoody]

. I messed that up. All multiplication doesn't work well.

Tbh, the original problem is a good example of what I'm saying. Division just accentuates it because it separates the problem.

What I was trying to say is that the notation b(a) exists for a reason. There is an intuition involved with using that notation. You have to resolve the parentheses.

I really don't know what else to say

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by digitalO22

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

What the @#$# are you serious right now lol

The answer to this problem is POSITIVE ONE no matter what you do. You just go from left to right.

As for the original problem, the answer is 288. Add the parentheses and you get 12. Then from there you go from left to right, so you would end up with 24 x 12 = 288. 

How you failed to make the connection to how people are getting 2 and how you would get -1 to the problem I wrote is beyond me.   If your answer is 1 (not -1) when you solve 1-1+1, then your answer should be 288 (not 2) when you solve 48/2(9+3). 

If everyone knows to go left to right when solving 1-1+1, why is it hard to understand that you do the same thing (after adding 9+3) when solving 48/2(9+3)??

Simple. There are no parenthesis in the 1-1+1 equation so you gotta compute from left to right by default. In the 48/2(12) problem..the parenthesis need to be removed completely from the equation therefore 2 is multiplied by 12 before you begin the left to right process.

After adding 9+3, the parenthesis only remains in the equation to represent multiplication.  The idea that you need to multiply the 12 by 2 first because the 12 is in parentheses is incorrect.  The first step in the order of operations is to solve everything INSIDE the parentheses.

 

[bruce negro]

Whoever did that distribution example is an idiot. That doesn't work in this case; in fact, it actually proves that the answer is 2. In this problem, you would only distribute the 2 to the 9 and the 3. Therefore, your equation would be 48/[(2x9)+(2x3)]. That gives us 48/24, which is equal to 2.

 

[sohi 23]

37 pages?! fhsjdakfgkasghefohasofusaepf *dead*

 

[sohi 23]

37 pages?! fhsjdakfgkasghefohasofusaepf *dead*

 

[bruce negro]

Whoever did that distribution example is an idiot. That doesn't work in this case; in fact, it actually proves that the answer is 2. In this problem, you would only distribute the 2 to the 9 and the 3. Therefore, your equation would be 48/[(2x9)+(2x3)]. That gives us 48/24, which is equal to 2.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by digitalO22

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

What the @#$# are you serious right now lol

The answer to this problem is POSITIVE ONE no matter what you do. You just go from left to right.

As for the original problem, the answer is 288. Add the parentheses and you get 12. Then from there you go from left to right, so you would end up with 24 x 12 = 288. 

How you failed to make the connection to how people are getting 2 and how you would get -1 to the problem I wrote is beyond me.   If your answer is 1 (not -1) when you solve 1-1+1, then your answer should be 288 (not 2) when you solve 48/2(9+3). 

If everyone knows to go left to right when solving 1-1+1, why is it hard to understand that you do the same thing (after adding 9+3) when solving 48/2(9+3)??

Simple. There are no parenthesis in the 1-1+1 equation so you gotta compute from left to right by default. In the 48/2(12) problem..the parenthesis need to be removed completely from the equation therefore 2 is multiplied by 12 before you begin the left to right process.

After adding 9+3, the parenthesis only remains in the equation to represent multiplication.  The idea that you need to multiply the 12 by 2 first because the 12 is in parentheses is incorrect.  The first step in the order of operations is to solve everything INSIDE the parentheses.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

need to edit. be back later.

23 x 4(5+2) = 644
23 x 4 x (5+2) = 644
It is the same thing. But if you have a division sign, it would occur before the multiplication.
Just saw the edit, now I'm intrigued

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Whoever did that distribution example is an idiot. That doesn't work in this case; in fact, it actually proves that the answer is 2. In this problem, you would only distribute the 2 to the 9 and the 3. Therefore, your equation would be 48/[(2x9)+(2x3)]. That gives us 48/24, which is equal to 2.

Okay then how about this. [h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]24(9+3) --> (24x9)+(24x3) = 216+72 = 288

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

need to edit. be back later.

23 x 4(5+2) = 644
23 x 4 x (5+2) = 644
It is the same thing. But if you have a division sign, it would occur before the multiplication.
Just saw the edit, now I'm intrigued

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Whoever did that distribution example is an idiot. That doesn't work in this case; in fact, it actually proves that the answer is 2. In this problem, you would only distribute the 2 to the 9 and the 3. Therefore, your equation would be 48/[(2x9)+(2x3)]. That gives us 48/24, which is equal to 2.

Okay then how about this. [h3]48÷2(9+3)[/h3]24(9+3) --> (24x9)+(24x3) = 216+72 = 288

 

[the sauna]

288

 

[the sauna]

288

 

[finallyfamous]

Come on don't bring another example into this thread

 

[finallyfamous]

Come on don't bring another example into this thread

 

[laseventrees]

The Answer is 2

48 / 2(9+3)

is the same as

48 / (2*9 + 2*3)

48 / (18+6)

48 / (24)

2


The "2" in the original equation is a factor of both 18 and 6 that is why it was written in the outside of the parenthesis.