48÷2(9+3) = ???

[holdenmichael]

Haha!  I can't believe this thread has gone on this long, but I have a good guess as to why it did.
The confusion lies here: I don't believe people know that the symbol for division, ÷, can be typed out on a keyboard and that /, is used for fractions.  That's why you get two different answers.

48÷2(9+3)

This is spoken as 48 divided by the product of 2 multiplied by the sum of 9 plus 3 (2).

48/2(9+3)

This is spoken as 48 halves multiplied by the sum of 9 plus 3 (28.

 

[holdenmichael]

Let me add that in the equation:

48÷2(9+3)=2

2 is the quotient.

In the equation:

48/2(9+3)=288

288 is the product.

 

[holdenmichael]

Let me add that in the equation:

48÷2(9+3)=2

2 is the quotient.

In the equation:

48/2(9+3)=288

288 is the product.

 

[ncmalko1]

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect. Once everyone goes to school Monday the math teachers will prove the answer if two. The question is asking you to multiple 2 time 12, then divide by 24.

Pmdas. Parenthesis 1st, multiplication 2nd, divison 3rd.

P first. (9 plus 3)
M next 2 X 12
D follows. 48/24

 

[ncmalko1]

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect. Once everyone goes to school Monday the math teachers will prove the answer if two. The question is asking you to multiple 2 time 12, then divide by 24.

Pmdas. Parenthesis 1st, multiplication 2nd, divison 3rd.

P first. (9 plus 3)
M next 2 X 12
D follows. 48/24

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly what I said above. This is the complete truth. Even if anyone has another "example" of how it is 288, they can't defeat this example, which means that either our answer is correct, or math is broken

Again, can someone refute this example directly? Not give some other roundabout example, but directly show what is wrong with this example. No.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly what I said above. This is the complete truth. Even if anyone has another "example" of how it is 288, they can't defeat this example, which means that either our answer is correct, or math is broken

Again, can someone refute this example directly? Not give some other roundabout example, but directly show what is wrong with this example. No.

 

[MIKE LOWERY]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Alright, since I've been warned here's the deal. How can mathematical symbols be VAGUE? They're set, they're static, there's no ambiguity. It's order of operations.

Dude seriously?


Your sitting in a 40 page thread with half the answers going for 2 and the other for 288.

Which was pulled from two other boards who are also both split on the issue.

Which have calculators also spitting out the two different answers.

But you're gonna sit here and act like the smartest man in the room? Okay

Look at the damn equation. Not the symbols, but the whole equation. Tell me it can't be written two different ways without adding or subtracting any notation. The **$% is vague. I'll ask my former college algebra and current quantitative analysis prof on Monday what they think.


Hopefully they don't have a New York education tho am i rite?

 

[MIKE LOWERY]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Alright, since I've been warned here's the deal. How can mathematical symbols be VAGUE? They're set, they're static, there's no ambiguity. It's order of operations.

Dude seriously?


Your sitting in a 40 page thread with half the answers going for 2 and the other for 288.

Which was pulled from two other boards who are also both split on the issue.

Which have calculators also spitting out the two different answers.

But you're gonna sit here and act like the smartest man in the room? Okay

Look at the damn equation. Not the symbols, but the whole equation. Tell me it can't be written two different ways without adding or subtracting any notation. The **$% is vague. I'll ask my former college algebra and current quantitative analysis prof on Monday what they think.


Hopefully they don't have a New York education tho am i rite?

 

[loendradio]

It made sense for me when I wrote it out in this form.

Another way to consider it: Remember that we read math from left to right and that multiplication and division are equal. Therefore, after we add the contents of the parenthesis, we divide 48 by 2 first since it occurs first in the equation when read from left to right.

 

[loendradio]

It made sense for me when I wrote it out in this form.

Another way to consider it: Remember that we read math from left to right and that multiplication and division are equal. Therefore, after we add the contents of the parenthesis, we divide 48 by 2 first since it occurs first in the equation when read from left to right.

 

[holdenmichael]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Again, can someone refute this example directly?

[/font]


My refutation is based on the idea that "/" is a symbol for fractions, not division, whereas "÷" is a symbol for division, not fractions.  So, the answer to the equation:

48/2(9+3)

is 288.

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect.

How so?  I ask because we arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[holdenmichael]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Again, can someone refute this example directly?

[/font]


My refutation is based on the idea that "/" is a symbol for fractions, not division, whereas "÷" is a symbol for division, not fractions.  So, the answer to the equation:

48/2(9+3)

is 288.

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect.

How so?  I ask because we arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[kramer]

Not sure if this is the dumbest or most intellectual discussion ever on NT

 

[kramer]

Not sure if this is the dumbest or most intellectual discussion ever on NT

 

[thehealthinspector]

texas instruments wouldnt lie to me would it?

 

[thehealthinspector]

texas instruments wouldnt lie to me would it?

 

[holdenmichael]

Originally Posted by loendradio

It made sense for me when I wrote it out in this form.

Remember that we read math from left to right and that multiplication and division are equal. Therefore, after we add the contents of the parenthesis, we divide 48 by 2 first since it occurs first in the equation when read from left to right.

Notice that you are using symbols for fractions (/ and –), not division (÷).  That's why you arrive at the answer 288 instead of 2, which is the answer to the question posed in the original post [48÷2(9+3)].

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Again, can someone refute this example directly?

[/font]

My refutation is based on the idea that "/" is a symbol for fractions, not division, whereas "÷" is a symbol for division, not fractions.  So, the answer to the equation:

48/2(9+3)

is 288.

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect.

How so?  I ask because we arrived at the same conclusion.

I refute your refutation on the grounds that both signs actually hold the same mathematical meaning. They are actually interchangeable in a way.

 

[holdenmichael]

Originally Posted by loendradio

It made sense for me when I wrote it out in this form.

Remember that we read math from left to right and that multiplication and division are equal. Therefore, after we add the contents of the parenthesis, we divide 48 by 2 first since it occurs first in the equation when read from left to right.

Notice that you are using symbols for fractions (/ and –), not division (÷).  That's why you arrive at the answer 288 instead of 2, which is the answer to the question posed in the original post [48÷2(9+3)].

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Again, can someone refute this example directly?

[/font]

My refutation is based on the idea that "/" is a symbol for fractions, not division, whereas "÷" is a symbol for division, not fractions.  So, the answer to the equation:

48/2(9+3)

is 288.

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect.

How so?  I ask because we arrived at the same conclusion.

I refute your refutation on the grounds that both signs actually hold the same mathematical meaning. They are actually interchangeable in a way.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect. Once everyone goes to school Monday the math teachers will prove the answer if two. The question is asking you to multiple 2 time 12, then divide by 24.

Pmdas. Parenthesis 1st, multiplication 2nd, divison 3rd.

P first. (9 plus 3)
M next 2 X 12
D follows. 48/24

Multiplication and Division are the same thing.  They are interchangeable (which is why sometimes you see PEMDAS and sometimes you see BEDMAS). 

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

Holdenmichael... your jargon is incorrect. Once everyone goes to school Monday the math teachers will prove the answer if two. The question is asking you to multiple 2 time 12, then divide by 24.

Pmdas. Parenthesis 1st, multiplication 2nd, divison 3rd.

P first. (9 plus 3)
M next 2 X 12
D follows. 48/24

Multiplication and Division are the same thing.  They are interchangeable (which is why sometimes you see PEMDAS and sometimes you see BEDMAS). 

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

texas instruments wouldnt lie to me would it?

Texas Instruments does lie. Actually quite a lot. You can't just look at an equation and plug it in, you have to understand how that computer thinks in order for it to work correctly. People have plugged this problem into Google and Wolfram Alpha, only to get 288 because both of these computation engines added parentheses in places where they don't exist in the original problem, altering the entire thing. Your TI-83 or 84 is doing the exact same thing.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

texas instruments wouldnt lie to me would it?

Texas Instruments does lie. Actually quite a lot. You can't just look at an equation and plug it in, you have to understand how that computer thinks in order for it to work correctly. People have plugged this problem into Google and Wolfram Alpha, only to get 288 because both of these computation engines added parentheses in places where they don't exist in the original problem, altering the entire thing. Your TI-83 or 84 is doing the exact same thing.