48÷2(9+3) = ???

[holdenmichael]

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves are 2 wholes and 48 divided by 2 equals 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.  One is the addition of fractions of a whole ("I have 48 halves.") and the other is the division of a dividend (4 by a divisor (2; "I took away half of my 48.").

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)

 

[holdenmichael]

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves are 2 wholes and 48 divided by 2 equals 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.  One is the addition of fractions of a whole ("I have 48 halves.") and the other is the division of a dividend (4 by a divisor (2; "I took away half of my 48.").

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by 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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

 

[bachelor frog]

This thread explain why USA got into financial crisis 

48 : 2 x (9+3) = 48 : 2 x 12 = 24 x 12 = 288 




[font=arial, sans-serif]my bad [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]HankMoody ... math is good tho  

[/font]

 

[bachelor frog]

This thread explain why USA got into financial crisis 

48 : 2 x (9+3) = 48 : 2 x 12 = 24 x 12 = 288 




[font=arial, sans-serif]my bad [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]HankMoody ... math is good tho  

[/font]

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by 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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves and 48 divided by 2 both equal 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)


76÷4 is the same as 76/4. 4÷9 is the same as 4/9. You could almost say that the dots in the ÷ sign signify the numerator and denominator. They're the same thing.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves and 48 divided by 2 both equal 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)


76÷4 is the same as 76/4. 4÷9 is the same as 4/9. You could almost say that the dots in the ÷ sign signify the numerator and denominator. They're the same thing.

 

[two one supreme]

People's personal investment in this issue makes it fascinating. The most intelligent comments have been made in the past two pages, deconstructing the objectivity of solving the problem and accepting the paradox of an equation unsure of what it's asking.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

This thread explain why USA got into financial crysis;

48 : 2 x (9+3) = 48 : 2 x 12 = 24 x 12 = 288 

crysis?

holdenmichael saying it's 2

Don't agree with the notion that the symbols in question are not perfect substitutes.

 

[two one supreme]

People's personal investment in this issue makes it fascinating. The most intelligent comments have been made in the past two pages, deconstructing the objectivity of solving the problem and accepting the paradox of an equation unsure of what it's asking.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by 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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by 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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

This thread explain why USA got into financial crysis;

48 : 2 x (9+3) = 48 : 2 x 12 = 24 x 12 = 288 

crysis?

holdenmichael saying it's 2

Don't agree with the notion that the symbols in question are not perfect substitutes.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro


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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

looks like an informality on their part to me

my calculator simplified in pemdas exactly like how i wrote it out:  48/2(9+3) = 48 / 2 * (9+3), left to right

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro


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.

where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

looks like an informality on their part to me

my calculator simplified in pemdas exactly like how i wrote it out:  48/2(9+3) = 48 / 2 * (9+3), left to right

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves and 48 divided by 2 both equal 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)


76÷4 is the same as 76/4. 4÷9 is the same as 4/9. You could almost say that the dots in the ÷ sign signify the numerator and denominator. They're the same thing.
WAIT. Actually, what Holden says makes a lot of sense. Sorry for disputing you.

If you write the question out as a fraction with the 48 above the 2, it is understood as that fraction having another set of parentheses around them. This happened in this Wolfram Alpha equation

So yeah, Holden is right, the signs make a difference. I take back what I said.

This also means that the answer is 2, because of the sign used.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

bruce negro wrote:

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

No, 48÷2 is spoken as 48 divided by 2.
48/2 is spoken as 48 halves.

Just because both 48 halves and 48 divided by 2 both equal 2 doesn't mean that the symbols for division and fraction are interchangeable in an equation.

I've only read the first page and the last two pages so the sample size is small, but I have yet to read an opinion that would dissuade me from my belief that:

48÷2=48/2

48÷2(9+3)≠48/2(9+3)


76÷4 is the same as 76/4. 4÷9 is the same as 4/9. You could almost say that the dots in the ÷ sign signify the numerator and denominator. They're the same thing.
WAIT. Actually, what Holden says makes a lot of sense. Sorry for disputing you.

If you write the question out as a fraction with the 48 above the 2, it is understood as that fraction having another set of parentheses around them. This happened in this Wolfram Alpha equation

So yeah, Holden is right, the signs make a difference. I take back what I said.

This also means that the answer is 2, because of the sign used.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

looks like an informality on their part to me

my calculator simplified in pemdas exactly like how i wrote it out:  48 / 2 * (9+3), left to right

The problem is that if you were to go into a high school or college calc class and type that into your calculator and write 288, it would be wrong. In all of these classes, it is understood that if you type that into your calculator, you're going to have to add another set of parentheses around the 2 and the last parentheses in order for it to come out right. The 288 people will be salty come Monday.

 

[ncmalko1]

Like I said.... once all the college and high school aged NTers go to school Monday we will all see the answer is 2!

 

[ncmalko1]

Like I said.... once all the college and high school aged NTers go to school Monday we will all see the answer is 2!

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


where are they adding parentheses?  looks to me like my ti-89 did PEMDAS written out as 48 / 2 * (9 + 3)

If you look at past posts, you can see it in the screen shots.

Here's one from pg 39

looks like an informality on their part to me

my calculator simplified in pemdas exactly like how i wrote it out:  48 / 2 * (9+3), left to right

The problem is that if you were to go into a high school or college calc class and type that into your calculator and write 288, it would be wrong. In all of these classes, it is understood that if you type that into your calculator, you're going to have to add another set of parentheses around the 2 and the last parentheses in order for it to come out right. The 288 people will be salty come Monday.

 

[hankmoody]

Oh so that sign is a separator while the / sign isn't. I could see that. I was saying all along that the problem is written like 48 over 2(9+3)

 

[hankmoody]

Oh so that sign is a separator while the / sign isn't. I could see that. I was saying all along that the problem is written like 48 over 2(9+3)

 

[ncmalko1]

All you need to ask your professors is what is the first step in this problem

48/ 2(12)