48÷2(9+3) = ???

[thornado327i]

I really can't believe there is a 16 page thread ALL ABOUT A SIMPLE MATH TASK!!!

Next poll: How often do you breathe?
A. Twice a day
B. I don't

[Heysüß]

it's 2.

[Be30mer]

fuck this thread.

[5Toes]

Its 288

do parenthesis and get 12

Then you do 48/2*12 from left to right

[lambo]

[Turd]

"AND SO, THE FATE OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL MAN KIND LIES IN... 48/2(9+3) = ..."

Meh. Tomato, tom-ato. My gut tells me 2 based on order of ops.

[Sailor37]

Someone please close this retarded thread

[lambo]

^ you didnt know that?

I known that...other people have been saying otherwise...

[Conki]

Just asked 3 people with PhDs in Mechanical Engineering to solve the following equation:

"48/2(9+3) = x"

All 3 answered "x = 288".

This ends the discussion for me right here. Kthxbye

[5Toes]

^ you didnt know that?

[lambo]

http://www.lifeisastoryproblem.org/vocab/en/i/impliedmultiplication.html

Huzzah! 2(9+3) can be viewed as 2*(9+3)

[5Toes]

Its 288 asked my AP Calculus teacher today...

damn it

[frankenbeemer]

2 is a FACTOR of the (9+3). You must simplify this term first. You must first DISTRIBUTE the 2 through (9+3). Regardless of what is on the left, if you have 2(9+3), it must be simplified first and you cannot get another answer than 24.

Google doesn't think so. I doubt they left it to random chance. Texas Instruments only thinks so some of the time, they have made a conscious decision to treat it either way in different calculators. Perhaps that is because this is not a universally accepted rule.

From wikipedia: An expression like 1/2x is interpreted as 1/(2x) by TI-82, but as (1/2)x by TI-83. While the first interpretation may be expected by some users, only the latter is in agreement with the standard rules stated above.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Multiplication by juxtaposition takes precedence over normal multiplication(x or * or •)and normal division(/ or ÷)

Mathematicians do not agree this is true.

From knowyourmeme (fine physicists, I know):

Returning to the original problem, if one utilizes the principles of implied multiplication, then “2(9+3)” gets higher precedence than the explicit “48/2,” and would be solved like this:

48 ÷ 2(9+3)=
48 ÷ 2(12)=
48 ÷ 24=
2

Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus on the value of implied multiplication.


See: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

[Conki]

3*2+1=7
3(2+1)=6+3=9

That's not what I was talking about.

I see where you guys are coming from, since juxtaposition is used to prioritize the order of operations, mostly when variables are used.

For example when I write X/YZ, it is assumed that X is over (YZ).

But I personally haven't come across this practice when dealing with numbers, because this equation would be assumed to be a poorly constructed example.

And why do we not use juxtaposition with numbers?

Because 2^3 is not 222.

And this is where the whole debate started, because in 48/2(9+3) you don't have numbers right next to each other.

But if you treated 2(9+3) as it's own entity, you could break it up right? 2(9+3) = 18+6. Now if we go back to the original equation and plug this number in, without parenthesis, that weren't present in the first place, this is what we get:
48/18+6.
Which equals to 8.667.

As I mentioned earlier, I know where you guys are coming from, but this equation is set up incorrectly, and shouldn't be used in the professional field.

[KenC]

let's see... 3*2+1 = 3*3?? No. It's 7.

3*2+1=7
3(2+1)=6+3=9