48÷2(9+3) = ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • imsotyerred
    R3VLimited
    • Oct 2005
    • 2529

    #106
    Originally posted by frankenbeemer
    If you're saying the first division symbol encountered in the equation groups all operations after it, then 12/4+2=2. I'm wondering where in your third grade math book it says that.
    no

    __12__
    ....4..... +2 = 3+2 = 5

    __12__
    .(4+2)...= 12/6 = 2

    two completely different equations
    BRUTE

    Comment

    • tonywonder
      E30 Mastermind
      • Sep 2009
      • 1688

      #107
      48/2(9+3)=2

      (48/2)(9+3)=288

      Comment

      • Big Willy
        E30 Addict
        • Jun 2009
        • 552

        #108
        Originally posted by tjts1
        48/2*(9+3) =288
        48/(2*(9+3)) =2
        Order of operations for multiplication and division is left to right.
        instagram

        Comment

        • reelizmpro
          R3V OG
          • Dec 2003
          • 9465

          #109
          48/2(9+3)
          48/2(12)
          2 is actually DISTRIBUTED into parentheses as it's the only way to get rid of parentheses at this point. Which is not the same as 2x12. Technically, it's multiplication through distribution.
          48/24
          2

          another way to do it...

          48/2(9+3)
          48/(18+6) 2 is Distributed into parentheses but they remain UNTIL the two terms have been added! This takes priority over the DIVIDE symbol.
          48/24
          2

          yet another way to do it...
          48/2(9+3)
          24/(9+3) expression is simplified by the factor 2. Parentheses still remain!
          24/12
          2

          You must resist the temptation to divide into 48 without first getting rid of the parentheses.
          "I'd probably take the E30 M3 in this case just because I love that little car, and how tanky that inline 6 is." - thecj

          85 323i M TECH 1 S52 - ALPINEWEISS/SCHWARZE
          88 M3 - LACHSSILBER/SCHWARZE
          89 M3 - ALPINEWEISS II/M TECH CLOTH-ALCANTARA
          91 M TECHNIC CABRIO TURBO - MACAOBLAU/M TECH CLOTH-LEATHER

          Comment

          • frankenbeemer
            R3VLimited
            • Sep 2009
            • 2260

            #110
            A better explanation below. Note, it does throw a bone to those who would get the answer 2, but that is not a rigorous use of PEDMAS. In the absence of a strict rule that says that implied multiplication has a higher priority than regular multiplication (which he alludes to, but no one has yet supplied despite repeated requests) I would conclude that 2 is a sloppy answer.

            Order of Operations

            Date: 05/19/99 at 13:54:24
            From: Stephanie Wu and Meghan Heil
            Subject: Algebraic expressions and order of operation

            The problem was presented like this:

            a = 1.56
            b = 1.2
            x = 7.2
            y = 0.2

            ax/by = ?

            Here are two ways that I solved it:

            1) I first rewrote the problem as [1.56(7.2)/ 1.2](0.2). Second, a was
            multiplied by x. The product was 11.232. Then, since no parentheses
            were present, I followed the order of operations and divided 11.232 by
            b, which was 1.2. The quotient was 9.36. Then I multiplied 9.36 by y,
            which was 0.2. The final answer was 1.872.

            2) The other way, the first thing I did was multiply a by x. The
            product, which was 11.232, was set aside for the time being. Then b
            was multiplied by y, which gave the product of 0.24. The problem was
            now solved by dividing 11.232 (or ax) by 0.24 (or by) to reach a final
            answer of 46.8.

            Can you please tell us which answer is correct and why?

            Date: 05/19/99 at 17:03:49
            From: Doctor Peterson
            Subject: Re: Algebraic expressions and order of operation

            Hi, Stephanie and Meghan.

            You are not alone in wondering about this. We have had several other
            questions about expressions similar to yours, from confused teachers
            and students who have found that different books or teachers have
            different answers, and even calculators disagree.

            As written, your expression

            ax/by

            should be evaluated left to right: a times x, divided by b, times y.
            The multiplication is not done before the division, but both are done
            in the order they appear. Your first solution is right.

            Some texts make a rule, as in your second solution, that
            multiplication without a symbol ("implied multiplication") should be
            done before any other operations in an expression, including "explicit
            multiplication" using a symbol. Following this rule, you would
            multiply a by x, then multiply b and y, then divide one by the other.
            Some (probably most) texts don't mention such a rule - but some of
            those may use it without saying so, which is far worse.

            I don't know of a general rule among mathematicians that implied
            multiplication should be done before explicit multiplication. As far
            as I'm concerned, all multiplications fit in the same place in the
            order of operations. It's not an unreasonable rule, though, since it
            does seem that implied multiplication ties the operands together more
            tightly, at least visually; but the idea of Order of Operations (or
            precedence, as it is called in the computer world) is supposed to be
            to ensure that everyone will interpret an otherwise ambiguous
            expression the same way - so if some texts change the rules, or if
            people do what feels natural, the purpose has been lost.

            The problem here is that the expression looks as if it were meant to
            be

            ax
            ----
            by

            In the Dr. Math FAQ about writing math in e-mail, one of our
            recommendations is to use parentheses wherever possible to avoid
            ambiguity, even where the rules should make it clear, because it can
            be easy to forget them in some situations:



            (click on the Fractions link).

            So in e-mail we would write it like this:

            ax/(by) or (ax/b)*y

            depending on what is intended.

            In my research for another Dr. Math "patient," I found that some
            calculators have experimented with this rule. Calculators have
            somewhat different needs than mathematicians, since they have to take
            input linearly, one character after another, so they are forced to
            make a decision about it. On the TI Web site I learned that they
            deliberately put this "feature" into the TI 82, and then took it out
            of the TI 83, probably because they decided it was not a standard rule
            and would confuse people. Take a look at their explanation:

            Explore the #1 recommended brand of graphing calculators in the U.S. Get free math and science lessons—Download STEM projects—Sign up for professional learning.


            They also talk about a similar issue for exponentiation of the form
            a^b^c, and give the same conclusion we give: always use parentheses
            where a statement is ambiguous without special rules:

            Explore the #1 recommended brand of graphing calculators in the U.S. Get free math and science lessons—Download STEM projects—Sign up for professional learning.


            So to answer your question, I think both answers can be considered
            right - which means, of course, that the question itself is wrong. I
            prefer the standard way (your first answer) when talking to students,
            unless their own text gives the "implicit multiplication first" rule;
            but in practice if I came across that expression, I would probably
            first check where it came from to see if I could tell what was
            intended. The main lesson to learn is not which rule to follow, but
            how to avoid ambiguity in what you write yourself. Don't give other
            people this kind of trouble.

            - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
            sigpic
            Originally posted by JinormusJ
            Don't buy an e30

            They're stupid
            1989 325is Raged on then sold.
            1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
            1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
            1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

            Comment

            • frankenbeemer
              R3VLimited
              • Sep 2009
              • 2260

              #111
              I didn't check links before posting. Looks like at least one is useless, sorry. Nevertheless, a good explanation of the ambiguity here. To arrive at that ambiguity you must either violate PEDMAS or add additional rules to PEDMAS.
              sigpic
              Originally posted by JinormusJ
              Don't buy an e30

              They're stupid
              1989 325is Raged on then sold.
              1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
              1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
              1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

              Comment

              • frankenbeemer
                R3VLimited
                • Sep 2009
                • 2260

                #112
                Originally posted by reelizmpro

                yet another way to do it...
                48/2(9+3)
                24/(9+3) expression is simplified by the factor 2. Parentheses still remain!
                24/12
                2
                This clearly violates PEDMAS as you must get rid of the parentheses first.
                sigpic
                Originally posted by JinormusJ
                Don't buy an e30

                They're stupid
                1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                Comment

                • frankenbeemer
                  R3VLimited
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 2260

                  #113
                  Originally posted by imsotyerred
                  no

                  __12__
                  ....4..... +2 = 3+2 = 5

                  __12__
                  .(4+2)...= 12/6 = 2

                  two completely different equations
                  http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.typing.math.html Look at how to write fractions. This is you confusing ÷ with /.
                  Last edited by frankenbeemer; 04-10-2011, 05:06 AM. Reason: format
                  sigpic
                  Originally posted by JinormusJ
                  Don't buy an e30

                  They're stupid
                  1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                  1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                  1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                  1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                  Comment

                  • frankenbeemer
                    R3VLimited
                    • Sep 2009
                    • 2260

                    #114
                    the idea of Order of Operations (or
                    precedence, as it is called in the computer world) is supposed to be
                    to ensure that everyone will interpret an otherwise ambiguous
                    expression the same way - so if some texts change the rules, or if
                    people do what feels natural, the purpose has been lost.


                    If you can't produce the rule that says 2(9+3) is treated differently than 2x(9+3) or 2*(9+3), you are violating PEDMAS. Show me the exception.
                    sigpic
                    Originally posted by JinormusJ
                    Don't buy an e30

                    They're stupid
                    1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                    1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                    1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                    1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                    Comment

                    • imsotyerred
                      R3VLimited
                      • Oct 2005
                      • 2529

                      #115
                      Originally posted by frankenbeemer
                      http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.typing.math.html Look at how to write fractions. This is you confusing ÷ with /.
                      how can I be confusing them? they are the SAME FUCKING THING\

                      also, as stated previously by another member, you are not done with the parenthetical part of the equation...the 2 is attached to the (9+3).
                      BRUTE

                      Comment

                      • frankenbeemer
                        R3VLimited
                        • Sep 2009
                        • 2260

                        #116
                        Originally posted by imsotyerred
                        how can I be confusing them? they are the SAME FUCKING THING
                        Hint: It is not a vinculum.
                        sigpic
                        Originally posted by JinormusJ
                        Don't buy an e30

                        They're stupid
                        1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                        1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                        1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                        1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                        Comment

                        • KenC
                          King of Kegstands
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 14396

                          #117
                          Originally posted by frankenbeemer
                          When you add 9 + 3 you get 12, then you are done with the parenthetical element. At that point, you return to the left because multiplication and division are equal operators. I have yet to see the rule which states that 2(some operation) is different from 2*(some operation) or 2 x (some operation).
                          You don't add 9+3, you distribute the 2 through and it becomes (18+6)
                          Originally posted by Gruelius
                          and i do not know what bugg brakes are.

                          Comment

                          • frankenbeemer
                            R3VLimited
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 2260

                            #118
                            Another hint: 48÷2*(9+3) is not the same as:

                            48
                            2*(9+3)

                            Sorry for the poor format. It is supposed to reflect the equation written as a fraction. The fraction bar is a vinculum. All operations are to be performed under the vinculum before proceeding. Why do you treat the / symbol as a vinculum in some cases and not in others?

                            If you follow PEDMAS in the equation 48÷2*(9+3) do you not get 288? What rule says 48÷2(9+3) is different?
                            Last edited by frankenbeemer; 04-10-2011, 05:59 AM.
                            sigpic
                            Originally posted by JinormusJ
                            Don't buy an e30

                            They're stupid
                            1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                            1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                            1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                            1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                            Comment

                            • frankenbeemer
                              R3VLimited
                              • Sep 2009
                              • 2260

                              #119
                              Originally posted by KenC
                              You don't add 9+3, you distribute the 2 through and it becomes (18+6)
                              Where is this rule written down? I don't see it in PEDMAS. How do you know that you must distribute this? Is it just a personal preference? What compels you to violate left to right order here if division and multiplication are equal? Where is the rule that says implied multiplication must take precedence over PEDMAS?
                              sigpic
                              Originally posted by JinormusJ
                              Don't buy an e30

                              They're stupid
                              1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                              1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                              1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                              1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                              Comment

                              • frankenbeemer
                                R3VLimited
                                • Sep 2009
                                • 2260

                                #120
                                Originally posted by imsotyerred

                                also, as stated previously by another member, you are not done with the parenthetical part of the equation...the 2 is attached to the (9+3).
                                What law says the 2 is attached? Is it not implied multiplication?

                                The info I posted above says that some textbooks treat implied multiplication as higher order. Does your third grade book do so? Please cite. Apparently, not all texts do (according to Dr, Math, whoever he is). It's ok with me if you want to do so, but I see no reason to violate PEDMAS to do it. It seems to me if you are going to ignore the PEDMAS order, you should be able to provide a reason that supercedes PEDMAS order. You have not done so.
                                sigpic
                                Originally posted by JinormusJ
                                Don't buy an e30

                                They're stupid
                                1989 325is Raged on then sold.
                                1988 325 SETA 2DR Beaten to death, then parted.
                                1988 325 SETA 4DR Parted.
                                1990 325i Cabrio Daily'd, then stored 2 yrs ago.

                                Comment

                                Working...