48÷2(9+3) = ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ThePotsy
    Wrencher
    • Jul 2008
    • 210

    #151


    This isn't "super advanced college math" here people. This is basic. Very basic. Link above even has a similar problem.

    "This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing."

    Code:
    16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
        = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
        = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
        = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
        = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
        = 4 + 1
        = 5
    Notice they DISTRIBUTED the 2 to the 2 instead of using it to divide 16.

    People who think it's 288 are the reason we can't have nice things. :p

    Last edited by ThePotsy; 04-10-2011, 07:03 PM.
    "Our mother of blessed acceleration don't fail me now."

    Comment

    • ck_taft325is
      R3V OG
      • Sep 2007
      • 6880

      #152
      Originally posted by ThePotsy
      http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

      This isn't "super advanced college math" here people. This is basic. Very basic. Link above even has a similar problem.

      "This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing."

      Code:
      16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
          = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
          = 4 + 1
          = 5
      Notice they DISTRIBUTED the 2 to the 2 instead of using it to divide 16.

      People who think it's 288 are the reason we can't have nice things. :p

      I'm sorry, I missed everything you said. Mind repeating?
      Need a part? PM me.

      Get your Bass on. Luke's r3v Boxes are here: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=198123

      Comment

      • reelizmpro
        R3V OG
        • Dec 2003
        • 9448

        #153
        Originally posted by WhatWentWong
        No, you gotta look at the entire equation, not just a snip of it.

        48 / 2(9+3)

        = 48 / 2 x (9+3)

        = 24 x (9+3)

        = 24 x 9 + 24 x 3 (distributive applies here, no earlier)

        = 288

        IF it is 48/ [2(9+3)], then:

        = 48 /[2x9 + 2x3] (distributive applies earlier)

        = 48 / 24

        = 2
        What went wrong is you wrote 2x(9+3) while it's 2(9+3) or 2(12) = 24. Parentheses remain until you add (18+6) or distribute 2 into (12) to get 24. C'mon guys...basic algebra. 48 divide by...is a trap. MF parentheses >>>>> all. Keep doing the problem until you get rid of the parentheses first.
        "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

        • tonywonder
          E30 Mastermind
          • Sep 2009
          • 1688

          #154
          Originally posted by lambo
          How, exactly, is it implied?

          Isn't 2(9 + 3) the same as 2 * (9 + 3), the same way 2(4) is the same as 2 * 4?

          Whatever, I'll just stick to what my calculator tells me...

          the way you have to input it into the calculator is not the same as the way the problem is suppose to be solved based on the equation provided. had to use those calculators a lot in calculus and they constantly gave wrong answers without a little proper and more specific indication of telling the calculator how to apply implied multiplication.

          it also really depends on how the original equation is written out on paper.



          =2



          =288

          Comment

          • frankenbeemer
            R3VLimited
            • Sep 2009
            • 2260

            #155
            Originally posted by reelizmpro
            What went wrong is you wrote 2x(9+3) while it's 2(9+3) or 2(12) = 24. Parentheses remain until you add (18+6) or distribute 2 into (12) to get 24. C'mon guys...basic algebra. 48 divide by...is a trap. MF parentheses >>>>> all. Keep doing the problem until you get rid of the parentheses first.
            This assertion is by no means as universal. Some texts apparently treat it this way, some don't. If you are asserting this is a universal rule you are on shaky ground.
            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

            • ck_taft325is
              R3V OG
              • Sep 2007
              • 6880

              #156
              Math e-peen all up in this bitch.
              Need a part? PM me.

              Get your Bass on. Luke's r3v Boxes are here: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=198123

              Comment

              • reelizmpro
                R3V OG
                • Dec 2003
                • 9448

                #157
                Originally posted by tonywonder
                the way you have to input it into the calculator is not the same as the way the problem is suppose to be solved based on the equation provided. had to use those calculators a lot in calculus and they constantly gave wrong answers without a little proper and more specific indication of telling the calculator how to apply implied multiplication.

                it also really depends on how the original equation is written out on paper.



                =2



                =288
                Right. However in 2(9+3) the 2 is a FACTOR of (9+3). It's a complete expression. It can be rewritten as (18+6) or 24. Unless it was (48/2)(9+3)....this is how to solve the problem and the answer is 2.
                48/ [2(9+3)] = 48/24 = 2.
                "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

                • tonywonder
                  E30 Mastermind
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 1688

                  #158
                  i completely agree

                  Comment

                  • reelizmpro
                    R3V OG
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 9448

                    #159
                    Originally posted by frankenbeemer
                    This assertion is by no means as universal. Some texts apparently treat it this way, some don't. If you are asserting this is a universal rule you are on shaky ground.
                    The problem is sloppy math. Take it step by step. Write the problem on paper and show each and every step. Get rid of the parentheses in the proper manner. The parentheses remain until the expression 2(9+3) = 24.

                    48 / 2(9+3) Parentheses first
                    48 / 2(12) Parentheses first
                    48 / (24) Parentheses shown for thoroughness
                    2
                    Please understand the difference...
                    2(12) shows multiplication through distribution. Gets priority.
                    2*12 shows simple multiplication only.
                    note: there are no multiplication signs in this problem so don't add any.


                    OK I'm done. I just love math at this level. Much more fun than differential equations.
                    "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

                    • Massimo
                      No R3VLimiter
                      • Jan 2008
                      • 3207

                      #160
                      I failed maths hard core and even I know it is 2. Not that really supports my statement. LOL

                      But this is how it should be done.

                      48/2(9+3)

                      =48/2(12)

                      =48/24

                      =2

                      The reason why 2(9+3) is not the same as 2x(9+3) because with 2x(9+3) the 2 is a separated from the bracket equation therefore you divided before multiply. But if it reads 2(9+3) then it is apart of the bracket equation and therefore comes before the division. This is simple mathematics.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • tonywonder
                        E30 Mastermind
                        • Sep 2009
                        • 1688

                        #161
                        Originally posted by Raxe
                        What's the answer?

                        Comment

                        • Aptyp
                          R3V OG
                          • Feb 2008
                          • 6584

                          #162
                          All day every day, as it is written, without any extra parenthesis, it's 288. You cannot assume 2 is factored out and you cannot assume (9+3) is in the denominator ... As it is written, you solve it.

                          48/2(12) would be the order you'd solve it in, and you solve left to right. Everything else is failing math. My ti-89 also showed 288. So did my ASME Casio. And even my phone...

                          Comment

                          • frankenbeemer
                            R3VLimited
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 2260

                            #163
                            If you believe that implied multiplication has a higher order than explicit multiplication the answer is 2. Unfortunately, this convention does not have the same consensus as PEDMAS. I don't know of any mathematician that doesn't follow PEDMAS, but there are many who do not believe that implicit multiplication (or multiplication by juxtaposition) takes precedence.

                            If you don't believe implicit multiplication takes precedence the answer is 288.

                            I prefer to follow the PEDMAS rules because they are globaly accepted. If I intended the answer to be 288, I would write the equation as it is written, just to be an ass to those who cling to a non-standard rule.
                            Last edited by frankenbeemer; 04-10-2011, 07:57 PM. Reason: unintentional and improper use of whom
                            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

                              #164
                              Originally posted by Raxe
                              It's not sad at all... it's correct.



                              http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
                              My apologies to Raxe for not noticing this earlier, that's what I was repeatedly asking for (even after you posted it), good point. I still assert that this rule does not have the global acceptance that PEDMAS does.
                              Last edited by frankenbeemer; 04-10-2011, 08:03 PM. Reason: forgot something
                              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

                              • tonywonder
                                E30 Mastermind
                                • Sep 2009
                                • 1688

                                #165
                                the reason it is implied is because you solve whats in the parenthesis and work your way out. therefore 2(9+3) is distributed for an answer then used to divide 48. and that IS using PEMDAS. in order for it to be the other way there needs to be clear indication that 48/2 is separate from (9+3) but its not. so 48/2(9+3) is showing that 48 is divided by the 2(9+3) and the answer is 2.

                                Comment

                                Working...