EPTOn April 08 2011 16:23 LTT wrote:
![[image loading]](http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9549/headasplode.jpg)
ye lol xD
A Simple Math Problem? - Page 60
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
ye lol xD | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:23 LTT wrote: Yep, pretty good improvement from TI-85 to TI-86. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:24 Daozzt wrote: I'm going to stop responding now since it's hopeless. You've pretty much fried my brain. Not really. I thought it was 288 too 6 pages ago. I'm 100% sure it's 2 no matter what now. | ||
|
Archontas
United States319 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:16 Daozzt wrote: Thanks for linking me the website ^_^ But there's still this: 48 ÷ 2 * (9+3) I forgive you if people read right to left where you're from, but it's 288. Read the OP. It does not say 48÷2*(9+3), which would of course evaluate to 288. It very explicitly says 48÷2(9+3). Order of operations is a matter of notation, and the use of a different notation for multiplication (juxtaposition across a parenthesis, instead of a 'times' sign) allows for a different order of operations. Indeed, it is common to interpret 2(9+3) or 2x as an inseparable block which takes precedence over division, even though multiplication by 'times' sign does not. Of course, problems of this nature only arise if you're working in the primitive world of division signs... | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:29 Archontas wrote: This thread is amazing. I thought nothing would ever compare to "airplane on a treadmill" or "does 0.99999... = 1?" Obviously you've never had someone try to tell you that imaginary numbers are less real than real numbers. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:30 Robstickle wrote: Obviously you've never had someone try to tell you that imaginary numbers are less real than real numbers. OH MY GOD I want to have that discussion! | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 08 2011 15:57 BluePanther wrote: Yup, it was posted before, but it's a long thread ^^Like has been said much earlier.... it's a matter of semantics. Both are completely legitimate answers depending on the standard being used. A lot of computer programs use the technically wrong answers, which is why when you program you tend to abuse parentheticals... | ||
|
ISighZ
United States270 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:27 chonkyfire wrote: Not really. I thought it was 288 too 6 pages ago. I'm 100% sure it's 2 no matter what now. May I ask what make you so sure that it's 2? I want to know your explanation | ||
|
101TFP
420 Posts
Having 2 terms written directly next to each other does nothing but leave the * out. So 2*(9+3) = 2(9+3) The only reason you think that the 2 should be muliplied with each number in the bracket individually is because usually it's something like (9x+3) in typical math questions in which case you would have to multiply 2 with each individually to solve the bracket. In this case however, you can solve the brackets by just adding the two numbers together, which removes the brackets, making it 48/2*12. You could also write it like this (48)/(2)*(12) if you want your brackets. Still 288, no argument necessary here. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48/2(9+3) http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=48/2(9+3)&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=a175e2da902f2e1b | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:33 ISighZ wrote: May I ask what make you so sure that it's 2? I want to know your explanation 2(9+3) is always 24 there's a difference between 24(9+3) and 48/24 | ||
|
valheru
Australia966 Posts
But it isn't it is 48 / 2(9+3) expanding the brackets with the implied muliply takes precedence the B in BODMAS stands for brackets To get 288 it would be better written (48/2) X (9+3) brackets (24) X (12) therefore 288 There is a degree of ambiguity to it. It would be better if it could be draw more like 48 OVER 2 X (9+3) with a big line 48 OVER 24 then (9+3) next to it BTW what does the O in BODMAS stand for? | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:35 chonkyfire wrote: 2(9+3) is always 24 there's a difference between 24(9+3) and 48/24 But at what point did u decide it was correct to calculate from right to left? | ||
|
Hierarch
United States2197 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:37 Deckkie wrote: But at what point did u decide it was correct to calculate from right to left? It's not about reading right to left, 2 is distributed throughout the parenthesis. | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:35 chonkyfire wrote: 2(9+3) is always 24 there's a difference between 24(9+3) and 48/24 Indubitably, piper pied. Now hold on my brother, no no no no, can't stop the stride. | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:21 mcc wrote: Reminds me of a joke from studies. When they asked a CS guy in the first year of uni how much is 2+2, he answered immediately. Student in the second year typed it into a calculator and answered. Student in the third year wrote a program in C to get the answer. Student in the 4th year wrote whole OS designed to solve problems like that and at the end asked : What was the question ? And the student just before final exams angrily shouted : how should I remember all those stupid constants. I'd love to see you prove that the answer to 2+2 is 4. IIRC, it took Russell 300+ pages to prove that 1+1 was 2. | ||
|
emesen
United States256 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:35 chonkyfire wrote: 2(9+3) is always 24 there's a difference between 24(9+3) and 48/24 If i read the original problem aloud I get this... 48 divided by 2 times 12... which is 288 i dont read it as 48 divided by 24 because that ignores the order of operations... | ||
|
ISighZ
United States270 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:35 chonkyfire wrote: 2(9+3) is always 24 there's a difference between 24(9+3) and 48/24 Uhh what.. according to the order of operation the result is 24*12. Well anyway I'm done in this thread. I will always read it as 288 but I will accept the answer 2 since the way OP posted the equation is flaw(It's not really flaw but I'm really conflicted as to how people keep arguing it's 2) but I'm willing to accept the answer 2. | ||
|
FindMeInKenya
United States797 Posts
obvious troll is obvious troll. | ||
|
Talho
Belgium592 Posts
On April 08 2011 16:27 Daozzt wrote: Yep, pretty good improvement from TI-85 to TI-86. hmm I got a TI-84+ and I get 288 | ||
| ||
