|
On April 08 2011 20:10 Yuljan wrote:without the * its 2 if you add a * its 288. All people who got 288 are dumb. Just try with your calculator if you dont believe me. 48/2(9+3) is actually ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SZrfJ.gif) like someone already said.
sigh...
Calculators do it in different ways as have been stated several times in this thread. My quite expensive calculator get 288. Does that mean it's the correct answer? Not neccesarily. And that goes for your as well. Try actually reading the thread and then come back with a more elaborate way to argue your point.
|
On April 08 2011 20:10 Yuljan wrote:without the * its 2 if you add a * its 288. All people who got 288 are dumb. Just try with your calculator if you dont believe me. 48/2(9+3) is actually like someone already said.
Haha obvious troll
Still funny, you made my day sir.
|
Troll thread.
A very successful one at that.
|
This little piece ----> ÷ <----- is one of my most hated signs. Always brings up confusions.
Yeh, it's 288, but it's damn easy to misunderstand
|
On April 08 2011 19:06 dthree wrote:
why would people think 1/2x = (1/2)x? if you wanted to write that why wouldn't you put x/2 ???
It's ambiguous because of the concatenation in 2x. If you'd put either a * sign or brackets, you'd be safe. Wolfram Alpha parses it as 1/(2*x). Sure, you could write x/2 but in some cases, writing the fraction part separately makes simplifying the expression easier.
|
On April 08 2011 19:45 Let it Raine wrote:
here's how I would do it, as someone who has never been to college and took the easiest/fewest math courses possible in high school.
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
24*12
288
is this right
yes lol.
everything in brackets comes first..
then you use order of operations to sort out what goes next and next. DMAS = division, multiplication, addition, subtraction.
you get a gold star!
|
On April 08 2011 19:45 Let it Raine wrote:
here's how I would do it, as someone who has never been to college and took the easiest/fewest math courses possible in high school.
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
24*12
288
is this right
Thats what I would expect, almost everyone has to go through some form of PEMDAS, which is a stupid convention in the first place. See the problem is that 2( is strictly an algebraic notation.
In algebra you don't need to go from left to right, or even need to use division or multiplication. In algebra things inside a parenthese represent an operation that usually can't be factored anymore and outside the () is a coefficient, it can be to the left or to the right. So c(x+3) is the same as (x+3)c and
(1/2)*(3+2) is the same as (2^-1)(3+2).
Again both answers are just a result of following a convention. Someone who has takes algebra and is used to working with equations are going to be more prone to answer 2, since they see (48((2(9+3))^-1)) i.e g*f^(-1) where f is the object 2(9+3) where 2 defines the number of (9+3) objects.
I think the algebraic convention is much stronger and reflects the binary nature of operators more.
But without context they are both just as correct.
|
On April 08 2011 19:26 Luddite wrote:[...]The fraction bar is called a "vinculum". How do you even type ÷, anyway? Is everyone just copy pasting it like I did?
The vinculum is a horizontal bar used to group things together (like repeating fractions, the horizontal part of a radical, conjugation of a complex number or in boolean algebra for negation). It's not the fraction bar.
|
Yeah, it's funny seeing how all the idiots are coming out of the woodworks here.
By idiots, I don't mean the people who got the question wrong. I mean the people using terms such as "stupid", "morons", etc to describe people that got the question wrong. A question that is explicitly worded/formatted in such a way as to confuse people.
Besides, just put this thing in a proper case fraction or built-up fraction and all the ambiguity goes away.
On April 08 2011 20:28 gix_ wrote:
The vinculum is a horizontal bar used to group things together (like repeating fractions, the horizontal part of a radical, conjugation of a complex number or in boolean algebra for negation). It's not the fraction bar.
Wiki says otherwise.
|
On April 08 2011 05:45 MasterOfChaos wrote:
Arguing about conventions is utterly stupid.
I was a bout to write that, but you beat me to it 
Just to re-iterate: This is just convention.
Strict mathematics would not be able to reduce this term to a single value because multiplication and division are equal tier binding AND multiplication is commutative and associative.
|
at first i thought this was 2 too... but this is 288.
everyone assumes that the division sign works like a fraction where everything after it is the "denominator" but really, this is just (48/2) * (9+3). math isn't subjective lol, or else you can't balance equations. if it's put in that form, nobody gets this question wrong.
|
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR
i was always taught BIMDAS
Brackets
Indices
multiplication
division
addition
subtraction
which gives me 2....... -.-
|
On April 08 2011 20:23 andrewwiggin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:45 Let it Raine wrote:
here's how I would do it, as someone who has never been to college and took the easiest/fewest math courses possible in high school.
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
24*12
288
is this right
yes lol. everything in brackets comes first.. then you use order of operations to sort out what goes next and next. DMAS = division, multiplication, addition, subtraction. you get a gold star!
|
On April 08 2011 20:49 MagickMan wrote:
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR
i was always taught BIMDAS
Brackets
Indices
multiplication
division
addition
subtraction
which gives me 2....... -.-
Division and multiplication have equal priority, left to right, just like addition and subtraction do. It just has to do with what division actually is the field of real numbers, division and multiplication can't have different priorities
|
It's 2.
48/2(9+3) and
48/2*(9+3)
are completely different.
First reads 48/(2*9+2*3) and second reads 48/2*1(9+3).
2(9*3) cannot be broken apart.
and for those using google... google doesn't know many theorems.
EDIT: it's called distributive property of multiplication in english durr :>
EDIT2: @Poster beneath me
I didn't mean to troll, if some of you interpreted my post that way i'm sorry as i'm not a native english speaker. And yes i should read the whole thread.
And yes it depends on how people are interpreting it and what theorems you are using. You are contradicting yourself with this statement as i interpret it in my way and you in yours.
So it sounds wrong to say others interpretations are completely wrong.
EDIT3: Reading your Post again you assume your way is the only correct Solution, it is not.
|
On April 08 2011 20:59 Snowball_ wrote:
It's 2.
48/2(9+3) and
48/2*(9+3)
are completely different.
First reads 48/(2*9+2*3) and second reads 48/2*1(9+3).
2(9*3) cannot be broken apart.
and for those using google... google doesn't know many theorems.
EDIT: it's called distributive property of multiplication in english durr :>
Nice first post. Some people here are actually expressing valid points and discussing it.
Please don't troll this thread any more.
EDIT : I feel i need to clarify why i'm assuming he's trolling, or else people might think i'm just being a jerk to someone who's not good at math. You did not read the thread, this is your first post and you wrote something so ridiculously wrong it hurt my brain.
48/2(9+3) and 48/2*(9+3) are the exact same thing. The issue here is that it may be interpreted differently.
|
Please, everyone read Distributivity@Wiki, before posting in this thread.
TLDR:
[quotei]
4(8+2)= (4x8)+(4x2) because
4(8+2)=4(10)=40
[/quote]
Edit: Snowball_ has a valid point, regardless the way it was presented.
|
On April 08 2011 19:06 dthree wrote:
why would people think 1/2x = (1/2)x? if you wanted to write that why wouldn't you put x/2 ???
1/2x = 1/2*x ... -> solve in order = 0.5x
Not that hard to think it's exactly that 
btw, I like the horizontal lines for division much better than the slash... it gets rid of any doubt:
1
--- X
2
|
|
|
How is it that four out of seven people voted for 288, yet two-thirds voted for the 1/(2*x) interpretation of 1/2x when the two readings are mutually exclusive?
As of the present, there are more votes for 1/(2*x) than for 2! Which merely suggest that a large number of you flip-flopped on your flippant certainties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
