On April 08 2011 21:09 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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.
That's pretty funny too. I would love to hear from one of the guys who voted on 288 and 1/(2*x) how did they come to it ^^
On April 08 2011 21:09 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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.
On April 08 2011 21:14 theSAiNT wrote: It seems to me what is interesting isn't so much which is the 'right' answer but how inconsistent people are being.
If you parse the first question 48÷2(9+3) as 48/2*(9+3) you get 288.
Then you should also parse the second question 1/2x as (1/2)*x.
However, it seems the majority of people are answering 288 for the first question but 1/(2*x) for the second.
You can't defend both positions.
(I answered 2 and 1/(2*x) which is technically wrong but at least consistent.)
Edit: ok some people beat me to it.
I usually take variables as applying to the number immediately preceding it. 9 + 3 isn't a variable, so I assume that it is just a multiplied term on the end. I'd interpret 1/x2 as 1/x * 2, but 1/2x as 1/(2*x).
I think its just a byproduct of how I was taught algebra.
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.
If we want to use the same argumentation. The problem with the second one is that it's extremely ambiguous, I don't think I ever saw it written like that. -_-
On April 08 2011 21:14 theSAiNT wrote: If you parse the first question 48÷2(9+3) as 48/2*(9+3) you get 288.
You're being inconsistent too. 48/2*(9+3) is just as ambiguous and could mean either 2 or 288 just like the original form
No it's not. 48/2*(9+3) unambiguously = 288.
The ambiguity in the first question is if you take 48/2(9+3) to mean 48/(2*(9+3)).
48/2*(9+3) can mean 48/(2*(9+3)) too. The / sign is the problem, you cannot be sure where the denominators are. If you want a 288 you just type (48/2)*(9+3) and then you go, no ambiguity.
On April 08 2011 21:14 theSAiNT wrote: If you parse the first question 48÷2(9+3) as 48/2*(9+3) you get 288.
You're being inconsistent too. 48/2*(9+3) is just as ambiguous and could mean either 2 or 288 just like the original form
No it's not. 48/2*(9+3) unambiguously = 288.
The ambiguity in the first question is if you take 48/2(9+3) to mean 48/(2*(9+3)).
48/2*(9+3) can mean 48/(2*(9+3)) too. The / sign is the problem, you cannot be sure where the denominators are. If you want a 288 you just type (48/2)*(9+3) and then you go, no ambiguity.
48/2(9+3) = 48/2*(9+3) = ambiguous = 2 or 288
(48/2)*(9+3) = 288
48/(2*(9+3)) = 2
It's not ambiguous. If it's just a plain division sign with no parenthesis in the denominator it's just 48/2 as your first term. If it had parenthesis around (2(9+3)) then you'd be correct. Since it doesn't you shouldn't assume there might be an implied parenthesis. The case is very clear.
On April 08 2011 21:09 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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.
That's pretty funny too. I would love to hear from one of the guys who voted on 288 and 1/(2*x) how did they come to it ^^
That would be me for example, i suppose the reasoning is that if You work a lot with functions You tend to cluster numbers and letters togther and treat them as single entity. Well they are not single entity but same part of equation, at least for some purposes. Like in
On April 08 2011 21:14 theSAiNT wrote: If you parse the first question 48÷2(9+3) as 48/2*(9+3) you get 288.
You're being inconsistent too. 48/2*(9+3) is just as ambiguous and could mean either 2 or 288 just like the original form
No it's not. 48/2*(9+3) unambiguously = 288.
The ambiguity in the first question is if you take 48/2(9+3) to mean 48/(2*(9+3)).
But since there aren't any second parenthesises(sp?) we cannot justify parsing it as if it had and we have to parse it like your first example.
I'll admit I did parse it so I calculated 2 but that was only because I did the automatic 2(x+y)=2x+2y calculation like I've learned in school, looking closer at it I realize I was wrong and I don't see any ambiguity in it any more.
(Just realized theSAiNT just said exactly the same thing).
People are confusing themselves by performing BIMDAS (or BODMAS depending on where you studied) incorrectly.
48/2(9+3) is:
THE SAME as 48/2*(3+9) DIFFERENT to 48/(2*(3+9))
Because multiplication and division have the same precedence, you could legitimately rewrite the expression as:
(9+3)*48/2. This has absolutely no ambiguity, simply because of the way it's written. Remember that 2(9+3) is simply a short hand that eliminates the need to write the multiplier.
Distributive laws would ONLY come into effect in the second expression, requiring precedence provided by the outer layer of brackets.
48÷2(9+3) Left to right since brackets are elim. 48/2*12 24 * (12) = 288
i think some people misread the problem as this:
48 --------- 2(9+3)
therefore getting answer 2.
I'm not sure but if isnt there a rule into solving equations through fraction or some other expressions and wouldnt it be listed in the question itself? like if the question is placed as a fraction then yes, you solve it via fraction but if the question is listed as an equation like that you have to strictly follow it? college student here ^^
On April 08 2011 21:34 xza wrote: 48÷2(9+3) Left to right since brackets are elim. 48/2*12 24 * (12) = 288
i think some people misread the problem as this:
48 --------- 2(9+3)
therefore getting answer 2.
I'm not sure but if isnt there a rule into solving equations through fraction or some other expressions and wouldnt it be listed in the question itself? like if the question is placed as a fraction then yes, you solve it via fraction but if the question is listed as an equation like that you have to strictly follow it? college student here ^^
I read maths until I was 17, and yeah I did read it as your example at first. After reading a few comments I felt dumb though, it's like basic 6th grade shit. Only problem is that not ONCE in my entire fucking life have I had this kind of math problem.
I doubt you'd ever see anything like this in any exam.
EPT
