|
On April 08 2011 21:29 Ace wrote:If you know brackets come first the answer is still 288. There is no way to get 2 following order of operations. 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12) = 24(12) = 288 Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:29 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:22 theSAiNT wrote:On April 08 2011 21:17 VIB wrote: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. This is the part I ask you why can't you assume there are parenthesis. Then you say it's a consensus. Then I say there is no consensus. You say there is because you were taught like that. I say there isn't because it's used differently anywhere else. You say your consensus is better than mine. I ask you to show an official standard to support it. You cannot find it because... there isn't any!
Been there, done that. It's ambiguous ^^
|
On April 08 2011 21:43 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:29 Ace wrote:If you know brackets come first the answer is still 288. There is no way to get 2 following order of operations. 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12) = 24(12) = 288 On April 08 2011 21:29 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:22 theSAiNT wrote:On April 08 2011 21:17 VIB wrote: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. This is the part I ask you why can't you assume there are parenthesis. Then you say it's a consensus. Then I say there is no consensus. You say there is because you were taught like that. I say there isn't because it's used differently anywhere else. You say your consensus is better than mine. I ask you to show an official standard to support it. You cannot find it because... there isn't any! Been there, done that. It's ambiguous ^^
How do you justify such an assumption? There isn't any parenthesis there so I parse it like there isn't any there. 
|
Poll:
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Does a/bc = ac/bIt doesn´t (13) 72% It does (5) 28% 18 total votes Your vote: Does a/bc = ac/b (Vote): It does
(Vote): It doesn´t
Some words:
+ Show Spoiler +If you voted it does, you get 288, if you voted it doesnt you get 2 Basicly, its all how you think it is: ![[image loading]](http://www.upload.ee/image/1255962/Untitled.jpg) I think the upper way, so i always will get 2 out of that calculation, it is just they way I think and that decides what you get out of that. Easy simple, nothing to argue about, just how you think
|
On April 08 2011 21:46 Potatisodlaren wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:43 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:29 Ace wrote:If you know brackets come first the answer is still 288. There is no way to get 2 following order of operations. 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12) = 24(12) = 288 On April 08 2011 21:29 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:22 theSAiNT wrote:On April 08 2011 21:17 VIB wrote: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. This is the part I ask you why can't you assume there are parenthesis. Then you say it's a consensus. Then I say there is no consensus. You say there is because you were taught like that. I say there isn't because it's used differently anywhere else. You say your consensus is better than mine. I ask you to show an official standard to support it. You cannot find it because... there isn't any! Been there, done that. It's ambiguous ^^ How do you justify such an assumption? There isn't any parenthesis there so I parse it like there isn't any there. It's not that you have to magically insert a parenthesis that isn't there. It's that the / sign doesn't make it clear what it's dividing. So it could mean the same as with the parenthesis. Why could it mean that? Because that is how people use it in real life! Like others pointed previously, there is no common "official" rule in math. People all over the world were taught differently and use it differently. To avoid such confusions, that's why you insert the parenthesis, to make sure what you're trying to say is clear.
More importantly. No one uses the ÷ or the / sign in the straight line. So there is no common consensus on it because it's an aberration. We use fractions instead. The / in the same line is only used in programming and there we have many "good practice" books telling you to abuse parenthesis to not get anyone confused.
|
Answered right away, cause I like maths and am lucky I can see through all the numers. Making it easy to make it a simple longer answer.
The comments though made me think for a sec.
|
On April 08 2011 21:51 inimenesc wrote:Poll: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Does a/bc = ac/bIt doesn´t (13) 72% It does (5) 28% 18 total votes Your vote: Does a/bc = ac/b (Vote): It does
(Vote): It doesn´t
Some words: + Show Spoiler +If you voted it does, you get 288, if you voted it doesnt you get 2 Basicly, its all how you think it is: I think the upper way, so i always will get 2 out of that calculation, it is just they way I think and that decides what you get out of that. Easy simple, nothing to argue about, just how you think
They aren't the same example.
a/bc doesn't equal ac/b for different reasons. The original example has to do with parenthesis being important. This example has to do with the fact that bc in a denominator can't be separated due to you KNOWING they are being multiplied. They are variables written next to each other - no implying here as you have to multiply.
On April 08 2011 21:51 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:46 Potatisodlaren wrote:On April 08 2011 21:43 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:29 Ace wrote:If you know brackets come first the answer is still 288. There is no way to get 2 following order of operations. 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12) = 24(12) = 288 On April 08 2011 21:29 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:22 theSAiNT wrote:On April 08 2011 21:17 VIB wrote: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. This is the part I ask you why can't you assume there are parenthesis. Then you say it's a consensus. Then I say there is no consensus. You say there is because you were taught like that. I say there isn't because it's used differently anywhere else. You say your consensus is better than mine. I ask you to show an official standard to support it. You cannot find it because... there isn't any! Been there, done that. It's ambiguous ^^ How do you justify such an assumption? There isn't any parenthesis there so I parse it like there isn't any there. It's not that you have to magically insert a parenthesis that isn't there. It's that the / sign doesn't make it clear what it's dividing. So it could mean the same as with the parenthesis. Why could it mean that? Because that is how people use it in real life! Like others pointed previously, there is no common "official" rule in math. People all over the world were taught differently and use it differently. To avoid such confusions, that's why you insert the parenthesis, to make sure what you're trying to say is clear. More importantly. No one uses the ÷ or the / sign in the straight line. So there is no common consensus on it because it's an aberration. We use fractions instead. The / in the same line is only used in programming and there we have many "good practice" books telling you to abuse parenthesis to not get anyone confused.
I get what you're saying. I actually didn't read it as a "/" but the actual division sign meaning a binary operation as 48 divided by 2 and then the rest of the expression here.
|
On April 08 2011 21:46 Potatisodlaren wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:43 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:29 Ace wrote:If you know brackets come first the answer is still 288. There is no way to get 2 following order of operations. 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12) = 24(12) = 288 On April 08 2011 21:29 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 21:22 theSAiNT wrote:On April 08 2011 21:17 VIB wrote: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. This is the part I ask you why can't you assume there are parenthesis. Then you say it's a consensus. Then I say there is no consensus. You say there is because you were taught like that. I say there isn't because it's used differently anywhere else. You say your consensus is better than mine. I ask you to show an official standard to support it. You cannot find it because... there isn't any! Been there, done that. It's ambiguous ^^ How do you justify such an assumption? There isn't any parenthesis there so I parse it like there isn't any there.
There is no spoon dude.
Basicly all is determined by convention, and what convention really is...well...that's up to society as a whole and not to individuals. Therefore, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" on this one. That's the troll behind it, and it's awsome.
|
I voted "2" then in the second poll i voted (1/2)*x and realized what i just did. LMAO
When i saw the first poll i thought:
"Trying to trick me huuh...i see what you did there":
48
-----------=2
2*(9+3)
After i voted (1/2)*x i figured its actually:
48
---- * (9+3)=288
2
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 08 2011 21:55 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:51 inimenesc wrote:Poll: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Does a/bc = ac/bIt doesn´t (13) 72% It does (5) 28% 18 total votes Your vote: Does a/bc = ac/b (Vote): It does
(Vote): It doesn´t
Some words: + Show Spoiler +If you voted it does, you get 288, if you voted it doesnt you get 2 Basicly, its all how you think it is: I think the upper way, so i always will get 2 out of that calculation, it is just they way I think and that decides what you get out of that. Easy simple, nothing to argue about, just how you think They aren't the same example. a/bc doesn't equal ac/b for different reasons. The original example has to do with parenthesis being important. This example has to do with the fact that bc in a denominator can't be separated due to you KNOWING they are being multiplied. They are variables written next to each other - no implying here as you have to multiply.
Well, a b c could be any monsters, if i would write it a / b x c then how you think?
I´ll stop it here cus i have to study for tomorrow huge test :/
|
This is only ever an issue on a forum or w/e. If you'd write it on paper or in a program designed to handle functions (something like LaTeX or w/e) you will always write it as something OVER something. There's no ambiguity then.
|
Russian Federation42 Posts
are you serious this is 3-5 grade math..
|
Poll: What League are you in and what answer did you give?I am BELLOW Masters league and I answered 288 (10) 43% I am in Masters league and I answered 2 (7) 30% I am in Masters league and I answered 288 (3) 13% I am BELLOW Masters league and I answered 2 (3) 13% 23 total votes Your vote: What League are you in and what answer did you give? (Vote): I am in Masters league and I answered 288
(Vote): I am in Masters league and I answered 2
(Vote): I am BELLOW Masters league and I answered 288
(Vote): I am BELLOW Masters league and I answered 2
|
On April 08 2011 21:55 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:51 inimenesc wrote:Poll: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Does a/bc = ac/bIt doesn´t (13) 72% It does (5) 28% 18 total votes Your vote: Does a/bc = ac/b (Vote): It does
(Vote): It doesn´t
Some words: + Show Spoiler +If you voted it does, you get 288, if you voted it doesnt you get 2 Basicly, its all how you think it is: I think the upper way, so i always will get 2 out of that calculation, it is just they way I think and that decides what you get out of that. Easy simple, nothing to argue about, just how you think They aren't the same example. a/bc doesn't equal ac/b for different reasons. The original example has to do with parenthesis being important. This example has to do with the fact that bc in a denominator can't be separated due to you KNOWING they are being multiplied. They are variables written next to each other - no implying here as you have to multiply.
I can write 48 as "a", 2 as "b" and (9+3) as "c"...
48/2(9+3)=a/bc
...so it's still the same thing basically.
Edit: Lol @ poll above me.
|
288 and (1/2)*x in about three seconds.
Oh boy! Two years and ongoing study of computer science at uni (where half my units = maths) finally paid off in the form of being able to brag on a video game forum about maths!
|
On April 08 2011 05:36 N3rV[Green] wrote:
......I'm speechless....dumbfounded, and concerned about the general population that much more.
it's 288. Division and multiplication are equal in priority so it is read left to right.
48/2*(12)
24*12=288
WTF are people thinking.
you are being incredibly smug and condescending for a topic about a very ambiguous math problem. people simply are confused because of the missing * operator between the 2 and the (9+3). The problem is the idea that multiplication by juxtaposition is sometimes given priority before multiplication or division by operators. People argue about this from our low level of math expertise to the highest levels. Theres no need to be so "dumbfounded" and "speechless" and "concerned" about the intelligence of the general population.
try replacing the "2" with "x" and set the equation equal to 288. You get "48 / 12x = 288". Typically people will see the "12x" as its own independent term, which would make "x = (1/72)" instead of "x = 2". this problem may never be solved because the highest level math experts will always specify whether or not they mean "(48 / 2) * (9 + 3)" or "48 / (2(9 + 3))". I just found your tone to be extremely annoying especially considering the fact that even people who have been studying this much, much longer than any of us have are also unsure about this topic.
On a side note:
I tried to find the "÷" key, but apparently my keyboard doesn't even have that key anymore lol
|
On April 08 2011 21:59 pOlt wrote:
are you serious this is 3-5 grade math..
If it's so easy then settle it once and for all. So far around ~20 posts so far have determined both are right, or either one is right. Numerous posts give good arguments for which answer is correct.
|
On April 08 2011 21:55 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:51 inimenesc wrote:Poll: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Does a/bc = ac/bIt doesn´t (13) 72% It does (5) 28% 18 total votes Your vote: Does a/bc = ac/b (Vote): It does
(Vote): It doesn´t
Some words: + Show Spoiler +If you voted it does, you get 288, if you voted it doesnt you get 2 Basicly, its all how you think it is: I think the upper way, so i always will get 2 out of that calculation, it is just they way I think and that decides what you get out of that. Easy simple, nothing to argue about, just how you think They aren't the same example. a/bc doesn't equal ac/b for different reasons. The original example has to do with parenthesis being important. This example has to do with the fact that bc in a denominator can't be separated due to you KNOWING they are being multiplied. They are variables written next to each other - no implying here as you have to multiply. Actually his a/bc = ac/b problem is exactly the same as the OP. It has nothing to do with the parenthesis. You didn't understand what the ambiguity in the OP is. The original equation can only be understand as 2, if you understand that the denominators of the are everything after the ÷ . This is nothing to do with parenthesis or the order of solving. It has only to do with where the denominator of the ÷ is. Which is the same problem of the 1/2x, which is the same problem of the a/bc. Which they purportedly make even harder to understand by hiding the multiplication sign from you, leaving room for imagination.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XfoiM.png)
Is my awake take on this.
|
On April 08 2011 19:25 xerwin wrote:Ok, here's my take on this. Google, Wolfram, C#, Casio fx-991ES, Android Calculator says 288. My brain is screaming 2. Here's a way how I got to 2: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SZrfJ.gif) .
obviously you already know where you went wrong but if you choose to write it that way you write it as:
48
--- (9+3) = 24(12) = 288
2
If it were:
48
---------
2(9+3)
then it would have been written: 48/(2(9+3))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
