|
On April 09 2011 13:12 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:02 BeJe77 wrote:
97 Pages, what the hell, are people really confused that 2(9+3) is 2*(9+3)???? It's not just that though. It's 48/2(9+3) which some people are reading as 48/(2(9+3)) when there's nothing to say that the 2 should be distributed by itself. Imo opinion it should be read as (48/2)(9+3)
If they knew you read it from left to right after you finish doing the parenthesis and exponents first then it would be less confusion.
|
On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket...
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 09 2011 13:16 MaRiNe23 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:12 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 13:02 BeJe77 wrote:
97 Pages, what the hell, are people really confused that 2(9+3) is 2*(9+3)???? It's not just that though. It's 48/2(9+3) which some people are reading as 48/(2(9+3)) when there's nothing to say that the 2 should be distributed by itself. Imo opinion it should be read as (48/2)(9+3) If they knew you read it from left to right after you finish doing the parenthesis and exponents first then it would be less confusion.
Well there's some strange poster who seems to think anything that is multiplied by parenthesis takes the same precedence as doing what is inside parenthesis.
|
The real sin is the op's cool little troll move using ÷ instead of / to trip up people. It's one thing to ask a question on the order of operations and if I wanted to ask that I'd type:
"48/2(9+3)"
because I got a '/' key on my keybord instead of a '÷' key
So bravo 'Pacifist'
bravo.
|
On April 09 2011 13:01 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:46 Keitzer wrote:On April 09 2011 12:45 chonkyfire wrote:On April 09 2011 12:41 Keitzer wrote:
yes, you can't just assumed parenthesis left and right.
5 + 5 * 5 =/= 50, NEVER!!!
however, with your, just-assume-em rule, you CAN make it 50... by going (5+5) * 5 = 50
HOWEVER! (and the point i've been making this entire time) is that the ORIGINAL equation is NOT written with assumed parenthesis, and THUS cannot be used in explanation of a wrong answer. that's not a very good source whatever this thread is going no where yes it is, as it's the EXACT same principle (that assuming parenthesis yields a different result) edit: posting pic again for those who still are not convinced.... notice the ASSUMED (problem changing) parenthesis in the bottom section. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/TTfFT.jpg) What you're doing now is re-posting an image of your own construction pursuant to someone asking for a better source. In the humanities, we don't have even have a phrase for that.
And the dude is still ignoring the actual discussion. But hey, he is in AP calc man, kid knows what he is talking about obviously.
Keitzer, noone is asking you to explain how to do any 3rd grade math calculations. They are asking you to consider that your insistence on correctness is flawed and illogical. These flaws are not in your calculations, but in your blind acceptance of left to right associativity for operations of equal precedence.
|
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
So reading from left to right(which is like a rule), you do the division first and then the multiplication.
|
i kinda understand it now, but my calculator is doing wierd shit
so we start with
48/2(9+3)
So, because we do Parenthesis first, it will be 48/2*12
We operate left to right, so it will be: 24*12
=288
i understand it now ^.^
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 09 2011 13:21 MaRiNe23 wrote:
48/2(9+3)
48/2*12
So reading from left to right(which is like a rule), you do the division first and then the multiplication.
Yup, right on.
|
On April 09 2011 13:18 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket...
Look only at the (12): that turns into 12 without (). So it's 48 / 2 12. It's not because of parentheses, but because implied multiplication is sometimes used to mean higher priority as a multiplication sign.
|
On April 09 2011 13:19 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:16 MaRiNe23 wrote:On April 09 2011 13:12 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 13:02 BeJe77 wrote:
97 Pages, what the hell, are people really confused that 2(9+3) is 2*(9+3)???? It's not just that though. It's 48/2(9+3) which some people are reading as 48/(2(9+3)) when there's nothing to say that the 2 should be distributed by itself. Imo opinion it should be read as (48/2)(9+3) If they knew you read it from left to right after you finish doing the parenthesis and exponents first then it would be less confusion. Well there's some strange poster who seems to think anything that is multiplied by parenthesis takes the same precedence as doing what is inside parenthesis.
Not strange, just didn't learn it correctly probabaly. He'll catch on very quick if he takes any college algebra course even if he gets it wrong on the quiz the first few tries. He just needs to learn the "left to right" rule.
|
On April 09 2011 13:23 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:18 L3gendary wrote:On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket... Look only at the (12): that turns into 12 without (). So it's 48 / 2 12. It's not because of parentheses, but because implied multiplication is sometimes used to mean higher priority as a multiplication sign.
There is no such convention.
|
On April 09 2011 13:26 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:23 Ropid wrote:On April 09 2011 13:18 L3gendary wrote:On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket... Look only at the (12): that turns into 12 without (). So it's 48 / 2 12. It's not because of parentheses, but because implied multiplication is sometimes used to mean higher priority as a multiplication sign. There is no such convention.
Yet there is in some places, and there are quotes about that somewhere in this thread.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 09 2011 13:25 MaRiNe23 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:19 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 13:16 MaRiNe23 wrote:On April 09 2011 13:12 Myles wrote:On April 09 2011 13:02 BeJe77 wrote:
97 Pages, what the hell, are people really confused that 2(9+3) is 2*(9+3)???? It's not just that though. It's 48/2(9+3) which some people are reading as 48/(2(9+3)) when there's nothing to say that the 2 should be distributed by itself. Imo opinion it should be read as (48/2)(9+3) If they knew you read it from left to right after you finish doing the parenthesis and exponents first then it would be less confusion. Well there's some strange poster who seems to think anything that is multiplied by parenthesis takes the same precedence as doing what is inside parenthesis. Not strange, just didn't learn it correctly probabaly. He'll catch on very quick if he takes any college algebra course even if he gets it wrong on the quiz the first few tries. He just needs to learn the "left to right" rule.
I say strange because I've never met someone who understood it like that. I suppose I can see where the misunderstanding comes from, but just odd from my experience.
|
On April 09 2011 13:23 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:18 L3gendary wrote:On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket... Look only at the (12): that turns into 12 without (). So it's 48 / 2 12. It's not because of parentheses, but because implied multiplication is sometimes used to mean higher priority as a multiplication sign.
Dude read my last few posts. Yes, it's implied multiplication. However for multiplication and divison you always read from left to right and do whichever one comes first. That's a RULE. If it was 48/(2 12) then yes u mutiply 2*12 since it's INSIDE the parenthesis but if it's not then u follow PEMDAS reading from LEFT TO RIGHT for multiplication and division.
There's like an extra "rule" for multiplication and division in that reading from left to right, you do whichever one of the two comes first. That's the key step that many ppl are missing.
So after you take care of parenthesis then exponents first, you immediately go all the way to the left of the equation and slowly move right. and look for mutliplication and divison. Whichever comes up first you do that first and then move on to the right and repeat.
For addition and subtraction it doesn't matter which you do first so you can just do what you were doing if it was for addition and subtraction only.
|
I don't understand how anyone can choose two, unless they're trolling. I'm 15 and I learned this five years ago. Do half of TL members really have less than a fifth grade education?
|
On April 09 2011 13:27 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 13:26 L3gendary wrote:On April 09 2011 13:23 Ropid wrote:On April 09 2011 13:18 L3gendary wrote:On April 08 2011 05:44 RodrigoX wrote:
PEMDAS. Its not their fault...
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction.
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2(12)
48 divided by 24
2
The 2 isn't inside the bracket... Look only at the (12): that turns into 12 without (). So it's 48 / 2 12. It's not because of parentheses, but because implied multiplication is sometimes used to mean higher priority as a multiplication sign. There is no such convention. Yet there is in some places, and there are quotes about that somewhere in this thread.
There is a such thing as implied multiplication but it does not apply to this. For the 1 millionth time that is for dealing with variable expressions. This isn't a variable expression hence, there is no implied multiplication.
ETA: To clarify this is implied multiplication as everyone knows it:
3z is the same as 3*z or (3)(z). It is implied that they are all equal so 3z is written.
Implied multiplication also has higher precedence than normal multiplication due to you not being able to "split" a term. 3z is considered a single term, hence it is bounded together. This is where it makes sense.
However, we aren't dealing with variables - these are constants. Implicit multiplication doesn't apply.
|
United States24698 Posts
The math thread cycle:
1) Uninformed statement
2) Explanation
3) Go back to step 1 without reading the thread.
This thread has run its course and the same crap is being repeated over and over again. I feel like this thread will never go away so long as there are tl users who have not read it in its entirety. I am locking this thread.
User was 48÷2(9+3) day banned for this post.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
(the correct answer was 2)
|
United States11390 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
