48÷2(9+3)

[Toasty]

ffs how many times am i going to see this thread.

[[SD]Master_Wong]

could it be that the people your outright calling wrong due to basic math might be right, i was conviced otherwise after some explaining whats that say?

[CeLL]

that you need to learn to stand your ground.

[Azilius]

The problem lies in the way the equation was written, leading many to interpret it in more than one way. Equations should be unambiguous, and clearly represent the problem it questions. Based solely on the order of operations the answer should be 288 and not 2. However, writing the number 2 juxtaposed to a parenthesis (without the multiplication operator) tricks some to think the whole thing is a denominator [ referring to 2(9+3) ] which is how some people are used to writing equations (especially on a single line).

Thing is the equation is not ambiguous, it's only interpreted improperly. Ambiguity based on lack of comprehension is not ambiguity

[Doron]

As long as I can tell time and count money I have all the mathskills I need.

[CeLL]

As long as I can tell time and count money I have all the mathskills I need.

basic tranny hooker skills.

[Doron]

As long as I can tell time and count money I have all the mathskills I need.

basic tranny hooker skills.

Don't even have to go drag^^

[Nitro]

I dont know why this is being discussed here, nor I can understand how anyone could interpreted the equation improperly - if he does, thats only showing ignorance.

The equation ( 48÷2(9+3) ) could be interpreted only in one way, and that is:

48/2(9+3)=
24(12)=
288


Just a tip:
If the equation was formed like this: 48/(2(9+3)),
then it would mean that whole (2(9+3)) is denominator and the answer
would be 2.

[TheDrop]

For people saying 48/2(9+3) is any different than 48/2*1(9+3)...

Would
(48*1)/2(9+(1+2)) be any different than 48/2(9+3)?
no.

[The Invisible]

What other proof do you need ?

[Fiction]

WTF? I thought this thread had its answer on the first page? Do we all need to keep saying 288 and writing how we got it and then right the way you get 2 too? FFS...

[[SD]Master_Wong]

What other proof do you need ?

google and your calculator are not always right you know!, google that if you want

[Nitro]

What other proof do you need ?

google and your calculator are not always right you know!, google that if you want

This time, his calculator is absolutely right.
Every single programing language, wolfram alpha (and programs similar to it)
will say an answer is 288, because it is.

The syntax of writing equations "in single lines" follows its own rules - which are standard everywhere. And by those standards, the main equation is read as:

[hey]

It's 288.I'm not sure why you asking a 13 years old e-alberts to solve this.

[Mirosuke]

WTF? I thought this thread had its answer on the first page? Do we all need to keep saying 288 and writing how we got it and then right the way you get 2 too? FFS...

Y U MAD tho?

EDIT: So apparently, some calculators will even give you the wrong answer. When you enter 2(9+3), it automatically assumes 2*(9+3), and doesn't take into consideration distributive property.

Google and some calculators do not understand many theorems or properties so you must explicitly explain what you mean. There is a difference between 48 / 2 * (9+3) and 48 / 2(9+3). The first notation reads 48 / 2 * 1(9+3) while the second reads 48 / (2*9+2*3). Be very careful with your signs.

Uuhhh, I think I didn't heard about a(b+c) being (ab+ac) or at least that just wrong, thats because whats inside parenthesis goes first.

[Hapjap]

WTF? I thought this thread had its answer on the first page? Do we all need to keep saying 288 and writing how we got it and then right the way you get 2 too? FFS...

Y U MAD tho?

EDIT: So apparently, some calculators will even give you the wrong answer. When you enter 2(9+3), it automatically assumes 2*(9+3), and doesn't take into consideration distributive property.

Google and some calculators do not understand many theorems or properties so you must explicitly explain what you mean. There is a difference between 48 / 2 * (9+3) and 48 / 2(9+3). The first notation reads 48 / 2 * 1(9+3) while the second reads 48 / (2*9+2*3). Be very careful with your signs.

Uuhhh, I think I didn't heard about a(b+c) being (ab+ac) or at least that just wrong, thats because whats inside parenthesis goes first.

exactly, you have to keep the parentheses when simplifying this- distributive property.

48/2(9+3)= 48/(2*9+2*3), whats the answer now?

[Fiction]

WTF? I thought this thread had its answer on the first page? Do we all need to keep saying 288 and writing how we got it and then right the way you get 2 too? FFS...

Y U MAD tho?

Sorry I was sexually frustrated when I wrote that... cpinney helped me through it... Doron you tease!

[TheDrop]

Uuhhh, I think I didn't heard about a(b+c) being (ab+ac) or at least that just wrong, thats because whats inside parenthesis goes first.

exactly, you have to keep the parentheses when simplifying this- distributive property.

48/2(9+3)= 48/(2*9+2*3), whats the answer now?

Uhh no.
Say its 2(2+2)
Why would you make the equation harder and make it
((2*2)+(2*2)
when you can just make it 2*(4)..

You only need to keep parenthesis when its something like
2(x+2) when you dont know the value of x...

[Hapjap]

Uuhhh, I think I didn't heard about a(b+c) being (ab+ac) or at least that just wrong, thats because whats inside parenthesis goes first.

exactly, you have to keep the parentheses when simplifying this- distributive property.

48/2(9+3)= 48/(2*9+2*3), whats the answer now?

Uhh no.
Say its 2(2+2)
Why would you make the equation harder and make it
((2*2)+(2*2)
when you can just make it 2*(4)..

You only need to keep parenthesis when its something like
2(x+2) when you dont know the value of x...

because it would make a difference in the solution in this case. 48/2(12)=288 yes. but the equation really says 48/(2*9+2*3). When a value is next to parentheses its distributed among the numbers inside the parentheses first and is not separated, rule of operations rarely noted. Unless it says 48/2*(9+3), u keep the parentheses, which changes the answer from 288 to 2.

also, having a variable or not doesn't matter, the real rule is your supposed to always keep parentheses.

[Fiction]

Never seen so many ppl arguing why they are all right about something. This makes me realize how easy world peace will be to accomplish <3 /sarcasm

[TheDrop]

Uhh no.
Say its 2(2+2)
Why would you make the equation harder and make it
((2*2)+(2*2)
when you can just make it 2*(4)..

You only need to keep parenthesis when its something like
2(x+2) when you dont know the value of x...

because it would make a difference in the solution in this case. 48/2(12)=288 yes. but the equation really says 48/(2*9+2*3). When a value is next to parentheses its distributed among the numbers inside the parentheses first and is not separated, rule of operations rarely noted. Unless it says 48/2*(9+3), u keep the parentheses, which changes the answer from 288 to 2.

also, having a variable or not doesn't matter, the real rule is your supposed to always keep parentheses.

is 2*(9+3) any different than 2(9+3)?

[SM-Count]

This isn't going anywhere, it's just the same arguments rehashed in a different context. (case in point - the latest argument was already argued against on page 2 where someone said you'd distribute the 24 as a whole since it's not separable. Whether or not that's correct, it doesn't matter.)

That being said, the only real question is this, do you believe the question to be . Either way, I don't think anyone cares anymore.

And if you take ^ that as a logic equation either 288 or 2 gives you a true value.