48÷2(9+3) = ???

[Specter]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by selrahc123

The problem was written to create this type of argument. As stated before, the problem is very poorly written. And the answer is 2.

Show your steps please so I can change your ways.

i asked an on campus calculus tutor and he says 2. he said if the answer were to be 288 the problem would have to be written as (48/2)(9+3). he then said, yall are misinterpreting the parenthesis rule. the parenthesis rule in PEMDAS is not satisfied until you multiply the 2. by changing 48/2(12) to 48/2*(12) you are manipulating the problem. the reason multiplying isn't breaking order of operation is because it is being done to satisfy the Parenthesis step in PEMDAS. then you get 48/24=2

The parenthesis is satisfied by completing what's inside of it. Once you leave the parenthesis you then go onto the rest of PEMDAS. You're having the parenthesis manipulate the problem by attaching it to numbers that aren't bounded by it. what are you talking about changing? 48/2(12) is the same as 48/2*(12).

 

[usainboltisfast]

I doubt dude actually asked a tutor

 

[usainboltisfast]

I doubt dude actually asked a tutor

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

 

[seasoned vet]

<--- *steps onto soapbox*
 
 
......*ahem*
 
- let me just say be it 2 or 288, im sincerely proud of this thread going 75+ pages.......im dead serious. id much rather a thread like this go 75 pages versus the usual bs.......
 
 

 
 
 
<------*steps down off soapbox*
 
 
 

 

[seasoned vet]

<--- *steps onto soapbox*
 
 
......*ahem*
 
- let me just say be it 2 or 288, im sincerely proud of this thread going 75+ pages.......im dead serious. id much rather a thread like this go 75 pages versus the usual bs.......
 
 

 
 
 
<------*steps down off soapbox*
 
 
 

 

[thehealthinspector]

somebody lock this post up, dudes stay restructuring the problem by adding in unproven parentheses or writing top/bottom in order to misrepresent for or against

instead of just taking it out how it is

dudes trying to manipulate our common understanding of.... 2(9+3) ...aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)...aka... (2)*(9+3).... in order to mean..... ((((((((2(9+3)))))))))

solve this ... (4÷2*(9+3) ... and dont forget - parentheses first

 

[thehealthinspector]

somebody lock this post up, dudes stay restructuring the problem by adding in unproven parentheses or writing top/bottom in order to misrepresent for or against

instead of just taking it out how it is

dudes trying to manipulate our common understanding of.... 2(9+3) ...aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)...aka... (2)*(9+3).... in order to mean..... ((((((((2(9+3)))))))))

solve this ... (4÷2*(9+3) ... and dont forget - parentheses first

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


Show your steps please so I can change your ways.

i asked an on campus calculus tutor and he says 2. he said if the answer were to be 288 the problem would have to be written as (48/2)(9+3). he then said, yall are misinterpreting the parenthesis rule. the parenthesis rule in PEMDAS is not satisfied until you multiply the 2. by changing 48/2(12) to 48/2*(12) you are manipulating the problem. the reason multiplying isn't breaking order of operation is because it is being done to satisfy the Parenthesis step in PEMDAS. then you get 48/24=2

2(7-3)2

solve that with your interpretation of "parentheses" in PEMDAS

youre, the one thats manipulating the problem, giving special preference to that 2 thats outside the parentheses when there shouldnt be

would love to see an answer and explanation to this problem by the 2 crew...

-waystinthyme
  

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


Show your steps please so I can change your ways.

i asked an on campus calculus tutor and he says 2. he said if the answer were to be 288 the problem would have to be written as (48/2)(9+3). he then said, yall are misinterpreting the parenthesis rule. the parenthesis rule in PEMDAS is not satisfied until you multiply the 2. by changing 48/2(12) to 48/2*(12) you are manipulating the problem. the reason multiplying isn't breaking order of operation is because it is being done to satisfy the Parenthesis step in PEMDAS. then you get 48/24=2

2(7-3)2

solve that with your interpretation of "parentheses" in PEMDAS

youre, the one thats manipulating the problem, giving special preference to that 2 thats outside the parentheses when there shouldnt be

would love to see an answer and explanation to this problem by the 2 crew...

-waystinthyme
  

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

You dont need any directions though. There are no variables or anything weird out of nature. You just need to evaluate it. The problem doesnt need to be written as (48/2)(9+3) because thats just what it happens to because of order of operations. IM NOT ADDING PARENTHESIS 2 believers are. If it was supposed to be the fraction you said it would be written as 48/(2(9+3)) . I write equations all day and I know how to use parenthesis.

#2 is wrong because you CANT multiply before divsion if division is first. If you think multiplication HAS to be before division just stop your wrong. google order of opreations read some information and come back to me.

#3 is wrong because there is nothing to distribute. You can only use the distribution if you are using variables and such. What is there to distribute to? According to order of operations you have to evaluate what is in the parenthesis first. Which makes 9 + 3 to be 12. There is no such thing as distribution to a number that is just called multiplying.

Honestly if you needed more directions than evaluate then you probably arent qualified to prove anyone wrong in this thread that has provided sufficient math examples and proof that debunks the 2 theory. Ask yourself if 2 was the right answer why is there no proof on the internet to back up anyones idea that you have to multiply the 2 and 12 first because there are connected? I already providied a problem that is practically the exact same situation as this and the answer proves the 2 users wrong.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

You dont need any directions though. There are no variables or anything weird out of nature. You just need to evaluate it. The problem doesnt need to be written as (48/2)(9+3) because thats just what it happens to because of order of operations. IM NOT ADDING PARENTHESIS 2 believers are. If it was supposed to be the fraction you said it would be written as 48/(2(9+3)) . I write equations all day and I know how to use parenthesis.

#2 is wrong because you CANT multiply before divsion if division is first. If you think multiplication HAS to be before division just stop your wrong. google order of opreations read some information and come back to me.

#3 is wrong because there is nothing to distribute. You can only use the distribution if you are using variables and such. What is there to distribute to? According to order of operations you have to evaluate what is in the parenthesis first. Which makes 9 + 3 to be 12. There is no such thing as distribution to a number that is just called multiplying.

Honestly if you needed more directions than evaluate then you probably arent qualified to prove anyone wrong in this thread that has provided sufficient math examples and proof that debunks the 2 theory. Ask yourself if 2 was the right answer why is there no proof on the internet to back up anyones idea that you have to multiply the 2 and 12 first because there are connected? I already providied a problem that is practically the exact same situation as this and the answer proves the 2 users wrong.

 

[therealmccoy12]

its funny to see how dumb NT is..its such a simple problem...just use your order of operations....stop spending so much time asking for female advice, or stuntin around in your Fusions, and pay attention in school.......

 

[therealmccoy12]

its funny to see how dumb NT is..its such a simple problem...just use your order of operations....stop spending so much time asking for female advice, or stuntin around in your Fusions, and pay attention in school.......

 

[prymone]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

   wrong those parenthesis around the 12 gotta be done first
2

 

[prymone]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

   wrong those parenthesis around the 12 gotta be done first
2

 

[biggie62]

I have a Math Econ and Finance degree and from solving problems like this in classes for the major and minor I'd definitely be in the crew that says 2. Because there are more than enough problems that we solved that would be solved in such a way where you distribute to the parenthesis first and then solve afterwards with order of operations.

 

[biggie62]

I have a Math Econ and Finance degree and from solving problems like this in classes for the major and minor I'd definitely be in the crew that says 2. Because there are more than enough problems that we solved that would be solved in such a way where you distribute to the parenthesis first and then solve afterwards with order of operations.

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TheRealMcCoy12

its funny to see how dumb NT is..its such a simple problem...just use your order of operations....stop spending so much time asking for female advice, or stuntin around in your Fusions, and pay attention in school.......

you act like you're bringing up something that hasn't been discussed at length
There wouldn't be this 70+ page debate it that if it was as obvious as you suggest...

What answer did you come up with btw?

 

[limitedretroog]

People, the distributive property does not apply here!

 

[limitedretroog]

People, the distributive property does not apply here!

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TheRealMcCoy12

its funny to see how dumb NT is..its such a simple problem...just use your order of operations....stop spending so much time asking for female advice, or stuntin around in your Fusions, and pay attention in school.......

you act like you're bringing up something that hasn't been discussed at length
There wouldn't be this 70+ page debate it that if it was as obvious as you suggest...

What answer did you come up with btw?

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

#2 is wrong because you CANT multiply before divsion if division is first. If you think multiplication HAS to be before division just stop your wrong. google order of opreations read some information and come back to me.

Honestly if you needed more directions than evaluate then you probably arent qualified to prove anyone wrong in this thread that has provided sufficient math examples and proof that debunks the 2 theory. Ask yourself if 2 was the right answer why is there no proof on the internet to back up anyones idea that you have to multiply the 2 and 12 first because there are connected? I already providied a problem that is practically the exact same situation as this and the answer proves the 2 users wrong.

I initially solved the problem as 288. So, I'm on your "side." However, when I asked two other people (both with BSc's, MSc's, and PhD's), they replied 2.

There certainly are multiple ways to solve the problem. That you have to concede. The 73 pages this thread has amassed here on NikeTalk, and similarly lengthy threads on other message boards, proves-- or at least suggests-- so.

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

The problem is poorly written because it gives no direction. As many have stated, it was likely designed to illustrate the follies of order of operations, and generate arguments like this.

There are clearly multiple ways to answer the question:

1. Solve the brackets, and then move right to left.
2. Solve the brackets, and multiple before dividing (which, technically, is permitted by order of operations).
3. Distribute, and solve the problem.

As many have stated, if it had been written this way:
48       
2(9+3)    
or
(48/2)(9+3)
as problems are most often written in mathematical settings (rarely is the division sign (÷) ever used), then the problem becomes quite easy to solve.

#2 is wrong because you CANT multiply before divsion if division is first. If you think multiplication HAS to be before division just stop your wrong. google order of opreations read some information and come back to me.

Honestly if you needed more directions than evaluate then you probably arent qualified to prove anyone wrong in this thread that has provided sufficient math examples and proof that debunks the 2 theory. Ask yourself if 2 was the right answer why is there no proof on the internet to back up anyones idea that you have to multiply the 2 and 12 first because there are connected? I already providied a problem that is practically the exact same situation as this and the answer proves the 2 users wrong.

I initially solved the problem as 288. So, I'm on your "side." However, when I asked two other people (both with BSc's, MSc's, and PhD's), they replied 2.

There certainly are multiple ways to solve the problem. That you have to concede. The 73 pages this thread has amassed here on NikeTalk, and similarly lengthy threads on other message boards, proves-- or at least suggests-- so.