48÷2(9+3) = ???

[greenranger]

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

 

[sreggie101]

lots of shots being fired in here, word to Libya. i saw we all meet up and fight for the solution, i feel like team 2 is rolling deep

 

[sreggie101]

lots of shots being fired in here, word to Libya. i saw we all meet up and fight for the solution, i feel like team 2 is rolling deep

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull

yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)

no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS

EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS

AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a Ã·(2(9+3)) 

i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull

yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)

no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS

EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS

AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a Ã·(2(9+3)) 

i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

oops.  

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

oops.  

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a Ã·(2(9+3)) 

i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

sounds to me like you dont actually understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

 

[rocky437]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

288 people are WRONG

The 2(9+3) must be COMPLETELY facored in step 1

 

[rocky437]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

288 people are WRONG

The 2(9+3) must be COMPLETELY facored in step 1

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a Ã·(2(9+3)) 

i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

sounds to me like you dont actually understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

 

[pacmagic2002]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

/thread
This is the one thread i wouldnt mind being closed, even though it was opened.

I think the mods opened this back up to teach us a lesson............ they will close threads that beat dead horses.

 

[pacmagic2002]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

I feel those who answer 288 have never taken any higher level mathematics (no offense). I posted this on my facebook and noticed that those who answered 2 almost all had a college education and those who answered 288 finished their education at HS or lower.

Anyone who has taken precalc or higher will understand why we get 2, and I guess I can see why anyone with only a elementary understanding of math would get 288...

Quoting myself...

I took this into work today and discussed this with a room full of fellow programmers and designers. We all work for a major game development studio.

The question is ambiguous. However, before we got into the theoretical aspects of looking at the question from an abstract math point of view I wrote the question on a whiteboard and had everyone write their answer on their notebooks and hold it up after about 30 seconds. All 8 people within the room responded with 288. Credentials in the room range from Ph.D in mathematics from UC Berkeley, MS in mathematics from Virgina Tech, MS in Object Based Media from MIT, BS in Computer Science from USC, and BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal-Poly.

Granted this was before any discussion but that's what the entire room came up with. As we discussed the principals of BODMAS and PEMDAS and various "rules" that can be applied here we pretty much all came to the conclusion that as it's written you can interpret it EITHER way based upon whatever "implied" brackets come into play or how you view the numerator and denominator. One of our network programmers held out and insisted the only answer could be 288 but the rest of us were open to the ambiguity of the problem. Take that for what it's worth.

I also asked a few friends who were aware of the question via Facebook. One getting his MS in Materials Physics from UCSD, another who is getting her PhD in Bio-engineering from Berkeley, and a friend who has only completed high school. All said 288.

I stand by my opinion that the question is poorly and lazily written. However, bashing each other on one side or another is pointless. This should just be a good example of using better notation to get your desired question, equation, or answer across.

================================================================================

EDIT: Just wanted to say that when I wrote the question on the board it was written: "48/2(9+3)=?"

Also I wanted to reiterate: It all depends on what the actual meaning behind the statement was, since math statements (in the real world) don't exist on their own.

/thread
This is the one thread i wouldnt mind being closed, even though it was opened.

I think the mods opened this back up to teach us a lesson............ they will close threads that beat dead horses.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


i dont have to, because it how its understand that you group them in parentheses to form a single term in order to follow order of operations when theres something other than an addition sign or subtraction sign in front of the outside multiplier

like i said 20 pages ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NEITHER MULTIPLICATION OR DIVISION COMES FIRST IN PEMDAS???

if you did, youd know that multiplication and division play by all the same logical rules, just like addition vs subtraction

there CANNOT be special rules for multiplication

You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

thats right, try and play the LOL game cause you dont even understand how order of operations works

explain WHY youre trying to apply a special rule to multiplication that CANNOT be applied to any other concept in PEMDAS, especially not division

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


You're wrong because you will never find a problem with Ã·(2(9+3)) 

youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

thats right, try and play the LOL game cause you dont even understand how order of operations works

explain WHY youre trying to apply a special rule to multiplication that CANNOT be applied to any other concept in PEMDAS, especially not division

 

[og_Rodney]

I'm just now seeing this thread. Seriously, NT?

Answer is 2, though.

 

[og_Rodney]

I'm just now seeing this thread. Seriously, NT?

Answer is 2, though.

 

[bravo]

at first i thought it was obviously 2,  halfway through this thread i doubted myself and switched to 288. now i dont know what the hell to think.

 

[bravo]

at first i thought it was obviously 2,  halfway through this thread i doubted myself and switched to 288. now i dont know what the hell to think.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

thats right, try and play the LOL game cause you dont even understand how order of operations works

explain WHY youre trying to apply a special rule to multiplication that CANNOT be applied to any other concept in PEMDAS, especially not division

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


youre wrong

explain why EXPONENTIALS NEVER need this special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication?

never do you hear someone say "oh, that exponential outside of the parentheses is included in Parentheses" ... exponentials follow order of operations all the time, it doesnt need any special rules like youre trying to give multiplication

Stop. You're not even making any sense now.

thats right, try and play the LOL game cause you dont even understand how order of operations works

explain WHY youre trying to apply a special rule to multiplication that CANNOT be applied to any other concept in PEMDAS, especially not division

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-