48÷2(9+3) = ???

[curiousgeorg3]

balloonoboy, youre just embarrassing yourself now.

whats the highest level math class youve taken/passed?

 

[wallyhopp]

Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.

 

[curiousgeorg3]

balloonoboy, youre just embarrassing yourself now.

whats the highest level math class youve taken/passed?

 

[wallyhopp]

Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2


can someone respond to this?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2


can someone respond to this?

 

[balloonoboy]

I've taken college pre-cal and passed. I don't see how I'm embarrassing myself if I'm right.

I'm clearly right. Don't care what trolls have to say about it.

 

[balloonoboy]

I've taken college pre-cal and passed. I don't see how I'm embarrassing myself if I'm right.

I'm clearly right. Don't care what trolls have to say about it.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)

Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.

Stop it son, stop. You're done 

Dude even had the nerve to say "I'm clearly right" 

OMG dsfljsdl;fjds 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)

Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.

Stop it son, stop. You're done 

Dude even had the nerve to say "I'm clearly right" 

OMG dsfljsdl;fjds 

 

[balloonoboy]

they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.

 

[balloonoboy]

they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

can someone respond to this?

We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

can someone respond to this?

We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.

Fam, I completely agree with you on the question being a "mess" to begin with.

But we say that it's a "mess" simply because it yields two different answers, depending on which way you try to solve the problem. Say you use method A, you arrive at a final answer of 288; and if you use method B, an answer of 2.

But, and here's the kicker, method B actually yields two different answers on it's own depending on how choose to "distribute". If and when you use the distributive method, you can arrive at a final answer of either 2 or 8.66.

The fact this method B yields two different answers (2 and/or 8.66), whereas method A yields one answer (just 28, is evidence that the latter method is much more "reliable" and certain. That's why I'm with the 288 team.

That's what I think people need to realize. The answer itself is not entirely what matters. What really matters is the level of objective certainty and confidence that accompanies the answer. A method that yields two different answers (2 and/or 8.666 via method B via the distributive method) is sure as hell not as certain and confident as a method that yields one answer (288 via method A via the proper application of the P.E.M.D.A.S rules).



...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.

Fam, I completely agree with you on the question being a "mess" to begin with.

But we say that it's a "mess" simply because it yields two different answers, depending on which way you try to solve the problem. Say you use method A, you arrive at a final answer of 288; and if you use method B, an answer of 2.

But, and here's the kicker, method B actually yields two different answers on it's own depending on how choose to "distribute". If and when you use the distributive method, you can arrive at a final answer of either 2 or 8.66.

The fact this method B yields two different answers (2 and/or 8.66), whereas method A yields one answer (just 28, is evidence that the latter method is much more "reliable" and certain. That's why I'm with the 288 team.

That's what I think people need to realize. The answer itself is not entirely what matters. What really matters is the level of objective certainty and confidence that accompanies the answer. A method that yields two different answers (2 and/or 8.666 via method B via the distributive method) is sure as hell not as certain and confident as a method that yields one answer (288 via method A via the proper application of the P.E.M.D.A.S rules).



...

 

[stick]

I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:

 

[stick]

I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

can someone respond to this?

We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.

yes, ab= a*b, but x÷ab =/= x÷a*b

the reason for this is because in x÷ab you have x divided by ab, in the second you have x÷a*b

this separation of ab changes the problem completely. there is a reason there are parenthesis there and not a multiplication sign, and to change 2(12) to 2*(12) is a manipulation of the problem to satisfy getting 288. 2(12) would be done first to satisfy the P in pemdas whereas 2*(12) would be done later as apart of the MD step in pemdas

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

can someone respond to this?

We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.

yes, ab= a*b, but x÷ab =/= x÷a*b

the reason for this is because in x÷ab you have x divided by ab, in the second you have x÷a*b

this separation of ab changes the problem completely. there is a reason there are parenthesis there and not a multiplication sign, and to change 2(12) to 2*(12) is a manipulation of the problem to satisfy getting 288. 2(12) would be done first to satisfy the P in pemdas whereas 2*(12) would be done later as apart of the MD step in pemdas

 

[DeadsetAce]

Originally Posted by Nickthestick91

I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:

thanks for adding nothing to the thread...read first next time

i kid, man, i kid

 

[DeadsetAce]

Originally Posted by Nickthestick91

I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:

thanks for adding nothing to the thread...read first next time

i kid, man, i kid

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. You clearly stated earlier that they DO NOT equal each other. Now you're saying they do? Wow.  
..... There is no difference dude. They're the exact same thing. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. You clearly stated earlier that they DO NOT equal each other. Now you're saying they do? Wow.  
..... There is no difference dude. They're the exact same thing. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend. 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by Nickthestick91

I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:

* HIGH FIVE *