48÷2(9+3) = ???

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by durty pancakes

Originally Posted by Tupack Shaker

Not gonna look through the entire thread. Has anyone linked to an actual Math professor solving this problem yet? I thought it was 288 then I was convinced it was 2 for a while now I'm back to 288. Been through a whole rollercoaster of emotions.

288 is the final answer everyone agreed on. 

young lad wrote:

---

CertifiedSW wrote:

---

True Blues wrote:

---

They aren't the same, though.

The first one is: 
(-11)[sup]2[/sup]
= (-11)(-11)
= 121

The second is:
-(11)[sup]2[/sup]
= -[(11)(11)] or written more simply: (-1)(11)(11)
= -121

It's a common trick question on 9th grade algebra exams.

You didn't post what he posted though. I completely agree with you on what you said. Maybe if you actually read this thread you would have seen my big post about this. 
What dude said is:

-11^2

and

-(11)^2

are different. I think that you can clearly see these two problems are the same. Did you think you were gonna try to son me saying these are problems on 9th grade exams 

And thank you Klipschorn 

HOW DO YA'LL NOT BELIEVE THIS MAN, SON EVEN HAS NEWTON AS HIS AVY 

#swag


Typing -11^2 into a calculator/wolfram gives you -121 because computers parse the expression as -1 * 11^2, rather than as (-11)^2. your calculator/wolfram isn't wrong at all. Due to the ambiguity of the negative sign for computers, you always need the parens around the base of your exponent for the correct computation

Thank you, finally someone with some common sense. 

 

[wrod7]

 is 48÷2(9+3) the same as     48    ?
                                            2(9+3)



if so answer is 2. 

 

[wrod7]

 is 48÷2(9+3) the same as     48    ?
                                            2(9+3)



if so answer is 2. 

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by wrod7

 is 48÷2(9+3) the same as     48    ?
                                            2(9+3)



if so answer is 2. 

No, it's not. Good attempt though.

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by wrod7

 is 48÷2(9+3) the same as     48    ?
                                            2(9+3)



if so answer is 2. 

No, it's not. Good attempt though.

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by swervmerv99820

48÷2(9+3) = 99820

Angoon probably doesn't get that public school funding so I ain't even mad.

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by swervmerv99820

48÷2(9+3) = 99820

Angoon probably doesn't get that public school funding so I ain't even mad.

 

[bruce negro]

I'm just here to cause trouble 

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

 

[bruce negro]

I'm just here to cause trouble 

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

 

[bc2310]

Well I hope some of you 288ers feel stupid (the ones that used the most emoticons)

 

[bc2310]

Well I hope some of you 288ers feel stupid (the ones that used the most emoticons)

 

[checks mcgee]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

what up team 288

 

[checks mcgee]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

what up team 288

 

[carver]

Nahh..It's 288 eff that ring theorist

 

[carver]

Nahh..It's 288 eff that ring theorist

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

http://www.youtube.com/v/SB3Ekgt1pHw?fs=1&hl=en_US

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

did you watch that?

Interviewer " So pemdas is....

Math wiz : WHO???!!!

Interviewer explains pemdas

Math wiz: "ohh well thats not a well known convention"

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

http://www.youtube.com/v/SB3Ekgt1pHw?fs=1&hl=en_US

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

did you watch that?

Interviewer " So pemdas is....

Math wiz : WHO???!!!

Interviewer explains pemdas

Math wiz: "ohh well thats not a well known convention"

 

[wr]

The higher up you go, the rules change. Can be said for many other things as well. I'd take an answer from someone versed in applied mathematics rather than abstract theories on what should work.

 

[wr]

The higher up you go, the rules change. Can be said for many other things as well. I'd take an answer from someone versed in applied mathematics rather than abstract theories on what should work.

 

[mzd650]

For every Berkeley math whiz saying the answer is 2, there is a MIT math whiz saying the answer is 288. Agree to disagree.

 

[mzd650]

For every Berkeley math whiz saying the answer is 2, there is a MIT math whiz saying the answer is 288. Agree to disagree.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Checks McGee

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

what up team 288

@#$# that ring theorist. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Checks McGee

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I'm just here to cause trouble�

My man from Berkeley says 2. And pretty much for the same reasons I've been saying 2. So yeah. I'm just gonna go with him

I mean, are you REALLY gonna tell that beard that it's 288? He's like a math wizard.

what up team 288

@#$# that ring theorist. 

 

[bc2310]

tecca nena wrote:

Interviewer " So pemdas is....

Math wiz : WHO???!!!


This had me 

. All the dudes arguing about it everywhere and he's just like "Wha?" the interviewer replies, "it's what they teach us in ELEMENTARY" 

He clearly states it's a poorly written equation and depending on what 'math circle' you're in, there is no right or wrong answer. 

 

[bc2310]

tecca nena wrote:

Interviewer " So pemdas is....

Math wiz : WHO???!!!


This had me 

. All the dudes arguing about it everywhere and he's just like "Wha?" the interviewer replies, "it's what they teach us in ELEMENTARY" 

He clearly states it's a poorly written equation and depending on what 'math circle' you're in, there is no right or wrong answer.