- 3,080
- 368
Notion to adjourn this thread?
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
do work son
Banned
- 17,118
- 5,186
no, you left out the extra parenthesis. in the second problem, there is an extra set of parenthesis which specifies what truly is in the denominator. it has nothing to do with spaces bro
- 28,100
- 9,232
Wouldnt it be logical to assume that google rewrote it exactly how it can be rewritten? I mean, they arent going to arbitrarily add something if it changes the equation right?Originally Posted by StrongMind3
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
but you do notice that google added parentheses right? the way google rewrote it of course it's 288
- 28,100
- 9,232
Wouldnt it be logical to assume that google rewrote it exactly how it can be rewritten? I mean, they arent going to arbitrarily add something if it changes the equation right?Originally Posted by StrongMind3
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
but you do notice that google added parentheses right? the way google rewrote it of course it's 288
do work son
Banned
- 17,118
- 5,186
no, you left out the extra parenthesis. in the second problem, there is an extra set of parenthesis which specifies what truly is in the denominator. it has nothing to do with spaces bro
hella handsome
Banned
- 6,600
- 15
Thread has reached over 39 pages. Mind has been ##%%!!.
- 20,261
- 2,188
the answer is 2, and
@ this going 39 pages
- 20,261
- 2,188
the answer is 2, and
@ this going 39 pages
hella handsome
Banned
- 6,600
- 15
Thread has reached over 39 pages. Mind has been ##%%!!.
- 578
- 11
#288
- 578
- 11
#288
- 2,752
- 142
Originally Posted by dland24
Wouldnt it be logical to assume that google rewrote it exactly how it can be rewritten? I mean, they arent going to arbitrarily add something if it changes the equation right?Originally Posted by StrongMind3
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
but you do notice that google added parentheses right? the way google rewrote it of course it's 288
or that it's an ambiguous question and it chose one way of doing it?
- 2,752
- 142
Originally Posted by dland24
Wouldnt it be logical to assume that google rewrote it exactly how it can be rewritten? I mean, they arent going to arbitrarily add something if it changes the equation right?Originally Posted by StrongMind3
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
but you do notice that google added parentheses right? the way google rewrote it of course it's 288
or that it's an ambiguous question and it chose one way of doing it?
- 1,811
- 34
Damn is this really 39 pages?
- 1,811
- 34
Damn is this really 39 pages?
- 9,141
- 1,797
Originally Posted by mosk33toe
Originally Posted by hella handsome
No matter how you do that equation, its going to be 1
This problem is a little more misleading than that. That equation is just awkward on the eyes at first glance.
It will not always be 1. For all the people that are saying PEMDAS infers that Multiplication has more priority than Division, this means that Addition has more priority than Subtraction. Therefore they would compute this 1-1+1 = 1-(2) = -1.
Case in point... the answer is 288
-Signed your resident UCLA Math Major
this is wrong dog. following PEMDAS it would still be 1, WTFCUK are you talking about?
- 9,141
- 1,797
Originally Posted by mosk33toe
Originally Posted by hella handsome
No matter how you do that equation, its going to be 1
This problem is a little more misleading than that. That equation is just awkward on the eyes at first glance.
It will not always be 1. For all the people that are saying PEMDAS infers that Multiplication has more priority than Division, this means that Addition has more priority than Subtraction. Therefore they would compute this 1-1+1 = 1-(2) = -1.
Case in point... the answer is 288
-Signed your resident UCLA Math Major
this is wrong dog. following PEMDAS it would still be 1, WTFCUK are you talking about?
- 2,779
- 11
He's not saying that's right, he's saying it's the same logic the "2" people are using here. In PEMDAS 4x3 and 4(3) are equivalent. and 2/3(4) and 2/3X4 have the same answer, right?
-Signed USC business/finance major and even I agree the UCLA Math major is right.
-Signed USC business/finance major and even I agree the UCLA Math major is right.
- 2,779
- 11
He's not saying that's right, he's saying it's the same logic the "2" people are using here. In PEMDAS 4x3 and 4(3) are equivalent. and 2/3(4) and 2/3X4 have the same answer, right?
-Signed USC business/finance major and even I agree the UCLA Math major is right.
-Signed USC business/finance major and even I agree the UCLA Math major is right.
- 8,259
- 573
Some of ya'll are really convinced it's 2 though
And wow at the dude who said the answer to 1-1+1 will not be 1 every time
And wow at the dude who said the answer to 1-1+1 will not be 1 every time
- 8,259
- 573
Some of ya'll are really convinced it's 2 though
And wow at the dude who said the answer to 1-1+1 will not be 1 every time
And wow at the dude who said the answer to 1-1+1 will not be 1 every time
do work son
Banned
- 17,118
- 5,186
i see it both ways and understand both parties justifications. i feel its not clear enough the way it is written.
the way ive always been taught is that
48/ 2(9+3)
48/ 2(12)
at this point, the parenthesis doesn't just go away. this is why we need another set of parenthesis to specify the true denominator. if the (9+3) is in the denominator from the start then you multiply the 2 and 12 first. if the (9+3) is outside the denominator, you would have 48/2 multiplied by the (12).
the way i read it, you would multiply the 2 and 12 to get 24, and then you would have 48/24. that's just the way i've been taught.
EDIT: i too was just sniped by the post count limit
the way ive always been taught is that
48/ 2(9+3)
48/ 2(12)
at this point, the parenthesis doesn't just go away. this is why we need another set of parenthesis to specify the true denominator. if the (9+3) is in the denominator from the start then you multiply the 2 and 12 first. if the (9+3) is outside the denominator, you would have 48/2 multiplied by the (12).
the way i read it, you would multiply the 2 and 12 to get 24, and then you would have 48/24. that's just the way i've been taught.
EDIT: i too was just sniped by the post count limit
Spoiler [+]
- 28,100
- 9,232
Originally Posted by sreggie101
Originally Posted by mosk33toe
Originally Posted by hella handsome
No matter how you do that equation, its going to be 1
This problem is a little more misleading than that. That equation is just awkward on the eyes at first glance.
It will not always be 1. For all the people that are saying PEMDAS infers that Multiplication has more priority than Division, this means that Addition has more priority than Subtraction. Therefore they would compute this 1-1+1 = 1-(2) = -1.
Case in point... the answer is 288
-Signed your resident UCLA Math Major
The UCLA math major was saying the same thing as I was saying. He just worded it better.
do work son
Banned
- 17,118
- 5,186
i see it both ways and understand both parties justifications. i feel its not clear enough the way it is written.
the way ive always been taught is that
48/ 2(9+3)
48/ 2(12)
at this point, the parenthesis doesn't just go away. this is why we need another set of parenthesis to specify the true denominator. if the (9+3) is in the denominator from the start then you multiply the 2 and 12 first. if the (9+3) is outside the denominator, you would have 48/2 multiplied by the (12).
the way i read it, you would multiply the 2 and 12 to get 24, and then you would have 48/24. that's just the way i've been taught.
EDIT: i too was just sniped by the post count limit
the way ive always been taught is that
48/ 2(9+3)
48/ 2(12)
at this point, the parenthesis doesn't just go away. this is why we need another set of parenthesis to specify the true denominator. if the (9+3) is in the denominator from the start then you multiply the 2 and 12 first. if the (9+3) is outside the denominator, you would have 48/2 multiplied by the (12).
the way i read it, you would multiply the 2 and 12 to get 24, and then you would have 48/24. that's just the way i've been taught.
EDIT: i too was just sniped by the post count limit
Spoiler [+]
- 28,100
- 9,232
Originally Posted by sreggie101
Originally Posted by mosk33toe
Originally Posted by hella handsome
No matter how you do that equation, its going to be 1
This problem is a little more misleading than that. That equation is just awkward on the eyes at first glance.
It will not always be 1. For all the people that are saying PEMDAS infers that Multiplication has more priority than Division, this means that Addition has more priority than Subtraction. Therefore they would compute this 1-1+1 = 1-(2) = -1.
Case in point... the answer is 288
-Signed your resident UCLA Math Major
The UCLA math major was saying the same thing as I was saying. He just worded it better.
